HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 04-23-01
CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
APRIL 23, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals was called to
order by President Weinkauf at 7:15 p.m.
Members present were: Leo Dierckman, Michael Mohr, Earlene Plavchak, and Pat Rice,
and Charles Weinkauf, thereby constituting a quorum.
The minutes of the regularly scheduled March meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals
were unanimously approved as submitted.
F. John Molitor stated for the record that an executive session was held prior to this
meeting to discuss pending litigation involving the Kingswood Subdivision, Martin
Marietta, and the City. Discussion lasted twenty minutes; no other business was
discussed.
Items currently tabled are: 1h-9h regarding temporary model home sales offices.
Mr. Molitor has drafted a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance, to be presented
to the Plan Commission in June. This proposal would allow model homes to be a
permitted use in residential districts as long as they are not used as such for more
than one and a half years, with the right to extend that period of time for six
months. This would allow model homes to be part of a new subdivision for no
more than two years after that model home opens. If this provision passes, all of
the Lakes at Hazel Dell variances could be dismissed from the agenda because they
would no longer require Board review. Responding to a query about changing
from one model home to another within a subdivision, Mr. Molitor explained the
provision is intended for each model home; however, the Plan Commission will be
able to obtain clarification when the subdivision is reviewed and approved.
Mr. Lillig reported on item 10h will appear on tonight’s agenda since packets have
been distributed. In addition, a representative will be requesting a suspension of
the rules on item 11h-13h (Carmel United Methodist Church) to hear those
petitions this evening. Items 20h and 21h (Ahluwalia Office Building) are tabled.
Item 22h (Lattice Communications) is mistakenly identified on the agenda as a
special exception. It is, in fact, a Special Use.
G.Public Hearing
1h-9h These Items Currently Tabled:
Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Lot 16 (UV-133-00: V-156-00; V-157-00)
Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Lot 17 (UV-134-00)
Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1,
Lot 237 (UV-135-00; V-153-00; V-154-00; V-155-00)
Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Lot 238 (UV-136-00)
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 1
Woodland Shoppes – Nextel West WTF (SU-1-01)
10h.
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval for a 95-foot monopole wireless
th
telecommunications facility. The site is located northeast of East 116 Street and
South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-8/business.
Filed by Matt Mugavero of CIS Communications for Nextel West.
Peter Newton of CIS Communications, 165 North Merrimac, St. Louis, MO appeared on
behalf of the petitioner. Nextel has been building and expanding its Indianapolis
telecommunications network in recent years. They have fairly good coverage of most of
Carmel, but the southern area is a blank spot. CIS always looks for ways to co-locate or
attach to existing facilities before proposing a new structure. There is really no existing
facility of sufficient height to meet Nextel needs here. The proposal is the lowest profile
they can manage, a slick mounted antenna on a straight pole. He showed Nextel’s existing
sites in Carmel, and indicated this pole would round out their coverage of the southern
business district, and residential areas in the south. Staff recently informed the petitioner
that their original location choice, at the rear of the property as far to the western property
line as possible, has a drainage easement cutting through it. Mark Price of Nextel met
with Bob Allen of the City Engineer’s office. That office suggested moving the western
fence 8 ft. to the east to eliminate the problem. It looks like moving Nextel’s project 6
feet west should work and allow for proper drainage. Any construction drawings would
reflect these changes.
One of Nextel’s highest priorities is to complete coverage of Carmel.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition. None appeared.
Members of the public in opposition to the petition were invited to speak. None appeared.
Mr. Lillig pointed out that this petition is being heard by the Plan Commission as well,
since the property is in a B-8 district. The Dept. of Engineering has been working on this.
Mr. Lillig asked the petitioner to explain why the original flagpole design was changed to
a monopole design. Mr. Newton explained that Nextel was unaware of the extent of
utilities beneath the area planned for the flagpole design, which would have had
landscaping surrounding it, and the landlord was reluctant to do a lot of excavating. The
monopole with no platform seemed the least intrusive alternative. Mr. Lillig asked if the
th
petitioner would reconsider a flagpole design, since 116/Rangeline Road is a high profile
site, even though it is farther back than on the original proposal.
Mr. Newton replied in the affirmative, but suggests just a pole with no flag in the rear of
the property where it is mostly unimproved ground. They feel that the diameter of the
pole would have to be so much larger to house the antennas, and a monopole would be
less intrusive. Mr. Lillig suggested more discussion on the type of pole at the Plan
Commission level. The Department recommends approval upon satisfactory resolution of
the drainage issue.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 2
Mr. Weinkauf asked if this monopole is intended to house only Nextel, and if Nextel has
explored other locations, since the city ordinance requires that any new antenna insist on
co-location. Mr. Newton said while it is planned for Nextel, there are ports for other
carriers, and that CSI has explored all other opportunities to co-locate. He also asked Mr.
Lillig if CSI has complied with department requests for pertinent information. The
Department has a complete map for Nextel, according to Mr. Lillig. Sixty-five feet is the
lowest possible tower that would work, and there is no such existing tower in the area.
Mr. Newton said 95 ft. is the minimum Nextel can live with, and if the City would prefer a
taller tower to accommodate other carriers, they will certainly provide this.
Mr. Molitor explained the provisions of the ordinance regarding co-location, and
requirements of providing equipment up to four service-providers; the owner of the tower
will offer commercially reasonable terms to other providers; and the Director be notified
within 30 days of inquiries by other providers for that location. The findings of fact for
this (B-8 district) are not as restrictive as in a residential district.
Mr. Mohr said he understood the need for cell towers, but it is difficult to vote, without
knowing where towers are, and what percentage of use they employ. Mr. Weinkauf noted
the lack of location maps, and use, to which Mr. Molitor said provision of such data is
intended more for requests in a residential area, where a Special Exception is involved.
Mr. Newton said the tower could be stackable, but that would definitely preclude a
flagpole design.
Mr.Weinkauf feels the lack of such data limits consistency by the Board, since the Board is
unable to visually see where other facilities exist.
Ms. Rice said her understanding is that the Department is satisfied there are no other
locations that would work for Nextel. Mr. Lillig confirmed that Nextel has provided
enough information to show there is no other location available.
Mr. Newton explained that providers are happy to enter into agreements for co-location.
It provides income to the owner, and provides a location for the leasing company.
The public hearing was then closed.
Woodland Shoppes – Nextel West WTF,
Mr. Dierckman made a motion to approve
SU-1-01conditioned upon
, resolution of any outstanding TAC concerns, and that the
pole will be designed for an increase in height to provide for additional co-location. Pat
APPROVED
Rice seconded the motion. The motion was with a vote of 4 in favor, 1
opposed (Michael Mohr).
Carmel United Methodist Church (SUA-2-01; V-34-01; V-35-01)
11-13h.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 3
Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to expand an existing
church use. Petitioner also seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section
8.4.1:Maximum Height in order to erect a 42-foot tall structure, and Section
27.3.2 in order to install a temporary parking area without curbs. The site is
located at 621 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned R-2/residence and B-
3/business.
Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker & Daniels for Carmel United Methodist.
Mr. Scimia explained that he takes full responsibility for not providing packets seven days
ahead of the hearing, as required. It was due to a misunderstanding with a departing
colleague. Groundbreaking has already been announced publicly by the church, the Board
of Trustees feels their fund-raising will be hampered by further delay, and they are
unaware of any opposition to the project. For these reasons, Mr. Scimia requests a
suspension of the Rules of Procedures to permit this case to be heard. Mr. Mohr made a
motion to do so. Following a second by Ms. Plavchak, the vote to suspend was 5 in
favor, 0 opposed.
Mr. Jim Engeldow, President of the Board of Trustees for the church was introduced, as
well as Jeff Bolinger ofFanning Howey Associates, Architects and Engineers for the
project, who will help with the presentation.
th
Mr. Scimia described the site of the existing church at 126/Range Line Road. The
church owns approximately 13 acres at this location. The church gave some property to
th
the city for the expansion of 126 Street at this intersection. The existing church is
approximately 54,000 sq. feet in size. There are also accessory structures that used to be
used as residences. The R-2 and B-3 districts allow a church as a special use, but do
require a new Special Use approval for expansion greater than 10% of the existing floor
area. The current proposal is for a 19,617 square foot addition, representing a 26%
expansion. In addition, two variances are being requested; one to allow 42 feet height
rather than the permitted 25 feet, the other to allow a temporary parking area of
approximately 50 spaces without curbing.
The church has a growing congregation, and needs additional classroom and additional
community meeting space. Overhead projections offered views of the existing site and
proposed construction to the east of the existing facility. Two existing open courtyards
will remain, and will house the mechanical equipment and will shield them from view of
th
the surrounding streetscape. A secondary entrance is requested on 126 Street, and from
discussions with the City Engineer’s office and with TAC, the Department is unaware of
any outstanding issues with respect to the second curb cut. There are 340 parking spaces
on site now. After conclusion of the project there will be 468 spaces. A temporary
parking area is requested, which will be converted to landscaping once construction is
finished. Additional landscaping will be done along the perimeter of the site. The
petitioner has been in contact with the property owners (Mr. and Mrs. Boles) east of the
church property, and they have no objections to these plans. In order to address concerns
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 4
from Mr. and Mrs. Boles, the petitioner proposes landscaping and a six-foot cedar board
fence.
The plan allows for a walkway around the property for access. The existing structure at
the northeast corner will remain. The elevations for the building addition were shown.
The architecture style and building materials are consistent with the existing structure,
brick, accent brick and aluminum trim work. Elevations from the north and south show
the addition well, and illustrate the second variance request. The fact that the additional
height would be at least 150 feet from any adjoining property line, and is consistent with
the existing structure, would support approval of this variance.
Findings of fact have been submitted for each variance request and each special use, and
ballots have been distributed to the Board.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or opposition to the petitions; no
one appeared and the public hearing was closed.
Department recommendation is for favorable consideration of the Special Use SUA-2-01
variance. The department recommends favorable consideration of the request for
Variance V-34-01, additional height. With respect to V-35-01, regarding the removal or
curbing of the parking at the time the project is completed, Mr. Lillig asked that this be
timed with the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for this project—the petitioner
was in agreement.
Mr. Dierckman asked counsel if the filing fees could be waived for this project. Mr.
Molitor offered to research this. He reported that the only waiver of filing fees addressed
in the ordinance is for schools, and for the city.
Carmel United Methodist Church, SUA-2-01
Ms. Rice made a motion to approve .
APPROVED
Following a second by Mr. Dierckman, the motion was with a vote of 5 in
favor, 0 opposed.
Carmel United Methodist Church ,V-34-01
Ms. Rice made a motion to approve , with a
APPROVED
second by Mr. Dierckman. The motion was with a vote of 5 in favor, 0
opposed.
Carmel United Methodist Church, V-35-01,
Mr. Mohr made a motion to approve
conditioned upon
the temporary parking lot either being curbed or removed at the time a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the project. Following a second by Ms. Plavchak,
APPROVAL
was by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
West Carmel Center, Block A-Wendys (V-25-01; V-26-01; V-27-01; V-28-01;
14-18h.
V-29-01)
Petitioner seeks the following Developmental Standards Variances:
V-25-01
ZO 23C.10.2(2) 4-foot wide west foundation plantings
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 5
V-26-01
ZO 25.7.01-4(n) 10-square foot preorder board
V-27-01
ZO 25.7.02-8(d) 7-foot-tall monument sign
V-28-01
ZO 25.7.05 42.16-square foot menu board
V-29-01
ZO 25.7.05 7-foot-tall menu board
The site is located at 10585 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/business
and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Wendy’s Hamburgers.
John Thaxton of Wendy’s, Trident Foods, made the presentation, assisted by Steve
DeLaney. The site is adjacent to Walgreens, and Ritters Frozen Custard, now under
th
construction, just south of 106 St. and Michigan Road. The first variance (V-25-01)
involves the plantings on the west side of Michigan Road. The general plan has been
before the Plan Commission. Adjacent properties are commercial, and would not be
impacted by the reduction in plantings. Significant plantings will be along the perimeter,
smaller plantings to the interior, with plantings along the frontage of the development.
The second variance request is for a menu pre-order board, at the area where customers
would enter; this would be well insulated with landscaping. Mr. Lillig stated the
department feels V-27-01 is unnecessary because a sign 8-feet in height is permitted by
ordinance. The petitioner withdrew V-27-01 and V-29-01 based on staff recommendation
as being unnecessary. Mr. Thaxton stated the overall size of the menu board is consistent
with other fast-food menu boards. For customer convenience and quality of service, the
electronic menu board gives feedback to the customer indicating the order has been
received.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the requested variances. None
appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the variance
requests. None appeared.
The Department acknowledges a minimal level of practical difficulty with a reduction in
plantings from the 10-foot requirement to 4-foot wide foundation plantings, and therefore
V-25-01.
recommends approval of the petition. Mr. Mohr made a motion to approve
APPROVAL
Following a second by Mr. Dierckman, the public hearing was closed. was
by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
Regarding V-26-01, the Department recommends negative consideration.
V-26-01
Ms. Plavchak moved to approve , seconded by Leo Dierckman. The public
hearing was closed. The vote was 2 in favor, 3 opposed, (Mohr, Rice, and Weinkauf)
MOTION DENIED
.
The Department recommends favorable consideration of V-28-01, with the condition that
the variance approval would expire concurrently with the adoption of an ordinance making
it a conforming size.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 6
V-28-01
Ms. Rice made a motion to approve with the condition that the variance approval
would expire concurrently with the adoption of an ordinance making it a conforming sign.
Following a second by Ms. Plavchak, the public hearing was closed. The variance was
APPROVED
with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
Bauer Commercial Park – Designplan (SU-31-01)
19h.
Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish an expanded office and
warehouse use. The site is located at 9800 Association Court. The site is zoned
B-3/business.
Filed by John R. Price of John R. Price & Associates for Designplan, Inc.
Attorney John Price represented Designplan, Inc., a firm seeking to relocate to Bauer
th
Office Park, east of Keystone and north of 96 Street. Their intent is to purchase the
Mid-America Equipment building at 9800 Association Court. The building currently has
about 7,000 square feet of office space. Designplan seeks approval to increase the size by
approximately 8,000 square feet of warehouse space. Within the warehouse space will be
various configurations of furniture from which clients may visualize their own needs and
expectations. The addition will be consistent with surrounding facilities. Existing trees
will be relocated. Parking spaces will exceed ordinance requirements. Mr. Price referred
to a supplement showing a revised plan. Recent meetings with the County Surveyor’s
Office and the City Engineer’s office included efforts to resolve a perceived problem with
an easement created by the family partnership of Bauer Office Park. There was a concern
with adding parking spaces in the retention basin area of the easement. The new plan cuts
off parking at approximately 6 feet from the easement edge, so there is no proposed
parking into the drainage basin. Also part of the supplement is the new letter from
Hamilton County Soil and Water, in which that office states no objection to the project as
long as there is no encroachment on the retention basin. The City Engineer’s letter of
non-opposition also stated no objections.
Company Vice Presidents Tom Strayer and Lindsay Hendricks were introduced and are
available to discuss the proposal. Mr. Louis Miller, adjoining property owner, is also
present.
Tom Strayer, 9335 Delegates Row, Indianapolis, explained the plan to add on to the
existing building. The parking has been pulled back out of the retention area. Initially,
working with extending the color of the existing building made the addition seem larger
than it really is. Instead they began pulling the color of the cedar roofing into the addition,
to pull the mass of the new building back. Elevations depicting the blending of the new
warehouse area with the existing building were shown, including a brick portico.
Plantings include additional trees on the north side adjoining the residential area and
plantings on the east side.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 7
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the project. Lewis Miller of 3833
Boine Circle spoke as a neighbor to the north of this project. His concerns have been
addressed regarding the color of the building, and the drainage. The owners have also
agreed to mow the property on their north side at least once a month, and to maintain the
spruces on the north side of their building.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition. None appeared.
The Department recommends favorable consideration of this petition, with conditions
based on the letter from the Soil and Water Conservation office dated April 23, 2001;
namely, (1) that a silt be installed between the proposed project and the storm water
detention basin and (2) the seeding specifications required for erosion sediment control be
submitted to the department for the file. Mr. Price agreed to these conditions on behalf of
the petitioner. Ms. Rice commented she likes to hear when a petitioner has already
worked with residents. She inquired about building materials, and was told they are
looking at metal materials and will choose colors to be sympathetic to the area and site.
Mr. Strayer explained it will not be poured concrete, to which Mr. Miller had objections.
Mr. Miller acknowledged he has not seen the specific materials under consideration. The
trees behind the existing building (approximately 18 ft. in height) will be relocated to a
more advantageous spot.
Mowing and seeding will be done by Designplan on a monthly basis during the growing
season.
Efforts will be made to select materials that are pleasing to the eye, and Mr. Miller will be
glad to work with Designplan at appropriate times. He will also contact Mr. Lillig or Kelli
Hahn in the Department to acknowledge agreement with the approved selection. Color
and texture are the important considerations.
SU-31-01 with three conditions) that a silt
Mr. Mohr made a motion to approve : 1
fence be installed along the south line of the drainage easement; 2) that seeding
specifications be submitted to the Department; and 3) that Mr. Miller be given the
option to work with the petitioner on the color and texture of the exterior metal
building material. APPROVED
Ms. Rice seconded the motion, which was then with a
vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
Ahluwalia Office Building (V-32-01; V-33-01)
20-21h.
These items were tabled by request of the Petitioner.
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 16.4.6; Minimum
Lot Width in order to construct a second general office building on a 90-foot-wide
property and of Section 16.5.1(1) in order to forego including a loading berth.
The site is located at 300 East Main Street. The site is zoned B-5/business.
Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker & Daniels for Charan Ahluwalia..
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 8
Lattice Communications (SU-36-01)
22h.
Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval in order to establish three slick-
mounted wireless telecommunications antennas on existing poles. The site is
th
located southeast of East 116 Street and Gray Road at the Cinergy substation.
The site is zoned S-1/residence.
Filed by Timothy Ochs of Ice Miller Donadio & Ryan for Lattice Communications.
Tim Ochs, One American Square, Indianapolis, spoke on behalf of Lattice
Communications LLC, based in Cincinnati. Its primary business purpose is to construct
facilities which permit licensed wireless telecommunication providers to co-locate on its
facilities, and provide wireless communication facilities to its customers. This site is
between the Sycamore Farm and Kingswood subdivisions. This is the same site that was
heard by the board in January and was denied. Following that denial, Lattice went back to
the drawing board, and is now ready to present a new proposal. This proposal does not
include a new tower. We are proposing instead to establish three slick-mounted
camouflaged antennas on existing power poles. The poles are roughly 80 feet in height,
and are located on the Cinergy PSI substation between the two subdivisions. This
application is consistent with the ordinance that seeks to provide wireless service without
construction of additional towers, wherever possible.
Photographs were displayed of the type of proposed antennas, one in particular located at
th
a site near 64 Street in Indianapolis. Another view illustrated the three poles on which
antennas would be mounted. A third shows the digitally superimposed antennas, along
with ten-foot cedar solid-wood fence and landscaping to shelter the equipment.
Lattice has met with adjoining property-owners in both Kingswood and Sycamore Farms,
and other adjoining neighbors. A list of commitments is submitted for consideration and
inclusion in any approval. These should reassure homeowners that Lattice is not trying to
put up any new towers or poles. An exception is a metal pole in the middle of Gray Road
right of way that could work for another provider in the future. We have letters of intent
from VoiceStream, Verizon, and Sprint, with representatives of all three in attendance this
evening. Approval by this Board would mean each provider would get a pole.
Before approaching the neighbors, we decided to make our best offer, to determine what
Lattice could financially do. To that end, $80,000 will be used for buffering and
landscaping, and mounding. This would be paid pursuant to a landscape plan to be agreed
on by adjacent neighbors, subject to approval by Cinergy. The substation ringed by trees
would presumably be surrounded by a solid wood fence on a mound, with landscaping on
the outside, in a form to be approved by neighbors. This can be made a condition of
approval. The antennas would be well camouflaged. Cinergy has indicated they will swap
out existing poles for new wood poles of the same size and height, as part of their
maintenance. We feel this should lessen the impact of the substation on neighbors. The
poles will not be lighted, create no noise, odor or dust, and would require one trip per
provider each month. The petitioner respectfully requests consideration and approval of
the request.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 9
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition.
Carol Kiefer, 4960 Regency Place in Kingswood, appeared as a spokesperson for the
landowners adjacent to the Cinergy substation. Consensus among those in Kingswood
and Sycamore Farms subdivisions is supportive for the project. The group also includes
some owners who live across the street, but see the substation, some of whom are present
this evening.
Considering the fact that the poles to be used already exist, consideration of the type of
antenna, the effort to make the cell antennas fit in, and the landscaping and buffering being
offered, the adjacent landowners are inclined to think favorably of the petition, even
though they would prefer neither the antennas nor the substation was there. Still, it is not
a bad offer. They do have concerns about devaluation of their homes simply by the
presence of the antennas, no matter how obscure. Secondly, is this just the “foot in the
door” to be followed by more antennas, etc?
Residents are supporting the proposal on the condition and understanding that the Lattice
commitments assure that there will be no requests for additional poles, and no increase in
height of the poles being used, that there are only three wireless providers, one for each
pole. Residents did agree to equipment for a fourth provider at the Cinergy substation,
coming off the metal pole in the right of way of Gray Road traversing under the road. It is
also the expectation and understanding of the residents that an $80,000 budget is
committed for use in building a 3-4 foot berm, an 8-foot shadow-box fence, and whatever
trees can be afforded within that budget. Cinergy has given a preliminary o.k. to the plan,
and to maintain areas both inside and outside the fence and berm. This agreement is to be
binding on all successors and interests, should Lattice be absorbed, etc.
Tom Yedlick of 5053 St. Charles Place, representing the Kingswood Homeowners
Association, stated that his constituents in Kingswood support this petition. He read a
letter acknowledging this, and commended Lattice Communications for working with the
neighbors. He also described the efforts to come to this agreement.
Members of the public in opposition to the project were invited to speak.
Jeff Anderson, First Vice President of the Sycamore Farms Homeowners Association,
came forward. His main issue is the time frame. The statement of commitments was
received this morning just before noon via fax, not allowing time to communicate with his
neighbors. He wonders how binding these commitments are, and can the Board guarantee
this is a legal document? Also, if Cinergy does not agree to the commitments, what
happens? Have they looked for other alternatives farther south? Will another company
come back in six months seeking to erect another pole?
The Chairman explained that commitments are enforced by the Department of Community
Services and the City of Carmel, not necessarily by this Board.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 10
Claude Porter, Jr., 11387 Regency Lane, opposes the use of the poles for antennae. It is
still a residential area, and we have not had the opportunity to review the Lattice
Communications commitments, having received them late today.
The Chairman asked for an explanation of participants in the establishment of the
commitments. Mr. Ochs said the residents whose homes back up to the substation
participated. This included one representative from Sycamore Farms, others from
Kingswood. The structure of the commitments took place just a week ago. We met with
Cinergy just last Friday, and they had no problem with the conceptual plan presented. The
executed copy of commitments was delivered just today, with the understanding these
representatives would disseminate the information to their constituents.
By way of rebuttal, Mr. Ochs explained the filing process, which started 45 days ago, and
was noticed 30 days ago, as required. Lattice has been diligently pursuing this site on
behalf of its customers (VoiceStream, Verizon, and Sprint) since last August. Lattice is
owned, with a minority interest, by Cinergy/PSI pursuant to their master lease agreement.
Another company cannot utilize the poles. This is an example of what the Tower
Ordinance is seeking; namely, placing antennae on existing structures. The antennae will
be painted to match the poles. The commitments are binding on Lattice Communications,
and are enforceable. We have gone to great lengths to come up with an acceptable plan.
The Chairman commended Lattice and the Kingswood residents (especially Mr.Yedlick
who suggested using the existing poles) for working together. Cell phones are not just a
luxury now; they really are a necessity. If we don’t find ways to work together, the FCC
will dictate where antennae will be placed.
The Department requests that the petitioner support the possibility of consolidating the
mechanical equipment for the three antennas into a single compound, thereby eliminating
the need for three separate compounds, at the base of each pole. This is the first
opportunity the Department has had to review the Commitments, and it appears two
respects (fencing and landscaping) may run afoul of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. With
that in mind, the Department requests the petitioner meet with them on a separate
occasion to discuss them further. The Department recommends favorable consideration of
the petition.
Mr. Mohr agrees using the existing poles is excellent, but he has concerns. This Board
member has no coverage map, so cannot determine the need. This lack of information and
the late arrival of the commitments with a need to review them suggest it is appropriate to
table SU-36-01 to the May 29,2001 BZA
table this item. Mr. Mohr made a motion to
meetingAPPROVED
. Mr. Dierckman seconded the motion, which was then with a vote
of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
Bauer Commercial Park – Dan Young Honda (SUA-37-01)
23h.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 11
Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to expand the existing
th
automobile dealership to include a body shop. The site is located at 4100 East 96
Street. The site is zoned B-3/business.
Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Dan Young
Honda.
Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel represented the petitioner, and
th
described the site as the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and 96 Street. Using visual
aids, he stated Building #2 (the Honda building) will remain unchanged. The request
refers to Building #1. The permitted use for automobile sales and service was approved in
1987 and 1988 for all of the real estate. The purpose of this amendment is to permit the
enlargement of Building #1 for body repair and services, and to change the south elevation
of Building #1 to be compatible with Building #2. With GM’s discontinuance of
Oldsmobile, Building #1 will not be used for the purpose recently approved.
Mr. Frankenberger explained that the Honda building is just east of Building #1. A
transparency illustrated the addition that incorporates some of the existing Building #1.
Extensive landscaping was also depicted, which includes all of the suggestions resulting
from a meeting with the Urban Forester, Scott Brewer. Mr. Frankenberger then showed
north, east, and west elevations of Building #1, to illustrate the same brown brick existing
on the building today.
The petitioner wants to revise the front of Building #1 to be consistent and architecturally
compatible with Building #2, which includes squaring off the parapet, and uses a white
synthetic stucco exterior that will match the white synthetic stucco on the Honda building.
The alternative would be blue.
Staff recommended that sidewalks be installed, and has two conditions. The petitioner has
th
reservations to extend sidewalks an additional 900 feet south to 96 Street, because of
cost ($30 a lineal square foot) under normal circumstances. The circumstances here are
not normal – there is an undulating mound of varying height up to 4 feet. To put a
sidewalk in would require cutting into the mound and building a retaining wall for
approximately 450 feet, increasing the cost significantly. Doing this would probably affect
the root structure of existing trees, and affect the viability of many trees we intend to
plant.
Mr. Frankenberger said the staff’s two conditions were that the 1987 and 1988 approvals
included an agreement that the entire (Dellen) parcel would be reconfigured so it was split
north and south between the two buildings instead of east and west, as it is now. This
should have been done at that time via a Quit Claim Deed to itself, recording it and taking
it through the Transfer and Mapping Office. It will be accomplished within 45 days.
Secondly, lighting spills over into the street at a higher intensity than is permitted by the
Ordinance. This too can be accomplished within 45 days by adding deflector shields to the
existing lights.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 12
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor, or in opposition to the petition.
None appeared.
The Department recommends favorable consideration of the petition, with the conditions
that the parcels be re-described and recorded with the property line running between the
structures, rather than through them, and that the site lighting be corrected to comply with
requirements approved in SUA 21-00 and SU 28-00. The Department would like to see a
sidewalk connection made, and is prevailing upon the new property-owners to work with
us to see if it can be accomplished, understanding there may be practical difficulties.
The Chairman asked for clarification on the use of the proposed addition, to which Mr.
Frankenberger said his understanding is that the addition will house body and repair, while
the front portion will be a place for more Honda vehicles.
The Chairman granted a change in the facilities for a Honda store and an Oldsmobile store.
Does the change in dealership cause those approvals to be null and void? Mr. Lillig
replied that the Special Use was for an automobile dealership. The body shop expansion is
what is in question this evening.
Ms. Rice felt the change in façade requires approval. The use has been approved, but the
enlargement (greater than 10%) requires consideration, and the façade change in Building
#1. Ms. Rice finds the big blue Honda shield very offensive, considering our signage
requirements, and would prefer Building #2 be more compatible with Building #1 rather
than the reverse. Mr. Frankenberger assured Mrs. Rice the blue cylinder will not be
requested for Building #1. The change in façade only involves squaring off the parapet
and changing the texture of the building material.
The Chairman was assured if any changes are made in the sign package, the petitioner will
return to the Board for approval. One of the two monument signs along the road has been
removed, per Mr. Lillig’s instruction.
There is a sidewalk between Bauer Drive East and Lakeshore Drive West across the
Harley Davidson and the two Honda buildings. Mr. Weinkauf wondered about the actual
th
use of the sidewalk. Mr. Lillig stated that as 96 Street develops, other segments will be
th
installed to the multi-use path, and ultimately it will extend the multi-use path all along 96
Street. There will be a multi-use path on the other side of Keystone as well. Mr.
Frankenberger said he is unsure how they could extend the sidewalk on the east side of
Lakeshore Drive for the reasons described earlier, and there is also a large electrical
transformer that would have to be re-located. He has heard $30 a lineal foot is an average
cost, and they would have 900 feet of sidewalk from where the sidewalk ends at Bauer
th
Drive south to 96 Street.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 13
A multi-use path exists in front of the dealership. The Chairman suggested an alternative
th
would be to have a sidewalk as a link up all along Bauer Drive down to 96 Street, thus
requiring more lineal footage but fewer problems.
Mr. Lillig acknowledged the tree line. Ms. Rice inquired about intended signage for the
used cars. Mr. Frankenberger doesn’t have this information, but is aware that one sign is
permitted, with a maximum size of 40 square feet, absent a variance. We will need to
come back to the BZA for anything additional. Ms. Rice asked whether the façade is an
exact match in color. Yes, it will be identical. Ms. Rice suggests the buildings be
compatible, without the blue. Mr. Frankenberger said tonight’s request is for Building #1,
not for any change in Building #2, which already has approval.
Mr. Mohr said the request for Building #1 is pretty basic, and he has no problem with the
proposal.
Mr. Frankenberger clarified that their request is an enlargement to permit body repair
services. No name has been established for it.
Back to the Staff Report, Mr. Lillig emphasized his comment for the sidewalk was a
recommendation only, not a requirement. The likelihood is that as more development
occurs, sidewalks might be installed by the city. Considerable discussion followed
regarding making this an option to avoid it becoming a taxpayer’s cost at a later date.
Mr. Dierckmansuggested as an alternative, the petitioner should be required to donate
enough funds now for installation of sidewalks here or at another location in the future.
Mr. Molitor pointed out the ordinance grants this Board the responsibility to consider
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks and suggested consideration of a cost-sharing stipulation for
the petitioner.
Mr. Frankenberger consulted his client, in light of the preceding discussion onsidewalks.
Dan Young Honda is willing to freely donate $15,000 to be used for sidewalks, either
at this location, or at another location of the city’s choosing, thereby absolving them
of any future responsibility of paying for a sidewalk on Lakeshore Drive in the
future.
SUA-37-01 with the following stipulations:
Ms. Plavchek made a motion to approve
the parcels will be re-described and recorded with the property line running
between the existing structures rather than through them as required per the
original approvals for this site, that the site lighting be corrected to match the
photometrics on the lighting plan (Docket nos. SUA-21-00 and SUA-28-00), the
developer will contribute $15,000 for the installation of sidewalks anywhere within
Carmel and be relieved of any responsibility for paying for a sidewalk on Lakeshore
Drive East in the future, and the building façade will be all white instead of white
andblue.APPROVED
Mr. Dierckman seconded the motion, which then was with a
vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 14
In response to Ms. Rice’s concern about signage, Mr. Lillig emphasized that since the
parcel is over 5 acres in size, they are permitted one sign, not to exceed 40 square feet in
size. They will need to return to the Board for approval of anything additional.
Kensington Place Subdivision Lots 1-6, 7a-8a, 10-11, 14a, 17a, 18-19
24-25h.
(V-38-01; V-39-01)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section 10.5.3(d):
Minimum Rear Yard in order to encroach eight feet into the minimum 20-
foot rear yard, and Section 10.5.3(F): Maximum Lot Coverage in order to
exceed the maximum by 25% (increase from 35% to 60%). The site is
located southeast of the intersection of West Smokey Row Road and Old
Meridian Street. The site is zoned R-4/residence.
Filed by the City of Carmel for Kensington Partnership.
Mike Hollibaugh, Director of the Department of Community Services, said the city is
sponsoring these variance requests. A number of small mistakes have occurred through
the years in relation to this project, and it seems appropriate the city take responsibility for
the situation.
Norman John Kerr, Jr. Managing Partner of Kensington Partners, explained the
discrepancies were discovered just weeks ago, although errors have occurred since 1989.
The original developer built seven townhomes in 1989-1990. The project went dormant,
and the remaining lots were sold in November 1991. The intent was to maintain the
Georgian style of architecture and the offset configuration of each lot. During October
2000 we wanted to reduce the number of lots from 22 to 19, so we went through the
replat process, receiving approval for 19 lots, thus allowing more greenspace to help the
neighborhood aesthetics.
The offset feature probably contributed to the mistakes that were made. Mr. Kerr would
like approval for V-38-01 and V-39-01, which would apply to all but five lots (13a, 15,
16, 20a, and 21a) yet to be built on. Essentially it would apply to lots already built and
those where there is some construction in progress.
Mr. Lillig reminded the Board that a suspension of the rules was required to hear this
project with only a 12-day publication of notice (rather than the usual 25-day notice). Mr.
Mohr made a motion to suspend the Rules of Procedure pertaining to the publication of
notice. Following a second by Mr. Dierckman, the motion was APPROVED with a vote
of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor, or in opposition to the project.
None appeared.
Mr. Lillig said the Department recommends favorable consideration of these petitions, due
to the unusual circumstances, which will apply to lots with construction already complete,
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 15
or in progress. The Department further recommends that the development of all unbuilt
lots, or redevelopment of lots already constructed upon or with construction underway, be
subject to conditions stipulated in V-20-89.
The Chairman questioned the aesthetics in reverting to V-20-89 for undeveloped lots. Mr.
Lillig explained the mistakes were not conscious errors, but rather in surveys that were
conducted, and that the aesthetics are not affected in any way.
V-38-01
Ms. Plavchak made a motion to approve . Following a second by Mr.
APPROVED
Dierckman, the variance was with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Mr.
V-39-01
Dierckman made a motion to approve . Mr. Mohr seconded the motion, which
APPROVED
was then by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed.
There is no old business on the agenda this evening.
Mr. Molitor asked the Chair to announce a special meeting of the Board of Zoning
Appeals on May 8, 2001 at 7 p.m. to discuss the Special Use petition of Martin Marietta
and setback variances.
Ms. Rice made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:21 p.m. Following a second by Ms.
Plavchak, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous voice vote.
_________________________
Charles W. Weinkauf, President
___________________________
Sue E. Johnson, Acting Secretary
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 16
s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001apr 17