Shelbourne Estates Indiana by zno11350


More Info
									                           City of Carmel
                                   Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
                                          Regular Meeting
                                           Monday, October 22, 2007

The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday,
October 22, 2007, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.

Members in attendance were Kent Broach, James Hawkins and Madeleine Torres, thereby establishing a
quorum. Earlene Plavchak was still presiding at the 5:15 PM BZA Hearing Office meeting in the Caucus
Rooms. Christine Barton-Holmes, Rachel Boone, and Mike Hollibaugh represented the Department of
Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present.

Mrs. Torres moved to approve the minutes of the September 24, 2007 meeting as submitted. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 3-0.

Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. She stated Item 2I Westwood Estates and Items 3-4I
North Meridian Medical Pavilion were tabled to the November 26, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Molitor asked to delay the Legal Report until the end of the meeting when Mrs. Plavchak would be in

H. Public Hearing:

1h.              Drics Pool Remodel – Regent’s Circle
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07090003 V          Section 25.01.B.3.b.i.b      Pool and deck encroaching less than 3’ into easement
The site is located at 12954 Regent Circle and is zoned S1/Residential.
Filed by Adam DeHart of Keeler-Webb Associates for John Drics, owner.

Present for the Petitioner: Lowell Rolsky, Pro Care Horticultural Services, representing Adam DeHart
of Keeler-Webb Associates who was unable to attend. They would be encroaching more than 3 feet
into the easement, but less than 30 feet. An aerial view of the property was shown with the current
pool. They will remove this pool and replace it with a new pool that better meets the safety and
aesthetics requirements of the new homeowner. A site plan was shown. The new pool would be
perpendicular with the house, extending approximately 30 feet into the existing floodplain, variable
drainage easement line. The actual flood fringe was indicated. The existing variable easement line is
larger than the hundred-year flood fringe line. The new pool will not negatively impact surrounding
neighborhood uses and will not adversely affect the drainage from the Stultz Almond drain.

Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.

Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The Ordinance does require all accessory structures,
including pools and pool houses to be located at least three feet outside of any easement. The rear yard
                                                     Page 1 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

of this site is primarily easement due to the Stultz-Almond ditch and the 100-year floodplain. The
Department has been working extensively with the County Surveyors office which regulates this
floodplain. From a meeting earlier this day with the County Drainage Board, they faxed an approved
Non-Enforcement Permit. That would permit this construction and absolve the County of
responsibility to allow the construction of the pool house, pool and pool deck within the drainage
easement. There are some similar constructions and accessory structures in this area. This would not be
out of character with the surrounding subdivision. Because the County feels there would be no
negative impact on drainage to this site or surrounding sites, the Department recommended positive

Mr. Hawkins asked Mr. Molitor if the Petitioner would need to do anything with the Department of
Natural Resources with the 100-year flood zone.

Mr. Molitor stated there was not.

Mrs. Torres moved to approve Docket No. 07090003 V, Drics Pool Remodel. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 3-0.

A five minute recess was taken. Mrs. Plavchak joined the Board from the earlier Hearing Officer

I.      Old Business

1I.              Lubavitch of Indiana
The applicant seeks the following special use approval:
Docket No. 07070012 SU           Appendix A: Use Table            Religious Uses in a Residential District
The site is located at 2640 West 96th Street and is zoned S1/Residential.
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler, PC for Lubavitch of Indiana.

Present for the Petitioner: Dave Coots, 255 E. Carmel Drive. Also present were Rabbi Grossbaum and
Dennis Lockwood the project architect. This is a revision of the Special Use application submitted
approximately one year ago. At that time they received a 2-2 vote. They had also submitted a
Development Standards Variance at that time, seeking to narrow the width of the lot upon which they
sought to build the structure that was proposed at that time. An aerial photograph of the area was
shown. The property is an approximate four-acre site on 96th Street, west of Towne Road and adjacent
to real estate that is owned and occupied by the College Park Baptist Church. A site plan of the
approved additions to the College Park Church, as well as the expanded parking and a proposed future
accessory building were shown. On the same site plan was shown the proposed Lubavitch building and
parking area. The Lubavitch four-acre site has been divided into two pieces. The proposed structure
would be 12,000 square feet versus the original 16,000 square feet. The parking area would be to the
north/rear of the building. Another graphic was shown highlighting the large amount of asphalt that has
been approved for the College Park Baptist Church, compared to the Lubavitch parking and building
coverage which meet the thirty-five percent stated in the Ordinance. They have eliminated the need for
the variance application by bisecting the lot into two pieces. They propose to construct a cul-de-sac
that would access and service the piece they seek to build upon. The remaining approximate one and a
half acre will remain S-1 residential. Before anything other than single-family residential could occur
on that portion, they would need to come back to the BZA for any approvals. On the site plan, the
property to the west is the Shelborne Greene Subdivision with approximately 13 single-family
                                                       Page 2 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

residences that abut the Lubavitch tract. To the north is S-1 residential and to the east is S-1 residential.
To the south in Marion County are higher density single-family residential condominiums. The
proposed site is smaller than the original proposal which had received objections from the Board. Part
of the objection had been the relationship of the proposed building to the houses to the west. Mr.
Lockwood had prepared a schematic showing the separation from the residential houses to the
proposed structure. There is a twenty-foot common area that is owned by the Shelborne Greene
Homeowners Association, a required setback on the Lubavitch parcel and a drainage utility easement
in the backyards of the Shelborne Greene homes along with their rear yard setback. In total there is
approximately eighty feet from any structure to the proposed building. The proposed plan was shown.
They had reduced the previously proposed building from a two-story structure to a one-story structure.
They have supplanted the previous second story space into a basement in the new proposal. The multi-
purpose room is the tallest portion of the structure and it is thirty feet. The two-story homes to the west
have a thirty-five foot gable. The rest of the proposed building is 20 feet at its highest elevations. The
proposed building materials are EFIS. He shared pictures of other buildings in the community that are
primarily of EFIS construction. However, they are mindful of the concerns of the adjacent property
owners about what they perceive to be the appearance of the building. Thus they have attempted to
lower the elevation and the profile of the building as well as incorporated a fairly extensive landscape
buffer on the east and west sides of the parcel. The information in the packet indicates the existing as
well as the proposed plantings for the buffer. The plantings around the building are designed to make a
solid visual buffer, especially for the properties to the west. As the Board is aware, there is a slight
difference between a variance application and a special use application. A special exception is a use
that is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance upon a showing of certain statutory criteria. Whereas a
variance is a deviation from the underlying zoning criteria. He went through the zoning criteria in
Section 21.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. There are twenty-five elements that the Board considers in
determining if they have proved the entitlement to a special use. The first one is the topography of the
site. The topography of this site is not encumbered by flood issues, easement issues and things of that
nature. The zoning is S-1 and they are a special use within that zone classification. The surrounding
zoning and land uses, as he indicated earlier, are residential and the neighboring church to the east. The
streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be provided by them. The cul-de-sac will be constructed by
Lubavitch as well as the multi-purpose path along 96th Street that connects with the Baptist Church’s
multi-purpose path. The continuation path to the west is within the Carmel Thoroughfare Plan. For
access to public streets, 96th Street is a targeted thoroughfare as pointed out in the Department Report.
The driveway and curb-cut location for this site was moved to the eastern boundary in order not to
negatively impact the properties to the west. The general vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been
addressed. The parking location and arrangement is to the far north of the property. Further on to the
north is reserved area in the event they need to expand parking. They have calculated the parking on
the basis of the Ordinance and the size of the meeting room. The Ordinance requires one parking space
per four seats within the multi-purpose room. Its dimensions total 1375 square feet and they are
required to have twenty-three parking spaces. They will have thirty-five spaces. He had already
addressed the building height and elevations. The front, side and rear yards meet the requirements of
the S-1 Ordinance. The site coverage, as indicated, is thirty-five percent. The trash and material storage
for the site is located at the north end of the parking lot. Within the packet materials submitted to the
Board was a schematic of the proposed brick enclosed trash dumpster. Alleys and service areas do not
apply to this parcel. Along the cul-de-sac to be constructed, there are the required easements for utility
purposes to service the whole parcel. He had already addressed the landscaping and tree masses and
the screening and buffering to the west. Per the Ordinance, the lighting coverage, as shown in the
packet, is less than a tenth of a foot candle at any perimeter point. There are a variety of lighting
fixtures to be used, including mushroom lights along walkways and sconces along the exterior of the
                                                 Page 3 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

building. There are only two pole lights in the parking lot area. The balance of the lights along the
front, the rear and the sidewalk area are the mushroom style lighting or wall sconce lighting. There is
no fencing in this project. There is the on-sight and off-sight surface and subsurface storm system.
Even though there are drainage easements between various properties to the west, the drainage for this
sight will go out to 96th Street where there is an intake along the 96th Street right-of-way. Therefore,
they will not be using the existing drainage easement in the Shelborne Greene Subdivision. The public
utilities are all available. The right-of-way for the cul-de-sac will be dedicated to the City of Carmel.
The signage as shown meets the Ordinance. It is a brick structure with the identification of Lubavitch
of Indiana on the sign. There are no other restrictions or covenants that are a part of the application. He
had gone over the Findings of Fact with the Department. He felt he had addressed the comments that
were contained in the general information and analysis by the Department who recommended a
positive consideration of the application.

Parisa Keisari, 11645 Victoria Court, Carmel. She has lived in the community for almost twenty years.
During that time she has had to travel outside her community for her religious needs. She has been
involved with the Lubavitch community all those years. They are a values based group that supports
family values. Any time she has had family issues, she has gone to them for counseling. Before her
marriage, they counseled her and her husband on family ways. She would love to have them as a
neighbor in the community and felt they would be a great influence.

Ben Strout, 11576 Senie Lane, Carmel. He met Rabbi Grossbaum about twenty-five years ago when he
moved to Indianapolis. In that time he has been impressed with the Rabbi’s spirituality and his
dedication to the community. He has lived in Carmel five years and would love to welcome the Rabbi
and Lubavitch of Indiana to Carmel as neighbors. He felt they could only grow in diversity and level of

Fern Merkin, 1059 Timber Creek Drive, Carmel. She had moved to Carmel last year partly because the
Jewish community has been moving north and she wanted to live where there was a functioning Jewish
community. She felt the area was very underserved. There was currently only one conservative Suhl
being built. She felt every Jewish practice should be represented with a Suhl. Because they are
Orthodox, they will not be driving on their Sabbath. They will be walking to the Suhl (synagogue).
From talking with the Planners, she understood that a walking path would be going in within the next
three years. Speaking with friends who are members at College Park Baptist Church, they felt this
would be an ideal neighbor. Lubavitch is a very warm, welcoming, joyous community with all Jews
being welcomed.

Jay Walerstein, 10124 Summerlakes Drive. He has been involved with Lubavitch about 15 of the 19
years he has lived in Carmel. He looked forward to Lubavitch moving into the neighborhood. He is
within walking distance of the facility. His family, including two teenage sons and a 10 year old, has
enjoyed Lubavitch and its community functions.

Solomon Berman, 1379 Newcastle Drive. They have lived here eight years. Their son went to Bar
Mitzvah which is very important. Lubavitch has been very helpful in their every day Jewish life in

Nathan Breall, 1826 Summerlakes Court (youth). He has lived here about eight years. There have been
all types of synagogues, but there are not a lot of Orthodox temples like this one. He felt this could
                                                Page 4 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

help the diversity in Carmel, as well as the population. There could not be anything bad, it would only

Dr. Steinman, 3925 Kitty Hawk Court, a neurosurgeon in Carmel for almost twenty-five years. When
he moved into Carmel, he was a rarity. There were not many Jews here and there were no synagogues.
He does not attend Rabbi Grossbaum’s synagogue. A huge Catholic church has been built in his
neighborhood. The church is a good neighbor and no one in his neighborhood has problems backing up
to a church parking lot. He does not know this neighborhood, but they are probably nice and they
probably feel strongly about this project. But this is a very small church and he felt it would be good
for Carmel. When he moved here Carmel had a certain reputation and he felt it was the best place in
Indiana. Carmel needs to accommodate this type of need for its constituents. It would be the same
thing if a Catholic had to go ten to fifteen miles away. He is a member of the synagogue being built in
west Carmel. He made the choice to drive to it over the years. Carmel can’t be a world-class city and
then tell people to go to Indianapolis for their religious needs. He will probably not attend Lubavitch,
but he supports it.

Jeffrey Breall, 1826 Summerlakes Court. He too thought it was important to say that the Grossbaum’s
are some of the finest people he has met since he has lived in Carmel for over seven years. This gives
Carmel and Indiana another opportunity to become world-class. Rabbi Grossbaum has done many,
many things not only for Carmel, but for the entire area. It would a travesty if we were not able to have
this type of opportunity in Carmel.

Opposition: Organized Remonstrance
Steve Noone, 9653 Cypress Way in Shelborne Greene. Their property abuts this new facility. They
have no objection whatsoever to Rabbi Grossbaum and Lubavitch of Indiana building a facility in
Carmel. Their objection solely has to do with the fact that it is this property and granting a special use
variance. He had submitted a set of signed petitions from 24 of the 32 residents of the properties that
would be exposed to the new facility and the parking lot. A site rendering was shown. Two that did not
sign are Shelborne Green Association board members. Three homeowners are religious. They did not
approach them since they deferred from signing the last time. There is one unoccupied home that is for
sale. One homeowner was not home during the attempts to pole the neighbors and one was undecided.
He also understood there was someone who had signed a petition with objections from across 96th
Street in North Point Bay. Much of their concern is that a facility is trying to force onto a property that
is zoned S-1 residential. Their understanding is that the property needs to be at least 120 feet for
residential use and 200 feet for special use. The property is only 136 feet wide. It is their understanding
the regulations would not accommodate that. They did not understand why there was not a lot-width
variance filed at this time. Mr. Coots stated they had cut the parcel in half and that eliminated the need
for the minimum 200 feet width. Their primary concerns were security and the loss of the buffer
between their properties and the College Park Baptist Church. They do not object to College Park
Baptist Church because it was there when their subdivision was planned and the houses were built.
Also the College Park Baptist Church building does not sit eighty feet from their homes, which as Mr.
Coots explained this new facility will be eighty feet from their house. The objections are security and
the loss of buffer. The neighbors are united in opposition to granting this special use variance.

Opposition: General Public
Andrew Osterholzer, 9643 Cypress Way in Shelborne Greene. He too appreciates the diversity of
religious associations in Carmel as it adds tangible value to the community. Unfortunately the presence
of any non-residential building on this site would harm the residents of Shelborne Greene. The loss of
                                                Page 5 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

greenspace, the presence of a large building in close proximity to existing homes, the presence of
parking lot lights, as well as building security lights, would significantly devalue the properties in the
area. It appears that the average sale price is already declining in this portion of Shelborne Greene. He
felt this was due to the presence of several foreclosures as well as several sellers going through
corporate relocation which made it feasible for them to be very generous in their sales price. He felt the
last thing this neighborhood needed was any other reason for property values to decline. When he
purchased his home approximately two years ago, he called the Board ahead of time asking what could
possibly be built here. They assured him, because of the lot and the zoning, it would be nothing but a
residential home. Therefore, he felt comfortable knowing the buffer would always remain in place. He
welcomed Lubavitch to the community and felt it would be a great value. He just felt this site was not
conducive to this use.

Jason Ehret, 3487 Inverness Blvd, Shelborne Greene. They moved in about three or four weeks ago
with their five-month old son for the purpose of raising their baby in a nice friendly neighborhood.
They had moved from Marion County after searching two or three years for a nice house in their price
range that backed up to a nice wooded area so that they could raise their son in privacy. They were also
told that the lot in question was supposed to only be used for residential use and no other structure
could be built on this land. Another aspect that scared him about the project was he is a police officer
in the City of Indianapolis. He knows what goes on in empty parking lots that are off the beaten path
which is what this parking lot would be. There will be increased littering and trash that will blow into
their back yards and increased break-ins which would not be good for the area that backs up to this lot.

Maureen Johnson, 2570 Chaseway Court, Indianapolis. She would be leery about walking to the
church along 96th Street because there are no sidewalks. The sidewalks at the Baptist Church are set
back. They are not really sidewalks; they are for the Baptist Church. Her front windows face 96th
Street. She knows there are problems for bicycles on 96th Street. It was stated the people at College
Park Baptist Church were really nice. Several months ago someone in the upper echelon of that church
had been accused of molesting a three-year old child. She wouldn’t want those people for her
neighbors. Also she saw the plans last year. It looked like the church was just getting longer rather than
taller. How have the trees changed from last year? Last year it was mentioned that they have several
overnight meetings and kitchens. She does not want strangers in her neighborhood at night.

Steve Hantz, 9605 Cypress Way in Shelborne Greene. Their property is immediately adjacent to the
Lubavitch property. As was the case when the proposal was first rejected in 2006, his main arguments
in opposition to the special use variance still remain with the Findings of Fact and the application for
special use approval request that the BZA requires from Lubavitch. At that time he had mentioned that
none of the requirements had been met by Lubavitch and he believed that was still the case. He also
wanted to add to the list the drainage facility having over 21,000 square feet of paving area will cause
additional problems in their subdivision. Right now the drainage situation is pretty poor. Their
basement has flooded several times. A temporary stream forms along the eastern edge of Shelborne
Greene which included his backyard. He imagined it was there now if anyone wanted to take a look.
Without some additional drainage system or retention pond on the Lubavitch property, the flooding in
that area would increase to an unacceptable level. He wanted to reiterate that their neighborhood had
never rejected or been against Lubavitch joining the Carmel community. It is just a fact of a building
being too big on too small a lot that is zoned residential. His hope was that the land would be used as
intended by the original zoning and by the requirements of the Board.

                                               Page 6 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

Alisha Ehret, 3487 Inverness Blvd. Like her husband said, they had searched for a home and moved to
Carmel from Marion County. He gave up his take-home police car to move to this house on this
particular lot. They bought this house particularly for this lot. They had just moved in and found out
two days ago that they could potentially loose the tree line that they had purchased the home for. With
that gone, she did not want to live there any more. That is the beauty of the neighborhood. It has
nothing to do with the religious organization; they simply do not want a parking lot behind their house
to look at.

Mr. Coots pointed out from the prior hearing, Police Chief Fogarty gave his opinion that having a
developed piece of property with lighting was a more secure circumstance than exists now or fencing
off the drive way because the police vehicles need the ability to get to the parking area. He did not feel
they were creating an attractive area for vagrants or people looking for inappropriate use of the parking
lot. The building will be occupied and there will be meetings there from time to time. It will be no
different than a residential use. This is zoned S-1 property and a special use is a contemplated use. A
church or religious life center is a contemplated use under the Ordinance in an S-1 classification. As he
had indicated earlier, the distinction between that and a variance application that they sought earlier is
that the Board, upon a showing of meeting statutory criteria, is obligated to grant the special use. The
variance is something that is purely discretionary because it is a request that the zoning classification
be changed. But the special use application does not do that. There is no evidence from which the
Board could conclude that they have not met the special use criteria that is considered in making the
review. They have made the commitment in their plans that the tree buffer along the west property
boundary remains and will be augmented. It is in compliance with the landscape ordinance imposed by
the City of Carmel. If it were developed residentially, there is no requirement that the tree line remain
or any landscaping other than what is typically installed in a residential subdivision. For the drainage
issue, as the Board knows, they cannot discharge water at a rate greater than exists in its undeveloped
state. The retention on sight and the discharge to a positive drain on 96th Street will have no impact on
the adjacent properties to the west. If there is a drainage problem now, they do not do anything to
address that. It is not something they will be utilizing. They will have to retain on site any water so that
the rate of flow exiting the property is identical to what it is in its undeveloped state. Finally, for the
width of the lot issue, they meet the Ordinance requirement by reason of the cul-de-sac that they
construct. They have the lot width required on a public thoroughfare to meet the Ordinance. It is not
measured off 96th Street. It is measured off the cul-de-sac that they have proposed to construct. It is not
an issue of this no longer being a 200-foot wide piece of property. The property remains its 135-foot
width, but the frontage on the cul-de-sac complies with the Ordinance.

The Public Hearing was closed.

Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The Department does generally recognize religious
uses as being compatible with residential uses. They typically do not generate as much traffic as retail
use or even an office use. They can provide a good buffer between a more intensive use and the less
intensive residential use. With regards to a couple of the comments made at this meeting, the parking
lot lights are required to be 90 percent downcast so that all the light would be contained within the lot.
The diagram submitted with the Petitioner’s report does indicate that the lights would be contained
within the lot. The Department made a further suggestion, with regard to the parking lot area, to work
with Scott Brewer to possibly install a kneewall or something similar that would also serve to block
headlights. It wouldn’t necessarily have an affect on security one way or the other, but it would also
help contain the site somewhat. It is planned for 96th Street to have a ten-foot multi-use separated path
                                                Page 7 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

on the Alternative Transportation Thoroughfare Plan. There is not a timeline for the installation. The
City is working to get the paths installed as quickly as possible. There is a sidewalk already existing
and the construction of the path would be required along the frontage of this site. It will be a step in the
direction of providing the necessary infrastructure for people walking to the facility. The Department
recommended positive consideration and felt religious uses are appropriate next to residential uses.

Mr. Broach was interested in the landscape buffer. In terms of what exists, will that be undisturbed?

Dennis Lockwood, Lockwood Design Associates, 10610 N. Park Avenue, Indianapolis. With regard to
the buffer along the west side of the property, during normal development and construction there will
be some loss of trees on the property to be able to put the parking lot and building in place. However,
the intent is to maintain as much of the undergrowth and trees along that property line as possible. Last
year prior to coming before this Board, they did a survey of the trees along that property line. The
majority of the undergrowth and the trees really are on the common area lot that is not on this parcel,
but to the west. A majority of that material will not be touched because it is not on this parcel. As far as
the new plantings for the buffer along the west side of the property that is going to buffer this parcel to
the residences along the west side, the Ordinance calls for a more dense planting of trees and shrubs, a
combination of ornamental and shade trees. They are putting in five shade trees, five ornamental trees
and twenty-seven shrubs every one hundred feet along that property line. That will be very dense
concentration of materials in addition to the existing material they will save and the material that is in
the common area to the west.

Mr. Broach asked if they considered any evergreens or will it be mostly deciduous. He thought the last
time this came before the Board, the Staff had recommended evergreens. He did not know if the Urban
Forester had reviewed and approved this plan.

Mrs. Barton-Holmes indicated the Urban Forester had approved this plan.

Mr. Lockwood stated the tree material, both ornamental and shade trees, will be deciduous varieties.
Several of the shrubs selected could be classified as in the evergreen family. He believed the
Ordinance made an allowance to address the amount of shrubs by putting in evergreens. They could
certainly look at replacing some of the shrubs with evergreens if that is desirable.

Mr. Broach had reviewed the minutes from the last time they discussed this matter and he thought
there was a sense that some evergreens might be useful to create a better visual buffer.

Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the Urban Forester had reviewed and approved this plan, but he is always
open to continuing to work with the Petitioner on any necessary modifications.

Mr. Coots stated that blending evergreens with what they had proposed would not be a problem. There
is only so much room. If an evergreen is requested, that gives year-round color as opposed to
deciduous trees; they would have no objection to working with the Urban Forester in an effort to
accomplish that, especially along the parking area.

Mr. Broach thought it seemed like the foot print had been reduced significantly by 4000 square feet.
Generally you may have alluded to this, but where did that come from? What was reduced? Did it
come out of the multi-use room?

                                                Page 8 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

Mr. Lockwood stated they basically reduced portions of the building, like putting it on a copy machine.
Part of the multi-use room was reduced, some of the classroom areas, and they had tried to make a
more compact design.

Mrs. Torres wanted to clarify when a special use is permitted. The one gentleman was talking about
the required lot width being 200 feet for the special use.

Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the way the site had been redesigned; they have a cul-de-sac which meets
the required limits. The radius of the cul-de-sac where the property frontage wraps around the bulb of
that cul-de-sac actually attains the necessary 200-foot frontage. The overall width of the site has not
changed, but because they are using the cul-de-sac which is going to be dedicated right-of-way, that’s
how they obtained the 200 feet.

Mrs. Torres asked if the last time the variance was for lot width.

Mr. Coots confirmed that and that it had been defeated. The special use was a no vote at 2-2.

Mrs. Torres asked if they would be open to the kneewall idea along the parking lot to provide more
buffering for the lights on the cars in the back parking lot. She did not know the height, but maybe they
could come to terms with the Department on the height to provide more buffering for the neighbors.

Mr. Lockwood stated they would be very willing to work with the Department on the buffering.

Mrs. Torres asked the height of the two light poles in the parking lot.

Mr. Lockwood stated they were twenty-foot poles including the base.

Mr. Hawkins wanted to verify there was no daycare or weekday school at this facility that could
become a traffic issue.

Rabbi Grossbaum, 1037 Golf Lane, Indianapolis. He wanted to thank everyone who spoke in support
of the project. For those who spoke against the project, he respected their opinions. At this time they
do not have a daycare and have no plans for a daycare. One of the gentlemen stated that he had spoken
with the City before purchasing his home and was told the area was residential. In the same way, they
had spoken with the City a few years ago before purchasing the property and were assured there was
not a problem.

Mr. Hawkins asked about the cul-de-sac. Was the City going to take it? Would it be a right-of-way or
would it be a dedicated road that the City would have the responsibility?

Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated it would become a dedicated right-of-way, so it would become part of the
City’s inventory of streets.

Mr. Broach asked if procedurally they had gone through TAC again this year and was drainage

Mr. Lockwood believed they were at the August TAC meeting. They will follow the drainage
                                               Page 9 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 07070012 SU, Lubavitch of Indiana with the
Commitments to continue working with the Department of Community Services on screening,
especially the parking lot screening, the knee wall along the parking lot and evergreens to block the
parking lot illumination. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0.

2I.              Westwood Estates Buffer Yard
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07080010 V            Section 26.04.04          Buffer yard in regulated drain easement
The sites are located at 2165 Renegade Court-2095 Renegade Court and are zoned S1/Single-family residential
Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for Justus Home Builders, Inc.

Tabled to the November 26, 2007 meeting.

3-4I.            North Meridian Medical Pavilion – Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07080011 V             Section 25.07.02-10           Number of signs facing ROW – Bldg. A.
Docket No. 07080012 V             Section 25.07.02-10           Number of signs facing ROW – Bldg. B.
The site is located at 12188 N. Meridian St., and is zoned B-6.
Filed by Doug Staley, Jr. of Staley Signs.

Tabled to the November 26, 2007 meeting.

J.      New Business

Legal Report: Mr. Molitor reported he had received word that the Court had rescheduled the trial for
Martin Marietta from May 2008 to October 20, 2008. He asked the Board members to please keep that
week clear on their calendars.

Department Report: Rachel Boone reminded the Board about the Hamilton Beverage signage variance.
They had requested signage larger than what was permitted for their site. They were doing a complete
remodel, moving the entrance to the store and cleaning up the property. They were permitted by
variance 75 square feet to face 116th Street and 50 square feet to face the interior parking area. The two
existing signs were cabinet signs and were both 50 square feet. That’s why the one on the interior was
allowed to continue at 50 square feet. The concern of the Department is that through the Special
Studies Committee they had been asked to consider doing the day/night plexiglas with the sign in color
during the day and illuminated white at night. The ADLS Amendment application was approved
providing they could prove the cost was not excessive for the day/night plex versus color during the
day and night. When they applied for their sign permit applications, she did not get a cost estimate for
day/night plex. So she has not approved the signs that are already installed. They have not provided the
cost analysis proving the installed signs should be allowed with color during the day and night. She has
asked for the cost analysis so that she could issue the permits. Hamilton Beverage legal counsel has
advised them against providing the analysis. She had given the Board cost analysis from a different
sign company indicating their cost to create both types of signs. To her, the cost was not that excessive
at about $1,000 difference. The original proposal is somewhat higher from the sign company that made
the erected signs. That company did not provide a cost for the day/night plex. How should the
Department proceed? The signs are up illegally.

                                                     Page 10 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

Mr. Hawkins personally felt they needed to be taken down until they were approved correctly.

Mr. Broach had a similar opinion. They had agreed with Special Studies to provide a cost analysis and
that is what they are violating by refusing to provide that?

Miss Boone stated they had been advised not to.

Mrs. Plavchak asked if the green and white sign that was installed was approved.

Miss Boone stated that it was approved by the Special Studies Committee providing the cost was not
excessive and they could prove that fact.

Mrs. Plavchak questioned that they did not do that and erected the sign they had originally planned.

Miss Boone stated that in the Letter of Grant, they had read that to say “the application for signage was
approved with the eagle logo using day/night plex that will shine white at night and show color during
the day providing the cost is not excessive.” They read that or interpreted that to be the eagle logo
only. When they go back to the minutes of the meeting, the discussion about the eagle logo was the
necessity of that statement in the Letter of Grant. This states that the sign is approved with the logo,
but the entire sign is to be the day/night plex. They thought that only the eagle had to be white. This
was their justification for going ahead and building the sign as it is. That was not the case and they did
not provide any cost analysis.

The Board asked about the options.

Mr. Molitor believed the City could enforce the Zoning Ordinance and take action for putting up the
sign without permit. They requested the permit and that might become an issue which ultimately could
come back to this Board as to whether or not the permit ought to be issued without the showing white
feature that was discussed by the Special Studies Committee. It is useful for the Department to get the
feedback from the Board as to whether the Board would prefer the Department to go ahead and take a
course of action at this time. That does not require a vote. The Department would have the authority
under present Ordinance for the sign being up without a permit to go ahead and take enforcement
action without a vote by this Board or the Plan Commission.

Mr. Hawkins believed if they did not provide what was needed and did not get appropriate permits,
then the Department should have whatever recourse it needs to ensure that the community’s interests
are served.

Mr. Broach agreed and did not feel the Department needed to come to the Board to enforce this. He
was in favor of vigorously enforcing the Ordinance and particularly in this case when there is open
defiance of the Special Studies Committee.
Mrs. Plavchak agreed. Was she correct in remembering that this was not an owner in this building, but
a tenant? Would there be any benefit in contacting the owner?

Mr. Molitor confirmed that. The City may want to pursue contacting the owner in conjunction with
taking an enforcement action.

                                               Page 11 of 12
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
October 22, 2007

Miss Boone thought the owner was aware they were in violation of what was approved. She had a
memo from the president of the sign company to Brad Rider, the owner of Hamilton Beverage, asking
the cost to fix the sign after it was already constructed. The memo was dated after the meeting. She
questioned if there would be any benefit to contacting the owner of the building/land, the Fineberg
Group. Mr. Rider had stated multiple times that the Fineberg Group was not interested in providing
any subsidiaries to help him in the improvements of the site. This was all done on the dime of
Hamilton Beverage and the property owner was not going to help with any improvements such as the
dumpster enclosure. She could definitely try.

Mrs. Plavchak felt it might be another avenue to explore.

Mr. Molitor stated he would discuss with the prosecuting office and the City Attorney’s office whether
they might wish to join the landowner in the enforcement action.

Mr. Hawkins asked if there were any fines associated with it and do they go with the land and the

Mr. Molitor stated the fines are against the unlawful use which then becomes a lien against the
property if they are not paid.

Miss Boone stated the Department could choose to exercise the option of charging them for having the
sign up without a permit, that is a per day cost and the sign has been up for months.

Mr. Hawkins did not know if they could do that retroactively.

Mr. Molitor stated it could be charged. It is a violation on a daily basis and each day constitutes a
separate violation under the Ordinance. It is up to the City Court Judge to determine whether or how
they will apply that.

Mr. Hawkins agreed with Mrs. Plavchak that the owner of the property should be contacted since it
would run with the property. They would have an interest to get the sign squared away, as well as the

K.        Adjournment

Mr. Broach moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM.

                                                                                             James R. Hawkins, President

Connie Tingley, Secretary

S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2007\20071022.rtf
                                                               Page 12 of 12

To top