HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 02-28-05
City of Carmel
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Monday, February 28,2005
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM on Monday,
February 28, 2005, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members in attendance were Kent Broach, Leo Dierckman, James Hawkins, Earlene Plavchak and
Madeleine Torres, thereby establishing a quorum. Jon Dobosiewicz, Angie Conn and Mike Hollibaugh
represented the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve the minutes of the January 24,2005 meeting as submitted. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0.
G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report and Department Concerns
Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. He has been watching two bills in the Indiana General Assembly.
House Bill 1300 would prohibit the Board from requiring that non-conforming signs be removed when
it approves any new variance or special use. He will discuss it with staff. The other bill would create a
Smart Growth Study Commission to be staffed by a new Economic Development Corporation created
by the Daniels' administration. It could propose some interesting legislation, perhaps using Carmel as a
model for the rest of the State.
19. Proposed Amendments to Rules of Procedure-Changes regarding meeting time and
agenda order to be considered.
In order to follow suit with the City Council adopting a rule change to start their meeting at 6:00 PM,
the Department would like the Board to contemplate a change of their meeting time to 6:00 PM. The
rule takes a majority approval.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve the change in Article III, Section 1, to 6:00 PM from 7:00 PM,
effective with the March meeting. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0.
The Department will adjust the signs that are posted.
Mrs. Conn requested that the Board suspend the rules in order to hear Item 6-8h. They had published
the wrong date, February 18 instead of February 28, in their notice and re-published on Friday,
February 25 with the correct date.
Mr. Dierckman moved to suspend the rules in order to hear Item 6-8h. The motion was seconded by
Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0.
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
H. Public Hearin2:.
The following Item, moved from the 6:30 PM Hearing Officer agenda, was heard at this time.
2d. Carmel/Clay Schools, Soccer Fields at River Rd
The applicant seeks special use approval to construct sports fields and parking:
Docket No. 05010046 SU Chapter 5.02 Special Use in S-l Zone
Docket No. 05020006 V Chapter 27.03.0 parking lot curbing
The site is located at the northwest corner of River Rd and 126th Street. The site is
zoned S-l/Residence-Low Density and is within the Special Flood Hazard Zone.
Filed by George Zboyovsky of Paul I Cripe for Carmel/Clay Schools.
Present for the Petitioner: George Zboyovsky of Paul I. Cripe, Senior Project Manager for the project.
The Special Use is for soccer fields, parking, and restroom and storage facilities at the site. Most of the
property is lo'cated with the 100-year flood plain which limits its use and value and is ideal for sporting
and recreation facilities.. The Variance from the curbing requirements is because it is located in a flood
plain. There have been concerns in the past. There will be no lighting at any time. He had distributed a
wetland delineation report to Jon Dobosiewicz and Scott Brewer. It indicated, probably because of the
vestal ditch running through the property, that the wetland is free and clear based upon the
investigation. The benefits from the project in addition to providing a much needed soccer field, will
be drainage under the fields that will help alleviate some of the flooding problems. Drainage from the
two parking lots will be routed to two dry detention basins to provide detention as well as water quality
by running the water through the dedicated detention basins. They had met with the local community
to present the project and listen to their concerns. One of the biggest concerns at that meeting was the
parking and the number of parking spaces, as well as location. At one time, the southern parking lot of
approximately 250 parking spaces was located in the south western comer. As a result of the meeting,
the southern parking area was relocated to a more centralized location, over 100 yards from the
western and southern parking boundaries. They will allow for an additional reserved area should the
need occur. The northern lot initially had over 300 parking spaces. That is been reduced to under 200
spaces. They were requesting a waiver to postpone the construction of the pathways until the northern
fields were constructed in a year.
Mr. Hawkins outlined the general parameters of the meeting. The Petitioner's presentation will be
followed by the general public comments that are favorable for five minutes. Organized or unfavorable
remonstrance will be fifteen minutes. If there are general public comments that are unfavorable, they
try to keep to five minutes. They want to hear from everyone, but do not want repetition. The
Petitioner's rebuttal will follow the public comments.
Favorable public comments: None.
Organized Remonstrance:
Mary J. Kienholz, 12951 MacAlister Trace, across from the proposed fields. She had submitted a letter
earlier and now had neighbors' signatures on the letter. She had attended the meeting at the school. Her
main concern was the daily use of the road for six months. River Road, in her opinion, is not wide
enough for traffic. The School Board letter said school use. However, at the meeting the Dad's Club
came with. their usage. It will be about three months in the spring and three months in the fall. It will be
every evening from 5 :00 PM until dusk, all day Saturdays and some Sunday usage. On River Road it
was amended from 300 to 195 parking spaces for one soccer field, with the ditch supposedly off-limits
Page 2 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
ac.cording to the DNR. The parking lot at 126th Street is 180 spaces amended from 200 spaces for six
soccer fields. That did not seem proportionally right. Her neighbors who signed the letter were not
concerned about school usage it is the excessive use by the Dad's Club. There is the existing River
Road Park with acres of fields and why was that not considered.
Ken Eaton, 13039 Double Eagle Drive, Vice President of the Plum Creek Ridge Homeowners
Association. It was difficult to say he was against this program although it abuts the houses in his
neighborhood. Since nothing is buildable, the soccer fields may be the best use. He had a number of
issues to present. One issue is the removal of approximately 150 trees. He had heard that each tree uses
approximately 50 gallons of water per day. When the trees are removed, the water level will raise. The
homes on Lochmere already have problems with ground water and basement flooding. He recognizes
that there may not be wetlands and there will be tile to drain the surface water from the fields. But the
removal of the trees will raise the water level and cause problems. The second issue was that neither
his subdivision nor the Carmel School administration was in favor of the hammerhead that the
Planning Department has required. That will be at the end of Lochmere for the possible turning around
of emergency vehicles. He wanted to point out that if it is there parents will be encouraged to park
there and on Lochmere, blocking regular traffic. Another issue was reducing the parking on River
Road that would cause the parents to park along River Road. He felt if the project was approved, there
must be more on-sight parking. He had figured that there would be approximately 216 cars for the first
game slot at the six fields. If there were only 180 parking spaces as originally planned, that would
leave them very short. Then the parents would be arriving for the second game slot on the six fields
before the first game was over. That would be an over abundance of cars for the planned parking
spaces. His last issue was about the part of the project along River Road that would be developed in
2006. That would help with the parking, but there will be no access to the other fields because there
will not be a bridge over the vestal creek. Therefore, the people will have to walk down River Road
and into the southern end of the project. He had been told that the south end of the area might be used
for a school some time in the future. He felt extra parking could be installed on this area and it would
be easy to tear up in the future for a building. He would like to see parking on the south end with an
ingress and egress from River Road and that would ease off the ingress and egress directly across from
Medalist Parkway.
Tom Gjerde, 5406 Zoeller Circle, Plum Creek Ridge. There are eight properties on his cul-de-sac and
all have had water in their basement at some time or other. The builders, Trinity and Ryland,
encountered ground water. They raised some of the homes such as his approximately four feet. Even
with that, they still have ground water. He felt there needed to be further ground water studies before
the trees are removed and find out what the effects will be. The tile under the soccer fields will help
alleviate surface water flowing into the ground. But the removal of thousands of trees will affect the
absorption of thousands of gallons of water per week that will not be absorbed out of the ground. He
had contacted two ground water experts at Indiana University. Both of them came to the conclusion
that given the trade-offs between the tile under the soccer fields and the removal of trees, there should
be further studies. He gave copies of their emails to the Board.
Dick Stein, Medalist Parkway, Plum Creek Village which is immediately south of the proposed
project. Medalist Parkway is the only street that runs through Plum Creek Village connecting 126th and
122nd Streets and runs into the open end ofthe new project. There are already soccer fields at 126th
Street and River Road and more at Badger Park on 131 st Street. He felt the new fields should be on the
west side of Carmel instead of the extreme east side. All of the traffic will be coming. from the west
because Fishers is the only thing on the east. There are only two thoroughfares that go all the way
Page 3 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
through from the west side to the east side. That is 116th Street and 146th Street. The Homeowners
Association formed a committee to find out about this proposal and to compile the objections of the
owners. Traffic is their main concern. They have always had lots of cut-through traffic on Medalist
Parkway. They have worked with the City and had street humps installed which have helped but have
not solved the problem. The other concern was the quality of life for their village and future property
values. Most of the village is empty nesters. They would like commitments for the hours of operation
and lighting, screening of the property/landscaping, litter control, and protection of the property from
use by others after hours.
Jeff Melin, 12667 Plum Creek Drive in Plum Creek Farms. He is a bird watcher that looks out the back
of his house at these woods. This is probably one of the last and best remaining wild life refuges on the
east side of Carmel. There is enough existing area that is clear to slide the group of six fields down to
126th Street and rotate the south parking lot 90 degrees to the right to align it with River Road and to
expand more parking in the northern comer. Then the wooded area would not have to be destroyed to
accommodate this proj ect.
Mark Wagner, 5403 Baltimore Court. He is not opposed to soccer fields in this flood plain area, but it
needs to be done right. His chief problem was the location of parking. He would like to see it moved
further south and away from the homes. People paid more to live next to the woods and on a cul-de-
sac. He felt the property values would be lowered by soccer fields and parking right behind the houses.
The school wanted to keep the open area clear for a possible future elementary school. He felt the
project should be done right for this time, not worry about the future at this point. All the other newer
elementary schools currently have parking on each side and that could happen in this area.
o. J. Stocker, 5942 McKinges Circle, Prairie View Chapman's Place. Presently at River Road Park
there are approximately 170 parking spaces for a couple of rugby fields. Whenever there is a rugby
match, the cars spillover onto River Road, making it very unsafe on Saturdays. This project seems to
be too many fields for the parking. He felt the number of fields should be reduced to four and hours of
operation should be limited.
David Johnson, 5947 Chapmans Trail. He felt the excess cars would fill all the adjoining Streets.
Badger Field, with ten fields and approximately 320 parking spaces, overflows into the Administrative
Building parking. He felt they should try a reciprocal agreement with the County Park or the new
Central Park for space for soccer fields. He also felt that after hours should be monitored because of
kids hanging out and vehicular traffic.
Skip Keen, 5399 Baltimore Court, Plum Creek Ridge, which is a cul-de-sac that backs up to the
parking lot. He is also a Dad's Club coach for seven years and is familiar with the game 1 to game 2
overlap. He coaches at Towne Meadow and there are too many fields. There are ten baseball fields, 2
soccer fields and two football fields. The neighborhood behind the area becomes a parking lot. There
are also cars parked along Towne Road. He would like to see this project limited to three fields and
then it would not be necessary to cut down any more mature trees.
Mary J. Kienholz, 12951 MacAlister Trace. The DNR verified that no structure should be built across
the vestal creek. Therefore, people parking in the north section would not be able to get to the fields in
the southern section.
Page 4 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
Rebuttal:
Mr. Zboyovsky thanked everyone for their comments. It is correct that there will be no bridge over the
vestal ditch. However, the County has required them to dredge and clean the ditch as part of the
project. He felt that would further aid the flood plain situation. Regarding the parking, it would be hard
to please everyone. The parking criteria were primarily based on the City Codes and Ordinances. The
six southern fields are primarily to be used only for practice for students 14, 15, and 16 years old. They
will be dropped off after school by the school transportation and then will need to be picked up by
parents at the end of the practice. There are a number of trees in the landscaping plan along the border
and parking areas. He was not qualified to know how that would affect the water table. The fields will
be grass and irrigated as opposed to the old com fields in the agricultural area. For security, they will
possibly be adding a fence along the western property lines with gates and added police patrols in the
area. They had tried to centralize the parking lot as much as possible to keep it away from everyone
and the roadways. It is primarily for younger children to play soccer.
Naser AI-Rafie, Paul I. Cripe. Concerning the security, they had tried to keep the parking away from
the houses and they are committed to putting in gates. There will acceleration and deceleration lanes.
They would be landscaping with trees along the west side. The open area in the southeastern comer is
the only area in the parcel that is above flood plain. That is why the school wants to keep it for future
use. The number of practice fields is for the school needs for elementary and middle schools. They will
not be cutting down all the trees. The entry points on the east side of River Road were required by City
Planning to line up with existing exit points from the subdivision on River Road and the Plum Creek
subdivision. They could shift the entry points, but they were trying to adhere to the City requirements.
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. According to the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan, low
density residential areas should be serVed by and be accessible to schools, parks, playgrounds, sports
fields and things of that sort. This use complements the neighborhood area. The developer is willing to
provide accessibility to the site with the required ten-foot asphalt paths along both roads. The
developer is also committed to provide street right-of-way if the streets ever need to be widened. The
Department recommends that the Board approve this item after all concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Dierckman stated that he felt the Dad's Club adds to the complexity of this project because it
brings in a lot of mass and utilization. Their involvement with this property needs to be studied. He felt
it was appropriate to continue this matter. He suggested the Petitioner meet with the all the concerned
people and try to work something out that was fair and reasonable to the school corporation, as well as
the concerned neighbors.
Mrs. Torres agreed with Mr. Dierckman on continuing the issue. She felt strongly on clarifying who
will be using the fields. The neighbors stated the Carmel Dad's Club and the Petitioner stated the
schools. She knows from experience about the traffic and parking situations.
Mr. Broach wanted to know the location of the trees. He felt it would be important to look at alternate
designs with fewer fields. His two children play Carmel Dad's Club soccer at Shelborne and Badger
and he knows about the traffic. He had not heard compelling evidence for that many fields. He was
also concerned about the tree removal, the buffer and ground water issues. The neighbors had done a
good job of highlighting the issues. He felt the Petitioner and neighbors should meet to sort things out.
Mrs. Plavchak stated that the site plan showed that the property was owned by the Carmel/Clay School
Corporation and the Carmel Dad's Club.
Page 5 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
Mr. Zboyovsky stated that the Carmel/Clay School Corporation currently owns the entire parcel. There
will be an agreement for the Carmel Dad's Club to utilize the northern area.
Mr. Hawkins stated that he had the same general concerns. He asked Mr. Molitor for the Petitioner's
options.
Mr. Dierckman stated that it may take more than one month to straighten this out.
Mr. Molitor stated that the Board has general discretion to continue the hearing upon a motion by any
Board member. It seemed to him that the Board members had given the Petitioner good guidance to
what the concerns were. It could take additional meetings between the Petitioner and the
Remonstrators. The issues revolve around the intensity of the uses and the traffic.
Mr. Zboyovsky stated that they would not be opposed to tabling the dockets.
Mr. Molitor stated essentially there was an agreement that it needed to be done. So there was not a
difference between continuing or tabling the dockets, since it was not because of any lack of
preparation by the Petitioner:
Mr. Dierckman moved to continue Carmel/Clay Schools, Soccer Fields at River Rd, Docket Nos.
05010046 SU and 05020006 V. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0.
Ih. CMC Properties, Sec 2, lot 3
Petitioner seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 04120010 V Chapter 25.07.03.03(d)(2) real estate sign height
The site is located at the northwest comer of 131 st St. and US 31. The site is zoned B-
5/Business within the US 31 Overlay.
Filed by Sherry Marchbanks of Mazda Sign, Inc. for CMC.
Present for the Petitioner: Sherry Marchbanks, Mazda Signs, 12429 N. Meridian, Carmel. The Zoning
Ordinance states that a real estate signs can only be five feet above grade for a 5-acre property. She
showed pictures of the property with the grade eight feet below the road. Therefore, a sign at eight feet
would not be seen. CMC moved into Carmel with the intent of leasing building space to small
businesses that would grow into larger businesses. Currently they have 42,000 square feet and are
planning to build two more buildings according to their PUD, for a total of approximately 130,000
square feet. They currently lease to dozens of businesses. This leasing sign is seen by everyone going
through the area. Most leasing signs are at grade. As you travel north on U.S. 31 the current 19-foot
sign is just barely showing above the eight-foot grade. At grade it would not be visible. The Duke
leasing sign across the street is not visible from U. S. 31 because it is at eight feet. CMC needs their
sign to show because their business is leasing space in this building. They are not asking that the sign
remain at nineteen feet. They are willing to cover the sign with alum-i-core (a sample was shown). It is
not injurious to any residential area. The other signs on the property will come down. A lot of the
clients are temporary offices or small offices looking for space to lease.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition: no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Page 6 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. The building does not have its permanent sign. Once that is
up, they will be visible. The Department would never approve of a permanent sign that was that tall.
The Department is recommending negative consideration of the docket.
Mr. Dierckman asked about the temporary banner.
Mrs. Marchbanks stated that the permit for the temporary sign had expired.
Mr. Dierckman felt they needed a variance for a banner sign in the middle of the building until the
permanent sign is up. The current sign is an eyesore. Even masking it with white alum-i-core, it was
still too tall. There needs to be some alternative, so that they could have a leasing sign.
Mrs. Plavchak agreed that the sign was an eyesore. She asked about the permanent sign.
Mrs. Marchbanks stated that -they are in fabrication. But even when the sign is up, it will not say that it
has space for lease. It will just say CMC Offices. It does not say anything about leasing. There will be
additional space for lease when the additional buildings are built.
Mrs. Torres felt the sign was very visible. She asked about its distance above the road.
Mrs. Marchbanks stated that the bottom of the sign was eight feet above the road. They understand that
19 feet is not acceptable, but they still need some sign to say that they are leasing space in the building.
Mrs. Torres felt that people could see the permanent CMC sign on the building and look up
information online about leasing.
Jim Cohen, CMC Properties, 10925 Reed Hartman Highway, Cincinnati, Ohio. A huge percentage of
their inquiries come from drive-by cell phone calls. They know that the sign is an eyesore. It was
intended to be temporary and they will redesign the sign. The purpose of the variance is for this unique
situation. The grade of the property drops off eight feet immediately, so that they are in a hole. When
they applied for their rezone, the neighbors were very supportive of their business because they
provide a nice product. They provide space for businesses that need 2000 square feet or less. They are
more than half filled. Without that sign they would be out of business because anyone seeing CMC
Properties would not know what kind of business they do. They need a lease office sign describing
small office space for lease with a phone number. All their other buildings in Indiana, Kentucky and
Ohio have this type signage. They will re-design the sign to come up with something that is acceptable.
The problem with a banner is that Carmel does not allow long-term banners and a banner is parallel to
the road and not as visible a perpendicular sign.
Mr. Dierckman asked about how many two-sided signs were permitted.
Mrs. Conn said that they were permitted a two-sided leasing sign with a sixty degree separation.
Discussion followed regarding putting a sign on each end of the building, the grade of the property, the
size, height and visibility of the current sign, the permanent sign, and the design and size of a new
leasing sign.
Page 7 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
Mrs. Conn suggested the Board might want to table this item so that the Petitioner could come 'back
with a more appealing design.
Mr. Cohen stated that they had been tabled last month because their Public Notice had not been
published and they would like to get this issue resolved regarding the variance for the height. They
were willing to work closely with staff to resolve the issues.
Mr. Hawkins stated it was not the Board's function to help with the design of the sign, but approving
the variance. The quality of the current sign is affecting the decision.
Mr. Dierckman.stated that if the current temporary sign was still up, they were not losing business.
They need to come back with a better sign design.
Mr. Molitor stated that the Board does have the ability to weigh in on the aesthetic value of the sign as
well as the height. Anything that could affect property value is relevant to the Board's consideration.
The Board does not regulate the text of the sign. He suggested that the Petition could be sent to the
Hearing Officer between now and the next regular Board meeting in March.
Mr. Dierckman moved to table Docket No. 04120010 V, CMC Properties, Sec 2, lot 3 to the next
Hearing Officer meeting. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0.
2-5h. Tom Wood Nissan
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 05010026 V Chapter 26.04.05 buffer yard requirements
Docket No. 05010027 V Chapter 25.07.02-08.b total number of signs
Docket No. 05010028 V Chapter 25.07.02-08.b 5 signs oriented south
Docket No. 05010029 V Chapter 14.04.09.03 maximum lot coverage
The site is located at 4150 E 96th Street and is zoned B-3/Business.
Piled by Larry Lawhead of Barnes & Thornburg for Tom Wood Nissan.
Present for the Petitioner: Larry Lawhead, 11 S. Meridian, Indianapolis. This property is surrounded by
commercial usage. The project has received approval from the Plan Commission for the DP/ADLS.
There would be four wall signs facing 96th Street. There is also one ground sign at the comer of Bauer
Drive and 96th Street. The Ordinance would allow two large signs a little over 200 square feet, one
along 96th Street and one facing East Bauer Drive. The Ordinance allows the movement of the Bauer
Drive sign to face 96th Street. The total square footage of the signs requested in the variances is just a
little over one-half of total square footage that would be allowed with the two large signs. One sign is
the service area and is about 8.75 square feet. In the past, Mr. Woods has used a service sign for his
dealerships that was three square feet. That sign did not need a variance. However, Mr. Woods has had
a number of complaints from customers, because they could not easily see the sign. Therefore, it was
expanded to 8.75 square feet. The other three signs are the Nissan logo, dealer identification, and
franchise identification. The Nissan logo sign is 29.2 square feet, the Nissan bailor word mark is 27.3
square feet and the dealer sign is 17.5 square feet. The monument sign at the comer is six feet high by
five feet seven inches. They could have put the logo, franchise and dealer information into one huge
sign, but they did not feel that was attractive or efficient. The next variance is for the bufferyard. The
east bufferyard next to SBC is a required ten-foot buffer area. They would like to reduce that to five
feet. During the Plan Commission process they expanded the west bufferyard to fifteen feet. Along the
Page 8 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
east property line is a drainage swale, which is a green area about twenty to thirty feet. This is a narrow
lot and aesthetically this is an efficient way to place the building on the parcel. They have been in
contact with the Urban Forester for the landscaping and are maintaining the same number and level of
plantings required. The other buffer issue is along 96th Street. They would like to reduce it from the 25-
foot requirement to 15 feet for a number of reasons. In 1995 when 96th Street was expanded by the
County, Mr. Wood donated a substantial amount of frontage along 96th Street to help the project.
Therefore, they did not feel he should be penalized in developing this site. The final variance is for the
maximum coverage of the lot, which is 80 percent coverage. By giving up the frontage along 96th
Street, it is shoved back on this very narrow lot. There are also some drainage issues. A retention pond
would help but they did not feel it was safe. Instead they have proposed and it has been approved by
the Plan Commission to have underground detention in the front. There are big barrels buried in the
ground to handle the water from this area.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition: no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. The Petitioner has worked with the Plan Commission and
addressed all issues with design, architecture and signage. The Department recommends favorable
consideration of all docket numbers.
Mrs. Plavchak felt the monument sign was very elegant. However, she did not see the need to repeat
the same logo above the door. She felt it was cluttered looking.
Mr. Lawhead showed examples of other signs along 96th Street and they were trying to be consistent.
They are reducing what is allowed and do not feel it is cluttered but more visually and aesthetically
pleasing.
Mr. Dierckman asked if the entire monument sign was lit. He would prefer just the Nissan be lit and
not the entire box surrounding it.
Mr. Lawhead was not sure.
Mr. Dobosiewicz stated that only the Nissan logo was lit and not the entire sign.
Mr. Broach asked about the signage on the building.
Mr. Lawhead stated that they were all identified as being internally illuminated.
Mr. Dierckman stated that the packet indicated that the monument sign was illuminated. He felt the
colors should not be bright like some of the others along 96th Street.
Mrs. Conn stated each sign along 96th Street was how it was presented and approved by the Plan
Commission.
Mr. Dierckinan moved to approve Docket Nos. 05010026 V, 05010027 V, 05010028 V and 05010029
V, Tom Wood Nissan, with the Condition that the Petitioner provides the recorded copy of the
Page 9 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
dedication of the additional right-of-way. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach and all were
APPROVED 5-0.
6-8h. Carmel/Clay Schools, New K-5 Elementary School No. 11
The applicant seeks to construct a school east of the existing Creekside Middle SchooL
The applicant seeks the following special use and development standards variance
approvals:
Docket No. 05010037 SU Chapter 5.02 Special use
Docket No. 05010039 V Chapter 25.07.01-2 Institutional ground sign height
Docket No. 05010040 V Chapter 25.07.02-05.d Traffic directional sign area
The site is located at the southeast comer of Shelborne Road and 126th Street and is
zoned S-l/Residence-Low Density. Filed by William E. Payne, AlA of Fanning/Howey
Associates, Inc. for Carmel/Clay Schools.
Present for the Petitioner: Allen Cradler, Fanning/Howey Associates. With the continued growth in the
Carmel area, the Carmel/Clay Schools require an additional elementary school for the west side of
town. The new school will be on the Shelborne Road campus with Creekside Middle School and
College Wood Elementary School. The new elementary will basically be the same as the elementary
schools that were previously built. It matches College Wood, Towne Meadow and Prairie Trace
Schools. It will be located along the east side of the internal drive. It will have its own parking area,
bus drop off area, and playground similar to the other elementary schools. The internal drive connects
all the various facilities and connects it to Shelborne Road and 126th Street. All utilities are available
on the site as they were brought to serve the other facilities. Also included on the site on the lower
southeast side is an additional outdoor classroom area that was already started as part of the previous
project with outdoor classroom pavilion, additional walks and walkways and a pedestrian bridge over
the creek/ditch.
Ron Farrand, Carmel/Clay Schools. He handed out a paper regarding the outdoor structure the science
teachers would like near the pond. It would be like the outdoor facilities at Clay Middle School.
Mr. Cradler stated that the exterior of the new school would basically be the same as the others. The
brick colors may be reversed from College Wood to give its own identity. Some items from the T AC
meeting that have.already been addressed are additional striping along 126th Street to better direct
people and additional walks along the internal drive to help interconnect the buildings for pedestrians.
They will be meeting with the County Surveyor to review the ditch as it goes through the property to
see if there are other improvements for drainage. The two variances are for the signage; the building
identification sign and two directional signs on either side of the entry drive. Both are consistent with
the identification signs for Creekside and for College Wood that were previously approved. The
directional signs are also consistent with the directional signs that are used throughout the site.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition: no one appeared.
Remonstrance:
David [inaudible], 3548 W. 126th Street, north of Creekside Middle School. For some reason, once the
schools were developed, from the traffic moving to the west up to Shelborne quite a number of
vehicles pull into his drive and seem confused about where they are going. His office window faces out
to the road, so he has occasion to notice the traffic. Somehow they are confused about the entry to the
Page 10 of 12
Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28,2005
school. They turn around and go back to College Wood as if they had missed the drive. It is at least
seven to ten cars per day. It seems insignificant, although he was concerned about the traffic pattern.
Also, with three soccer fields and the bus facility that has been approved but not been constructed at
this time, he did not know how these and the new elementary school would impact the traffic in the
area. He felt the issue of directional signs should be addressed so that people will know where they are
going. Also the speed limit of 25 is not being observed, even by the parents.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Rebuttal:
Mr. Farrand stated there are no directional signs at any of the entrances, so with a third school they will
need to study the problem. The nine soccer fields are being reduced to three with the other six moving
to the 126th and River Road facility that was discussed earlier.
Mr. Dobosiewicz gave the Department Report. It made sense to the Department that there would be
some kind of signage for directions and to identify the campus and all three buildings. He felt the
people were not familiar with the site and how it interconnected. They would be willing to work with
the School Corporation to. come up with an appropriate proposal. The Department recommended
favorable consideration of the three dockets tonight.
Mrs. Torres asked about the parking design at the school and if the parking was the same as Towne
Meadow, because Towne Meadow does not have enough.
Mr. Farrand stated that this was less parking then Towne Meadow, but this school has other buildings
nearby with parking that can be used for overflow.
Mr. Dierckman asked if the Petitioner would commit to coming back for additional signage.
Mr. Farrand stated that the signage would not be standard in size with others in the school corporation.
He wanted to know if it could be included in this approval so that they would not have to come back.
Mr. Dierckman stated they would have to come back but it could be with a Hearing Officer.
Mr. Dobosiewicz stated that the shelter building could be added to the motion for the Special Use.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket Nos. 05010037 SU in addition to the shelter building,
05010039 V and 05010040 V, Carmel/Clay Schools, New K-5 Elementary School No. 11,
Contingent upon the commitment to work with Staff for directional signage. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Torres and all three Dockets were APPROVED 5-0.
9-13h. TABLED Companion .LA...nimal Hospital
.L^...pplicant seeks use 'variance & de\telopment standards '/ariance appro'vals for
'leterinar)T hospital.
Doeket No. 04090009 U" Chapter 19.01
Doel(et No. 04090010 " Chapter 27.05
Doel(etNo. 04090023 " Chapter 26.04.05
Doeket No. 04090024 " Chapter 1904.03
permitted uses
number of parlcing spaces
buffer yard requirements
side ~yard setbacks \~\TITHD~^...'\VN
Page 11 of 12
Cannel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
February 28, 2005
Doelc:et No. 04090025 '7 Chapter 19.04.02 front yard setbaclc
The site is located at 1425 S Range Line Rd and is zoned B 8/Business.
Filed by Jim Shil1(l'r/er oftIelson & Franlcenberger for Dr. Buzzetti.
14-16h. TABLED O'1\IaliaFireplaee Shop ExpaBsioB
The applicant seeles the follo'ry1{ing dc~/clopment standards 'variances:
Doelcet No. 04100017 '7 Chapter 12.04.02 front yard sctbaclc
Doelc:et No. 04100018 '7 Chapter 27.03.02 no curbed parlcing
Doelcet No. 04110009 '7 . Chapter 26.01.05 buffer )rard requirements
The site is located at220 8 Range Line Rd. The siteis zoned B l/Business.
Filed by Paul Reis ofDreVYT)' Simmons Pitts & '/omehm for the Helen J. O'11a1ia Trust
I. Old Business.
There was no Old Business.
J. New Business.
There was no New Business.
K Adjourn.
Mrs. Plavchak moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 PM.
~L~
James R. Hawkins, President
S:\Board of Zoning AppeaJs\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appea1s - 2005\20050228.rtf
Page 12 of 12