Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 06-26-89 I i CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1989 1 The regular meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals 'was brought to order by Gilbert Kett, Chairman , on June 26, 1989 at the City Meeting Hall at 7: 10 P.M. . The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. The members present were: Gilbert Kett, Ila Badger and Hal Thompson and Jeff Davis. Jim Miller was absent. I The staff members present were: Wes Bucher, Rick Brandau, David Cunnningham, Terry Jones, Brad Buenig , student, Gordon Byers and Dorthy Neisler. Mrs.Badger moved to approve the minutes from the May 22, 1989 meeting . Mr. Thompson seconded . Approved PUBLIC HEARINGS 1g . 7:00 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. V 34-89 a Developmental Standards Variance Application for Dukemill Associates a Limited Partnership and their proposed buildings to be located on the east side of U.S.31 south of 126th St. , Carmel . Petitioner is requesting variances from sections 13.4.1 and 30. 5. 5 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the maximum height allowed to be 70 feet for any four-story building , B5 feet for any five,-story building , 100 feet for any six-story building which is given Development Plan and ADLS approval by the Plan Commission and to waive the one year time limit within which variances are granted must be implemented . Parcel is zoned, B-3. Filed by Philip A. Nicely , Attorney for Dukemill Associates a Limited Partnership. Mrs. Badger withdrew herself from this item as she is contemplating a position with one of these firms. The public hearing opened at 8:02 P.M. Mr. Philip Nicely , 8888 Keystone crossing , made presentation, a copy which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development. Aerial view, development site plan and a rendering of the building was shown . There were no comments from the public at this time. The public hearing was closed at 8:08 P.M. Mr. Davis questioned how tall will your 4 story building be? Mr. Mark Disney stated the building would be 69' . Mr. Kett read the staff recommendations (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy ) . Mr. Davis moved to approve Docket No V 34-89 as presented . ' CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1989 2 Mr. Thompson seconded Findings of facts were completed by all board members. Approved 3-0. 2g .and 3g . 7:00 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket Nos. SUA 43-89 a Special Use Amendment Application and SV 44-89 a Developmental Standards Sign Variance Application for Shell Oil Company and their existing gas station located at 1230 S. Range Line Rd . , Carmel . Petitioner is requesting to amend their Rd . , Carmel . Petitioner is requesting to amend their previously approved Special Use to allow additional signage. The proposed signage requires variances from sections 25.7 .04- la. ii , 25.7.04-laiii , and 25.7 .041a.v . of the Carmel/Clay Sign Ordinance. Parcel is zoned B-3. Filed by James L. Tuohy , Attorney for Shell Oil Company . The public hearing was opened at 7: 18 P.M. Mr. James Touhy , Attorney , 1 Indiana Square made presentation , a copy which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development. Mr.Hayes, District Engineer with Shell was present. Booklets were passed out to all board members. There were no comments from the public . The public hearing was closed at 7:29 P.M. . Staff recommendations were read by Gilbert Kett (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy ) . Mr. Brandau stated that he feels that when a signage package comes back through for a variance we feel that this warrants a Special Use Amendment. The structure now has two signs, both ground signs. They proposed special use prior to this. Mr . Touhy stated that the signage at a previous meeting was not to be disturbed . Under current shell standards they require 4 times more than what we are asking for . Mr. Kett questioned why was this not brought forward at last meeting? Mr. Touhy stated they were trying to get this done without requesting signage. Mrs. Badger complemented Mr . Hayes on their gas station but still cannot support the signage package by allowing signage to be put on the canopies. Mrs. Badger questioned if the sign complied with sign ordinance? Mr. Brandau stated that the food mart sign does comply with the sign ordinance. Mr. Davis expressed his feeling that the food mart does need to be CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1989 3 identified . Mr. Byers stated that petitioner has the right to request the committee to vote on this item as presented with respect to the Developmental Standard Variance and then secondly on the special use. The petitioner also has a right up until the time you vote to delete certain items and not come back before you to change it. It is fair to the petitioner that BZA knows that the petitioner does have the right for them to vote on it as presented . Mr. Touhy stated that the petitioner requested to amend petition to remove request for signage on canopy , but still request the food mart sign as stipulated in petition . Mr. Byers suggested for the record to make it clear that when you vote on the proposed findings of fact, you are voting on the proposed findings of fact as they relate to the food mart sign . Those findings of fact will then apply only to the Developmental Standard Variance on the food mart sign . Mrs. Badger moved to approved Docket No. SV 44-89 for the food mart sign only as amended by the petitioner. Mr.Jeff Davis seconded . Findings of facts were completed by all board members. Approved 4-0. Mrs. Badger moved to approve Docket No. SUA 43-89 Special Use Amendment as presented . Mr.Hal Thompson seconded . Approved 4-0. 4g . 7:00 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. SU 45-89 a Special Use Application' for Pilgrim Lutheran Church located at 10202 N. Meridian St. , Indpls. Petitioners are requesting special use approval to construct a total of 5, 548 square feet of additions on to the existing 15,021 square foot structure. Parcel is zoned B-5 and S-2. Filed by Pilgrim Lutheran Church. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED. 5g . 7:00 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. V 46-89 a Developmental Standards Variance Application for Eugene E.Butler and Julia A. Butler and their property located at 12252 Brompton Road , Carmel . Petitioners are requesting a variance from section 8.3. 2 of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the encroachment of a swimming pool and its apron/deck into the required rear yard . The swimming pool will encroach by one foot and the pool apron by four feet . Parcel is zoned R-2. Filed by E. Davis Coots, Attorney for Eugene E. Butler and Julia A. Butler. CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1989 4 The public hearing was opened at 7: 52 P.M. Mr. Gene Butler was present . Mr. E. Davis Coots, 255 E. Carmel Drive made presentation , a copy which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Mr. Kett noted staff comments (which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy ) . Mr. Coots stated the pool will be 9' from the rear of the property line, the apron would end up 5' from the rear property line. It will be a concrete deck around the perimeter of the pool . It does not encroach any easement. There were no comments from the public at this time. The public hearing closed at 7 : 58 P.M. Mrs. Badger questioned if the City Engineers concern for the beehive for the drainage to the pool been satisfied? Are proposing any slide and is there any drainage concern? Mr. Coots stated yes the City Engineers have been satisfied . Also, that there would not be any drainage problem. There will not be any swail drainage. Mr. Butler stated that there would not be a slide. Mrs. Badger moved to approve Docket No. V 46-89 as presented . Mr. Thompson seconded . Findings of facts were completed by all board members. Approved 4-0. 6g . 7:00 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. UV 47-89 an Use Variance Application for Dukemill Associates Limited Partnership and their property located west of U.S. 31 North of 126th, the portion of the proposed Hamilton Crossing zoned B-5. Petitioners are requesting a variance form section 16. 1 , the B-5 zoning classification , of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow tenant usage other than those permitted within the B-5 zone. Parcel is zoned B-5. Filed by Philip A. Nicely , Attorney for Dukemill Associates Limited Partnership. The public hearing was opened at 8: 11 . Mr. Philip Nicely , 8888 Keystone Crossing made a presentation , a copy which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development. Mr. Mark Disney of Dukemill Associates was present . An aerial view, preliminary site plan for east side and rendering was shown . There were no comments from the public. The public hearing was closed at 8:26 P.M. Mr. Kett questioned the products sold and the tenants that the CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1989 5 petitioner is contemplating no use of machinery , such as forklift. Mr. Nicely stated that the tenants they are contemplating will not be any retail businesses. Mr. Kett read the staff recommendations (whi,ch is part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy ) . Mr. Rick Brandau stated that there are several issues on this. thing , first we understand market is tough for this type of facility . The building itself could be established immediately they could come in for a building permit say it is going to be used for general and professional office and built identical to the way it was proposed . It is matter of the uses within it . The staff objects to the approach they are taking , the degree to the uses in this building and the enforcement ability of a tenant . Staff cannot agree and come up with a good solution. Mr. Byers stated that Mr. Brandau has stated the concerns of the staff and Mr . Nicely addressed the problem. Without trying to seem in favor or against our problem is as Mr. Nicley stated Ancillaries uses generally capitures for office building , etc. were generally not a problem. When we get into flex space we have a problem. He has correctly stated a few things; if we go through the legislative process, the trouble we don ' t have a ordinance that it will fit under. Also, the end zoning kicks up even though it allows this it is higher intensity . We are forced into a higher intensity of land use to pick up these incidental accessory uses. My suggestion is that in many instances use variances are allowed because they are defined by statue in Indiana. Here the petitioner in any variances can generate on his own any created conditions, which they have done to define the uses and they have also generated other conditions that in a sense create their own set of developmental standards. They have said we will tie it to use but we may do some other things that would probably in a strict interpretation accessories that are ' incidental and usually a subordinated to the principle use, in this case are not logically follow but here are the conditions or limiters that we are going to suggest . The decision rest with you the Board of Zoning Appeals. I do agree with Rick that as a general rule that Use Variances are usually closely scrutinized . Mr . Davis stated that this strictly regulated modification 'of this zone is appropriate. Mr. Kett stated that this may open this up to more of an industrial use. Mr. Nicely stated that are going to be careful of tenants that they are going to lease to. Mr. Brandau stated that chemicals is a valid concern , feels that should be part of the motion . Mr .Davis moved to approved Docket N0. UV 47-89 with the limitations as presented . Mr.Thompson seconded . Mr. Kett stated his concern on this particular type use. Feels the CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1989 6 staff and petitoner should discuss this further . Mr. Nicely stated that conceptually he does not feel the staff completely objects. Staff is more concerned with procedure rather than with use. Mr. Nicely does not feel that a delay is going to make any difference. Mr. Brandau stated that my concern is that one loophole may just be able to get through by a technicality . Mr . Byers questioned what is the loophole? Mr. Brandau stated the truck traffic is a big concern , the esthetics, the ability of the roads to handle this, and the residential . There is a B-2 zone right next to it . Mr. Davis questioned the street concerns. Is this street being built to different standards as to the other streets? Mr. Brandau stated that this is a private street put in by Dukemill . The enforcement issue I do not recall making the statement they we were to busy , there are certain things that take precedent and we are not neglect in any manner of law enforcement of the code. Findings of facts were completed by all board members. Approved 3-0. 7g. and 8g . 7:00 Public Hearing on Docket Nos. SV 48-89 and SV 49-89 Developmental Standards Sign Variance Applications for Blockbuster Video located at 536 E. Carmel Dr. , Carmel . Petitioner is requesting variances from sections 25. 7.04- 1 ( c) iii and 25. 7.04-1 ( c )vi . to allow signage that exceeds the maximum allowable sign area and does not comply with the unified center requirements set by the Carmel /Clay Sign Ordinance. Parcel is zoned B-B. Filed by Douglas B. Floyd , Attorney for Blockbuster Video. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED. 9g. 7:00 P.M. , Public Hearing on Docket No. SV 50-89 a Developmental Standards Sign Variance Application for the C.P.Morgan Investment Co. , Inc. and their development "Carmel Office Court" located between Carmel Drive and Medical Drive. Petitioner is requesting a variance from section 25. 7.04-1d of the Carmel/Clay Sign Ordinance to allow two separate directory signs. Parcel is zoned B-8. Filed by Mark Boyce for The C.P. Morgan Investment Co. , Inc. The public hearing was opened at 8: 55 P.M. Mr. Mark Boyce„ C.P. Morgan Co. , made presentation , a copy which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development. The notices were presented 30 days in advance to both newspapers and CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1989 7 it did not appear in the Carmel paper. Mr. Byers stated that state law requires publication at least 10 days prior in one circulated newspaper . They have complied and ' should be allowed to go ahead . A development plan , landscape plan and signage plan was shown . There were no comments from the public. The public hearing was closed at 9:01 P.M. Mr. Thompson moved to approve Docket No. SV 50-89 as presented . Mrs. Badger seconded . Findings of fact were completed by all board members. Approved 4-0. Mr. Kett moved to adjourn meeting at 9:02. Seconded . Chairman Secretary