Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 06-26-00 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF CARMEL, CLAY TOWNSHIP JUNE 26, 2000 40f. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM on June 26, 2000 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak; Pat Rice; and Charles Weinkauf. Laurence Lillig and Terry Jones were present representing the Department of Community Services. The minutes for the April meeting and the May meeting were approved as submitted. H. Public Hearing: lh. Old Town Apartments (V-48-00) Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 16.4,8: Minimum Ground Floor Area to allow units in a multiple -family dwelling to e smaller than 800 square feet. The site is located at 751 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-5/Business. Filed by William E. Wendling, Jr. of Campbell Kyle Proffitt for PAR Enterprises. NOTE: Item lh. was heard together with the following item: Old Town Barber Shop (UV-61-99) (li. under Old Business) Petitioner seeks approval of a Use Variance of Section 16.1:Permitted Uses in order to establish a barber shop in an existing residential structure. The site is located at 751 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-5Busines. Filed by Pat Robinson of PAR Enterprises. Todd Reutz of Campbell Kyle Proffitt appeared before the Board representing Pat Robinson, applicant for the Old Town Apartments and the Barber Shop. Mr. Reutz provided drawings of the apartment units. The two ground floor units consist of 467 square feet; the two upstairs units consist of 422 square feet. The property has been used for a four-plex dwelling unit for the last 13 years. Without the requested variance, the property would have to be re-structured and the benefit to the property and its residents would be lost if it could not continue being a four-plex dwelling. Mr. Reutz commented that the apartments are well maintained and offer housing for individuals who could not otherwise afford the cost of an 800 square foot unit in Carmel. The Department has recommended a favorable consideration providing the apartments are not further reduced in size or that the property not exceed four units. Mr. Robinson s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 1 assured the Board that it was not his intention to ever decrease the size of the units or ever increase the number of units on this site. In regard to the Barber Shop,the location is a small, accessory building at 751 North Rangeline Road and was previously used as a sign shop. It is believed that the barber shop will be compatible with the purposes of the B-5 Business district. Within this area on Rangeline Road,there are several businesses: insurance offices, photo studio, restaurants, dental offices, an existing barber shop, and a flower shop. The applicant feels that the proposed barber shop will be more aesthetically pleasing than the sign shop previously operated from this site. The property to the immediate north is zoned B-3, and the traffic generated by the barber shop would be no greater than its previous use. There are two parking spaces between the buildings, and various parking spaces in the existing parking lot. There will be no additional parking spaces provided that will take up any existing green space on the property. The proposed use will be equal to or greater than the previous use, and the new remodeling and improvements will be more aesthetically attractive as well. There will be windows added, overhead garage doors removed, stucco-type brick on the exterior, and large windows in the front. There is an existing barber shop south of the proposed facility on Rangeline Road. As indicated, the proposed barber shop is believed to be in keeping with the zoning district. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to these two petitions; no one appeared. Laurence Lilllig reported that the Department is recommending that the petition for the square footage on the apartment be approved with conditions that none of the existing apartments will be further reduced in size; currently 467 square feet for the units downstairs, 422 for the upstairs apartments. Further, conditioned on the total number of apartments on site not to exceed that which currently exists (4). In regard to the Barber Shop, the Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition. Pat Rice questioned whether or not the use would continue with any and all subsequent owners or if approval would apply only to this particular petitioner. Also, would the size requirement be specified at 800 square feet with any subsequent owner? Laurence Lillig responded that the use approval would be granted to the property itself and not the owner. Pat Rice then recommended that any approval be granted to the present owner only and not to subsequent owners without coming into compliance with the Ordinance. Pat also asked about the number of parking spaces required and the number of spaces available. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 2 • Laurence Lillig reported that the site plan shows 11 parking spaces; multi-family use requires 2 spaces per dwelling unit;therefore 8 spaces would be allocated for the multi- family use and the barber shop would require 3 spaces, or one space for every 300 square feet of floor area. Mr. Reutz stated that the church parking lot is not being utilized for any parking spaces. The spaces will be marked and lined. Pat Robinson, 3277 Smokey Ridge Circle, Carmel, stated that the parking spaces were designed in accordance with Carmel's requirements, 9 feet for the width of a car and 20 feet long, or 10 feet wide and 18 feet long. Subtracting the stairs, 7 or 8 feet, and the cement or steel posts that protect the stairs, there is excess space available of 11 or 12 feet. Leo Dierckman questioned the rationale for the Department report. Laurence Lillig explained that the Use Variance is a pre-existing, non-conforming use that has been in place for approximately 14 years. The Department's position is that so long as the use is not intensified, there is no issue at hand. In terms of the barber shop in the B-5 district, there are other businesses and residential uses, and a barber shop would not necessarily be an appropriate use in the residential district. In response to questions from Mr. Weinkauf, Pat Robinson stated that the barber shop would consist of 3 chairs. Mr. Weinkauf commented that there should be a minimum of 9 parking spaces, one per chair and two waiting per chair. There is concern for adequate parking spaces for the tenants first and the business second. Laurence Lillig stated that the Ordinance requires 11 parking spaces, 8 for the apartments, 3 for the business. Mr. Robinson explained the parking. The number of cars waiting for the barber shop would be readily visible and people would not park and go in but would return later. At night, the spaces are utilized for the residents; during the day, the spaces will be utilized for the barber shop business. The barber shop is never open after 5:00 PM, however, they would be open on Saturdays. Mr. Robinson stated that there is also on-street parking available. Following up on a question asked by Pat Rice, Earlene Plavchak asked if approval would be to the owner or with the land. John Molitor pointed out that there would probably be some constitutional difficulties with making a variance or special use approval personal to the particular owner because it would restrict the ability of the property to be sold. Generally speaking, the courts do not like to see any restraints on the ability of real estate to be bought and sold. There would be other ways to approach it, such as limitations on further remodeling or a time frame specified to allow the property to be remodeled and brought into compliance with the ordinance. • s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 3 Todd Reutz agreed with Mr. Molitor's comments and did not want to see a restriction on Mr. Robertson's investment by placing limitations on him that would prevent him from selling it as an investment piece of property if he should choose to do so. Michael Mohr asked about the conditions in the Department's report; John Molitor responded that the conditions are reasonable because they require no further investment in the property. Ms. Rice commented that she still had an issue with the safety factor and traffic coming and going. Ms. Rice agreed with Mr. Molitor's comments that if the building were ever remodeled, it would be brought into compliance with the ordinance at that time. Mr. Reutz registered no objection. Mr. Robinson is not intending to remodel the building in order to increase its size, the number of units, or diminish further the size of the units. Ms. Rice was specific that the remodeling referred to interior work--not aluminum siding, shingles, roofing, etc. Mr. Weinkauf commented that it was bothersome to know that there are other apartment units in the area that do not meet the 800 square foot minimum requirements in a single family type building. It was still a concern how this particular apartment building "slipped through the cracks." Todd Reutz suggested that the Carmel zoning ordinance discriminates against persons who work in Carmel but cannot afford 800 square foot homes. There must be some housing for persons who work at McDonald's or other restaurants, who live and want to work in the community. 800 square foot dwelling units are very expensive in Carmel. The petitioner is asking for favorable consideration of any and all facets of his petition. Mr. Weinkauf took exception to accusations of discrimination by the Board and cautioned the petitioner. If the petitioner has a problem with the Ordinance as written, he needs to appear before the body that has the power to change the Ordinance. Earlene Plavchak suggested a time limit that Mr. Robinson could expect to recoup his investment. The property either needs to come back before the Board for a review of the Variance or come into compliance within 10 years. Putting a limit on remodeling is to the detriment of the tenants. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V-48-00,with the following conditions: 1) none of the existing apartments shall be further reduced in size; 2) the total number of apartments on site shall not exceed the current number (4); and 3) the petitioner shall be required to return to the Board in 10 years so that the then owner of the property will be required to seek a new variance. Mr. Robinson then responded to the motion and questioned the rationale that he should be required to come before the Board every 10 years to renew his "license" and no one s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 4 else does. Or, does the Board intend to require everyone else up and down Main Street and Rangeline Road to appear before the Board. Mr. Robinson asked for further clarification, because he was aware of"hundreds" of owners of apartments in the area that are not in compliance with the ordinance. Michael Mohr responded to Mr. Robinson's comments; if this truly is the situation, perhaps the Department should investigate and determine exactly who is not in compliance with the ordinance. Perhaps those people should be brought in and each instance addressed. From a time period standpoint, it probably should be a shorter period of time. Mr. Weinkauf commented that if what Mr. Robinson says is true about the many other apartments that are not in compliance, perhaps it needs to be the responsibility of the Department to find out how many exist and where they are. However, whatever decision is made here is not precedent setting. Leo Dierckman then amended his motion to allow for a 5 year time frame for the petitioner to return to the Board rather than 10 years; the motion, as amended, was seconded by Michael Mohr. The petitioner stated a willingness to comply with the 5 year time frame to return to the Board for a variance and agreed to submit such a statement in writing to the Board. The public hearing was then closed. The vote on Leo Dierckman's motion on V-48-00, with conditions specified, as amended, was APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. In light of the discussion that referred to other property owners in the area that are not in compliance, John Molitor offered to draft a letter to the Task Force for the Old Towne area requesting that they consider some provisions in drafting Ordinances to ensure that all properties within the area are brought into conformance with the standards imposed on this particular petition. The Board concurred. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of UV-61-99, Old Town Barber Shop. The MOTION was DENIED, One in favor, (Michael Mohr) and 4 opposed (Leo Dierckman, Earlene Plavchak, Pat Rice, Charles Weinkauf.) 2h-4h. Telamon Signage(V-49-00; V 50-00; V-51-00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02-8(b); Number & Type to increase from zero signs to one; 25.7.02-8(d):Maximum Height of Ground Sign to allow an increase in height from 6' to 10' and 25.7.01- 4(l) to allow an off-premise sign. The site is located at 1000 East 116th Street. The site is zoned M-3/Manufactguring. Filed by Larry Rodeman of the Telamon Corporation s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 5 John Thomas of Land Design Services, 5665 Grandview Drive, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board as consultant to Telamon. Larry Rodeman of the Telamon Corporation was also in attendance. A variance is being requested to allow a sign to be constructed on 116th Street; the design and graphics of the sign were displayed on the overhead projector. Three variances are being requested. 1)to allow the number of signs to be increased; 2)to allow the signage to be increased in height from 6 feet to 10 feet; and 3)to allow signage on an off-site location--the signage will be located on the west side of the entrance road to Telamon Corporation. The sign will be set within a landscaped pool area with a fountain on a mound that is set 17 feet back from the proposed 80 foot right-of-way for 116th Street. One of the difficulties with the present location of Telamon is the 300 foot setback from 116th Street- -no one knows their location. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to any or all of these petitions; no one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending favorable consideration of each of the petitions. Ms. Rice asked for further description of the sign. Mr. Thomas responded that the sign is a sculptured metal, stainless steel cylinder and the red bars symbolize a "T" for Telamon. The sign itself is a cylinder that is basically 30 inches in diameter and the bars flow. The sign itself is not lit; however, there are two flood lights hidden in landscape rocks that will shine on the name "Telamon" only. Michael Mohr asked if the signage contained the company logo and color scheme or is this merely for signage purposes only. Larry Rodeman of Telamon Corporation, appeared before the Board and clarified the signage. The Telamon corporate colors are blue and white, the colors in the sign are decorative only. The bars across the top are indicative of wave links to coincide with communications, the business of Telamon. Leo Dierckman commented that the Plan Commission committee had looked at signage for Telamon. The reality is that although the sign is different, it is very creative and the total landscaping adds to the aesthetics. The signage is attractive and a work of art. Charles Weinkauf asked where ground level is in relation to the sign. Mr. Thomas responded that the 10 foot elevation is from the top of the sign, actually 6 feet tall, and the berm the sign is setting on is approximately 4 feet above 116th Street. The public hearings were then closed. s:\BZA\Minuteslbza2000june 6 • Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of V-49-00, APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V-50-00, APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V-51-00, APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. 5h. Springwood, Lots 1 & 6 (V-52-00 Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.2.1 to increase the height of a front yard fence from 3'6" to 6'6". The site is located at 414 & 415 Springwood Way. The site is zoned S-2/Residence. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson&Frankenberger for SCM Development. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also present on behalf of SCM Development is Curt Albertson. On March 21d, the Carmel Plan Commission unanimously approved a primary plat application for a small residential community to be known as Springwood, located west of and adjacent to Springmill Road, north of its intersection with West 126th Street. Residents of the area appeared at the public hearing and spoke favorably on behalf of the request. Also, the six planned lots have now all been reserved. From its inception, Springwood was planned as a private enclave of large homes on estate size lots. In keeping with the plan, the primary plat provides for the division of the 13 acres into 6 residential lots; the minimum lot size is 1.5 acres,the largest is 3 plus acres in size. Access to Springwood is from a single cut off of Springmill Road leading into Springwood by way of a private, one lane drive which includes in the center substantial landscaping and water features. An important component of the entrance that includes an electronically controlled, wrought-iron gate, is a brick screen wall that runs parallel and adjacent to Springmill Road. The front elevation of the screen wall is proposed to be 6 feet six inches high and composed of all brick material. Screen walls of this particular type are common to residential communities in western Clay Township such as Laurelwood, Winterwood, Windermere, and Walnut Creek Woods, as well as several individual estates with screen wall treatments. The screen wall assures privacy to the residents of Springwood and particularly those residences who will build homes on lots 1 and 6, since these lots are nearest Springmill Road. The screen wall also offers identification. Section 25.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that on residentially zoned lots less than two acres in size, fences located within a required front yard shall not exceed 42 inches or s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 7 3 feet 6 inches in height. The screen wall is located on lots 1 and 6. Under a strict application of the zoning ordinance, lots 1 and 6 both enjoy road frontage on both the private drive serving the development as well as Springmill Road. They are viewed as corner lots having two front yards: one on the entry drive, and one on Springmill Road. Last week, the Plan Commission approved a variance from the Subdivision Control Ordinance that would permit the homes on lot 1 and lot 6, as always intended, to front the entrance drive. The petitioner is requesting approval at this time. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to this petition; no one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the height of the screen wall is contrary to the Subdivision Control Ordinance and the Department recommends negative consideration. Four years ago,the Department was directed to create an ordinance that would essentially eliminate large fences and screen walls on major thoroughfares in Cannel and Clay Township, known as the Frontage Place Ordinance, No. Z-318. With that particular ordinance in mind, the Department is of the opinion that this is contrary to the purpose of the ordinance and recommends negative consideration. Pat Rice commented that it is the Board's job to make exceptions wherever appropriate, and since this is a side yard rather than frontage, would it not fit within an exception? Laurence Lillig responded that the Frontage Place Ordinance set up a situation wherein houses on corner lots would front on a thoroughfare of greater functional classification and then have access off the side road (in this case, the private street.) In order to begin a process of halting the progress of large screen walls through Carmel's and Clay Township's major thoroughfares. As an alternative, the option was left open to place a 50 foot landscape buffer between the right-of-way of the major thoroughfare and the first residential lot. The petitioner in this case elected to apply for a subdivision waiver rather than install a 50 foot landscape buffer in between the first lot and the right-of-way. The Plan Commission granted the subdivision waiver. As an alternative, the screen walls could be placed to the back of the 50 foot landscape buffer, maintaining a greenway along the major thoroughfares. The Department feels that the proposal is contrary to the ordinance. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V-52-00, Springwood, Lots 1 & 6. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. 6h-8h. East 96u` Street Auto Park, Lots 1, 2, & 3 (SU-53-00; SU 54-00; SU-55-00) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval for an automobile dealership on each of three lots. The site is located northwest of East 96th Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson&Frankenberger for DYC Realty. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 8 • Charles Frankenberger of Nelson &Frankenberger appeared before the Board representing DYC Realty, Tom O'Brien, and Tom Wood in connection with their request for Special Uses to permit automobile sales and service on a parcel of real estate located on the north side of the East 96th Street commercial corridor. Among those also present were Al Young, Tom O'Brien, and Larry Hyde on behalf of Tom Wood. Approval is being requested for Special Uses; the petitioner will return to the Board in July for Sign Variances. The petitioner will also be appearing before the Plan Commission in July for plat approval. The subject real estate is bordered on the south by 96th Street, on the east by Gray Road, and farther west, by Keystone Avenue. DYC Realty is the owner of the west parcel, a floodway in between, and the east parcel and consists of approximately 40 acres. The entire parcel is being platted; however, the request for Special Use is only for the eastern parcel. Other uses in the vicinity include mining operations, Williamson Run residential community, Palmer Dodge, H.H.Gregg headquarters, office uses in the Precedent Office Park, and other car dealerships located on the north and south sides of 96th Street, including Tom Wood, World Wide Motors, and Dan Young. The real estate along 96th Street is zoned B-3/Business district. The permitted uses in this area are special uses requiring Board of Zoning Appeals approval. The Special Use approval being requested this evening is for automobile sales and service and is among the permitted special uses in the B-3 district. The site is divided into three lots, in the center of which is an access road. Lot 1 will be occupied by Tom Wood Lexus; Lot 2 will be occupied by Tom O'Brien; and the back parcel will remain titled in the name of DYC Realty. After obtaining Special Use Approvals, Tom O'Brien and Tom Wood will commence construction of their dealerships. Unlike Tom Wood and Tom O'Brien, DYC Realty does not intend to immediately improve its site for automobile sales and service. DYC Realty at this time is requesting Use Approval only and will return to the Board for building and site approval. The plans for the building for the back parcel are not yet known. In an effort to build cooperation and consensus, the Williamson Run Homeowners Association and the petitioner have arrived at certain commitments. As a result of the commitments, the Williamson Run Homeowners Association supports the proposed Special Use. One of the commitments pertains to the western parcel, west of Carmel Creek(not a part of this request for Special Use.) The owner of this parcel has committed to use restrictions prohibiting retail on the western parcel but permitting general forms of office use. There are also commitments regarding substantial landscaping and mounding. The owner has committed to a 50 foot greenbelt area where the real estate abuts Williamson s:\13ZA\Minutes\bza2000june 9 Run common area. Within the 50 foot greenbelt will be mounding between 4 feet and 6 feet in height. Three, 25 feet, long live Pine Trees will be installed in this greenbelt area. Commitments regarding the eastern parcel, east of Carmel Creek and the subject of this request, have also been made. The landscaping plan shown features two changes not shown in the informational brochure. First,the floodway delineation plans approved by DNR permitted a 15 foot tree preservation area along the northern boundary of the floodway, and immediately below it to the south a 15 foot transition yard. Secondly, the Williamson Run Homeowners Association agreed that mounding on the east side of Carmel Creek provided little in terms of screening. More effective screening would be provided in the form of additional landscaping along the diagonal. Other commitments pertaining to the eastern parcel east of Carmel Creek include the commitment that there will never be any parking, asphalt, or lighting within the greenway area. Additionally, there are commitments that place restrictions on lighting, noise, and hours of operation. Through the commitments and through working together with the Williamson Run Homeowners Association and the applicants, there is established consensus. The lighting plan and sample fixtures are included in the informational brochures and are designed to minimize spillover and intensity of lighting at the boundary lines. The lighting plan has also been reviewed by the Williamson Run Homeowners Association. Mr. Frankenberger discussed the elevation of the buildings. The front of the Tom Wood/Lexus building will be a dryvit material and glass; the sides will be painted, concrete masonry. The east and west elevations of the Tom O'Brien building are identical. Again, the front of the building will be dryvit and glass, and sides will be concrete block and metal panels. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of these petitions. The following appeared: Michael Keller, 3710 Bauer Drive, Williamson Run Subdivision, appeared before the Board as a member of the Board of Directors of Williamson Run Homeowners Association. The Williamson Run Homeowners has worked with the applicants and have met with them on numerous occasions. Negotiations were conducted and an Agreement has been made between the applicant and the Homeowners Association. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to these petitions. No one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the Primary Plat for this subdivision was on the Technical Advisory Committee Agenda last Wednesday. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the special Use petitions conditioned upon the satisfactory resolution of any outstanding TAC concerns and upon Plan Commission's approval of the Primary Plat. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 10 • Pat Rice commented that in terms of appearance of the buildings on the north side of 96th Street, the buildings have a fairly "corporate" look. Are the proposed buildings to have a similar look or will they look like an automobile dealership, each one different, with the building itself becoming a logo. Charles Frankenberger responded that the front of each building faces south. The buildings are dryvit material with glass around the showroom. Laurence Lillig clarified that the only reason this petition will be heard at the Plan Commission level is for Primary Plat approval. There will be no other opportunity to necessarily review the site plans or architecture at that time--it is simply a platting issue at that point. Pat Rice felt that the Board should be able to actually see what they are approving and certainly the building materials used on the buildings are important. There are different sizes and blocks that can be used--some of it does look like brick--and given the rest of the corridor, the Board would like to see what it will look like. Charlie Frankenberger stated that according to the architect,the exterior building materials on the south elevation would be dryvit and glass; however, samples of the materials are not available this evening. The renderings are how the buildings will appear from 96th Street. The buildings would be built consistently with what is shown on the renderings. Charlie Frankenberger voiced his understanding that there are no architectural standards in the B-3 district. For further clarification, Laurence Lillig confirmed that B-3 zoning does not require ADLS review or Development Plan approval. Pat Rice's position was that either the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Plan Commission has the responsibility for the type of buildings that will be agreed to. Charles Weinkauf commented that the dealerships in question are both of very high quality--the current Tom Wood/Lexus dealership is one of the finer looking automobile dealerships. It is inconceivable that they would be doing something of lesser quality with a new facility. Mr. Weinkauf did not feel it was the Board's responsibility to review the actual building materials. Randy Remenschneider, architect, appeared before the Board to clarify the building materials. Dryvit is the brand name of a product and describes a particular manufacturers' product, essentially a stucco-type material, synthetic, and includes cement in it. It does have a stucco-like appearance and is used in residences and a lot of commercial buildings. Dryvit is a building material very much in use today and does have a pleasant appearance. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 11 Leo Dierckman asked if the petitioner were willing to allow the site plan and the building design to go before Plan Commission review process as a part of the plat. The site plan and building motif, etc. could be reviewed by the Plan Commission. Mr. Molitor was in agreement with the provision and no objection was made by the petitioner. Leo Dierckman asked if the HOA Board of Williamson Run had voted on the petitions and whether or not the actual homeowners had seen the proposed buildings. Mr. Keller responded that due to the regulations of the Board of Williamson Run, it is the Board's consensus to approve it and is not a general vote from the homeowners. However, this was presented at the annual Homeowners Association meeting, and the plan was welcomed with approval. (Approximately 35/40 persons attended the homeowners meeting out of 172 homeowners.) Leo also asked if approval could be held up for the third parcel that has nothing proposed thus far or are all three parcels required to be approved at one time? Laurence Lillig explained that the reason parcel three is before the Board at this time is because the access drive for all three parcels is contained entirely on lot three. The Board would essentially be giving the petitioner approval to go ahead with that phase. Once it was established what would be going in on that parcel, the petitioner would return for a Special Use Amendment. The public hearing was then closed. Leo Dierckman moved for approval of SU-53-00. APPROVED five in favor, none opposed. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of SU-54-00. APPROVED five in favor, none opposed. Michael Mohr moved for the approval of SU-55-00. APPROVED five in favor, none opposed. Special Note: Approval is subject to the Plan Commission review process, as previously stated. 9h. Brooks Landing at Prairie View, Section 1,Lot 3 (V-56-00) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 5.4.2 to decrease the front yard setback from 40 feet to 15 feet. The site is located at 6905 Longest Drive. The site is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Jose Kreutz of BDC/Cardinal Investments, LLC. Jose Kreutz, Vice President of Operations for Brenwick Development Company, 12722 Hamilton Crossing Boulevard, Carmel, appeared before the Board on behalf of the s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 12 applicant. Approval is being requested for a Developmental Standards Variance to allow a decrease in the front yard setback on Lot 3, Section of Brooks Landing, a portion of the Prairie View project. Lot 3 lies specifically at the termination point of Longest Drive, an extension of 131' Street, east of the round-a-bout at River Road. The request is to reduce the front yard setback on one of the two sides of lot 3, a corner lot, and required by Ordinance to meet requirements on both streets fronting the lot. Admittedly, this situation is a self-inflicted wound through a series of mistakes on Brenwick's part. At this time, the petitioner is requesting that the 40 foot setback on the north side of the lot be reduced to 15 feet for three reasons. The lot lies at the end of a public street. Longest Drive terminates and become an extension of the driveway into the golf course along White River. The lot is surrounded by asphalt on three sides, and is partially wooded. The purpose of reducing the front yard setback on one side would be to rotate the house at such an angle that it would provide the termination point to the road. A reduction in the front yard setback would not endanger the health and welfare of the owner of the lot--the intended owner would like to erect a fence along the private drive that borders lot 3 to the north. Denying the petition would result in the home being setback farther and therefore reduce the number of trees remaining on the lot at the completion of construction of the home. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Harry Boyce, 6899 Longest Drive, adjacent to lot 3, appeared before the Board and voiced a strong objection to altering the setbacks for several reasons. Mr. Boyce was not in favor of adjusting a setback site in order to accommodate a building property. This particular lot is probably the worst lot in Brooks Landing, the most expensive subdivision in Prairie View, to be that close to the street. The road bends to enter the golf course and having a portion of the building within 10 to 15 feet of the street compromises the aesthetic appearance of that section of the subdivision as well as have some potential financial ramifications in terms of the desirability of adjoining properties. Also, due to the traffic in this particular location at the severe bend in the road, a building close to the street would impose a real hazard. Rebuttal: Jose Kreutz referred to the drawing. The intent is to construct a home as closely to the footprint of lot 2 as possible. The intended owner of the home is proposing to build a structure of the same caliber as the neighboring homes, but it is difficult to do so with the current, front setbacks and easement on one side. As to the traffic issue, the intended homeowner would like to install a continuing iron fence at the termination of the curb on Longest Drive. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 13 Mr. Boyce was given an opportunity to answer which was more important to him, preserving the trees on the building site or the positioning of the home. Mr. Boyce responded that protection of the trees would be given a slight priority, but he would really like to see a design that could accommodate saving as many trees as possible and complying with the setbacks. It would be a fairly unique design, but errors in planning are not justification to compromise. Charles Weinkauf asked the petitioner to return to the Board with various options for further consideration, and the home super-imposed on the site. The petitioner was asked to consider tabling to the July meeting. The petitioner is willing to comply. Brooks Landing at Prairie View, section 1, Lot 3 (V-56-00)was TABLED to the July meeting. Clarification from the Department: As originally platted under the Cluster Ordinance, a reduction in the front yard setback was allowed from 40 feet to 30 feet. The variance is actually for a 40 foot front yard. The petition, as read, is correct. l0h. Faith Apostolic Church Expansion (SUA-57-00) Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use Amendment in order to expand the existing church from 6334 square feet to 15,554 square feet on 4.22 acres. The site is located at 1212 East 116th Street. The site is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by Pastor Matthew D. Ball of Apostolic Faith Church. Matthew Ball, pastor of Faith Apostolic Church, 1212 East 116th Street, Carmel, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. The ministry of the Church has been expanding consistently and the physical facilities need expansion as well. The proposed addition will be termed the "Family Activity Center" and will provide more classroom space, recreational areas, kitchen facilities, and additional office space. All adjacent landowners have been notified by certified mail and informational packets have been submitted to the Board. Mr. Ball stated that the expansion will not adversely affect the adjoining neighbors. It is over 135 feet to the nearest residence and separated from all adjacent property owners by dense trees and other vegetation. The proposed addition will complement and blend in with the existing facility, with matching decor, brick, and landscaping. As can be seen, it is an attractive building and an enhancement to the area. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that this particular petition was reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee on June 21st. The Department is recommending favorable consideration, conditioned upon satisfactory resolution of any outstanding TAC concerns. sXBZA\Minutes\b7a9 000june 14 Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of SUA-57-00. APPROVED (subject to TAC concerns) 5 in favor, none opposed. 11h. Asherwood Golf Course Expansion (SUA-58-00) Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use Amendment in order to expand the existing Asherwood golf course onto adjoining property. The site is located at 9950 Ditch Road. The site is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson&Frankenberger for M&B Associates. Jim Nelson, attorney, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing Melvin and Brenda Simon. Also present was Aaron Cohen, consultant to the Simons, and Nola Albrecht, landscape architect with Schneider Engineering. In February, 2000, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted to the Simons a Special Use Amendment approval. The approval provided for the expansion of the private Asherwood Golf Course onto the 9 acre parcel of real estate south of and adjacent to Asherwood, west of and adjacent to Ditch Road, and immediately south of greens No. 1 and 10. The approved plans provided for the construction of a single entrance, golf chalet, and 8 golf greens providing for an 18 hole short, or executive style, course. At that time, the application was supported by the nearest residents of Deerfield, with conditions specified in a letter agreed to by the petitioner. The letter with conditions specified is being re-introduced at this time for the purpose of re-affirming as to the additional real estate, the commitments made with the adjacent neighbors. As a part of the February approval, the petitioner agreed to dedicate to the County Highway Department additional right-of-way adjacent to the Lundeen real estate. This dedication has been completed and a deed presented to the County Commissioners for acceptance. This evening's Amendment application involves the parcel of real estate immediately south of the Lundeen parcel commonly referred to as the Grossman parcel and is 7 acres in size, located at 9900 Ditch Road. The request is to combine the Lundeen and Grossman parcels and provide for a re-design of the executive course previously approved. The executive golf course will be enlarged from 9 to 16 acres. The perimeter treatment to the west and south consists of a series of heavily landscaped, undulating mounds and also includes a wrought-iron fence not to exceed 5 feet in height. The change from the first proposal has been the addition of four greens, and additional real estate that has provided greater separation between the playing areas. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 15 Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending favorable consideration of • this petition, conditioned upon satisfactory resolution of any outstanding Technical Advisory Committee concerns. The public hearing was then closed. Michael Mohr moved to Approve Docket No. SUA-58-00,Asherwood Golf Course Expansion, conditioned upon all Technical Advisory concerns being resolved. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. 12h. Lattice Communications (SE-59-00) Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval to establish a 120 foot cellular tower on 0.052 acre. The site is located southwest of West 13151 Street and Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Douglas B. Floyd for Lattice Communications, LLC. Note: The Board previously set some guidelines for cellular towers; it is possible that those pre-requisites have not been incorporated into the Board's formal Rules of Procedure. Douglas B. Floyd, attorney, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also in attendance: James Parten, Director of Site Development for Lattice Communications; Sam Johnston, Vice President of Lattice Communications; Ty Stoffer, Radio Frequency Engineer for Sprint, PCS; Eric Parker, Site Acquisition for Lattice Communications; and Shane Delahan with GPD Engineers. Lattice Communications is a national company with regional offices in Fort Wayne, Indiana and Cincinnati, Ohio. Lattice is in the business of identifying sites for wireless carriers, entering into lease or purchase agreements with owners of real estate in the area where wireless providers need facilities, and building facilities available to multiple wireless carriers in order to accomplish co-location. In short,Lattice is in the business of leasing space on the towers to multiple providers. Mr. Floyd submitted two letters from ???? It is hopeful that the Board will agree that the use of a power sub-station site is a logical and reasonable place in a residential area to enhance the service for users of wireless communication devices. All 25 criteria specified in the Ordinance have been looked at and considered carefully by the petitioner. Area neighbors who might have a concern regarding their property values understand that the communications pole is necessary for the greater good of the community, notwithstanding that it may be something a neighbor may not want to look at. It is hopeful that the Board will find that location on a power sub-site is the most s:\BZA\Minuteslbza2000june 16 appropriate place to provide the community as a whole with what it needs in the way of benefits from wireless communications. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following appeared: Alexa Albrecht, 1604 Old Mill Circle, Carmel, spoke in support of the petition. According to Ms. Albrecht, the wireless telephone service in the entire area along Springmill is extremely poor and from an emergency contact perspective, 911 cannot be dialed from this location. The option being provided by Lattice is felt to be palatable, and Ms. Albrecht feels it is a good solution. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Fred Clayton, 13042 South Hampton Court, Springmill Ridge, south of the proposed tower and current sub-station, spoke in opposition to the petition. Mr. Clayton stated that there is ample area along the Meridian Street/Highway 3 corridor where there is good coverage for service. A major concern is how the petitioner acquired the property and the rights. If PSI has used eminent domain to acquire the existing property and it has, in turn, been sub-leased to a third party--it is wrong. Also, the property has streams on the east side and west side, with 131 st Street on the north side. If PSI decides to expand the size of the sub-station, they would come south onto Mr. Clayton's property and he is opposed to that. There are better places for the location of the tower. Mr. Clayton did not approve of how the property has been changing hands, and wanted to go on record as saying that it is pretty under-handed the way it has been handled. Mr. Clayton urged the Board not to approve the petition. Rebuttal: Doug Floyd reported that a copy the Deed recorded in the Hamilton County Recorder's Office in Book 354, page 156 was made available and should answer Mr. Clayton's questions about the method of acquisition of the real estate. As a result of the judgment and condemnation, it is not a deed but a grant of title to 1.32 acres from Merchants National Bank and Trust Company to Public Service Indiana; the deed is dated January 10, 1986. In regard to availability of sites on U.S. 31 referred to by Mr. Clayton: It would be at least one-half mile to one mile away and would mean that taller towers would need to be erected to have any coverage at this site. Any questions along this vein need to be directed to the Radio Frequency Engineer. The search area to provide the appropriate coverage by only going on 120 feet, reduces the area in western Clay Township that can be available not more than three quarters of one mile from the site being proposed. Laurence Lillig gave the Department's recommendation. The area map shows the landscaping immediately adjacent to the fence around the sub-station. Looking at the two landscape plans in the informational booklets, it is noteworthy that no landscaping is shown on the west property line. There is a substantial amount of landscaping on the s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 17 adjoining property to the west. It is the Department's position that the petitioner should be providing some landscaping for screening and not relying on landscaping on the adjoining property to achieve the end result. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition, conditioned upon the following: 1) The architectural design, landscaping, and signage of the accessory structure is acceptable to the Board; 2)The architectural design of any future accessory structures for permissible, co-located antennae be of equal or greater architectural quality than that approved under this petitioner; and 3) The determination of compliance with condition No. 2 shall be delegated to the Director and subject to appeal to the Board. Leo Dierckman asked about the height of the tower and the extent of the coverage. Ty Slofer, Radio Frequency Engineer, with Sprint PCS, responded that typically, there are 200 to 250 foot towers in a rural area. The more populated areas have towers that are shorter, because the density increases. On a rural site, the company and its equipment is about a 7 mile radius. During the summer, coverage will go down due to foilage of the trees. Mr. Weinkauf clarified that the proposed tower is 120 feet with the possibility of up to 6 co-locators. The Ordinance requires a minimum of four users; the initial user and 3 co- locators. Doug Floyd stated that Sprint is going on the tower at the 100 foot mark, leaving 20 feet of space above their antennae for other users. Jim Parten, 1709 West State Boulevard, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Director of Site Development for Lattice, addressed the Board. In this particular area,the need for height is not as great for penetration into residential areas. The petitioner is looking at carriers at 120 feet, 110 feet, 100 feet, 90 feet, and 80 feet--5 carriers. Doug Floyd stated a willingness to meet with Mr. Weinkauf, John Molitor and Steve Engelking, and will TABLE in the interim. John Molitor referred to provisions in the Ordinance that require an application for a permit to erect a tower must include a report from a qualified professional engineer that a) describes the tower height and design, including a cross section and elevation; b) documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-location of equipment and the minimum, recommended separation distances between antennae; c) describes the tower's capacity, including the number and types of antennae that it can accommodate; d) states that the applicant will operate the tower and attached antennae in compliance with applicable law; and e) documents that the applicant has before filing the application, investigated the possibility of co-location with the owners of all other towers in the vicinity and any other information that may be requested by the Director. Charles Weinkauf stated that the licensees were not complying with the Board's request. s:1BZA\Minuteslbza2000june 18 Pat Rice asked about a map that located towers in the community. Eric Parker with Sprint PCS, Rosemont, Illinois stated that this sub-station had been pin- pointed on the map. Doug Floyd commented that the most recent meeting with the DOCS staff narrowed the map to existing Sprint locations and what the new site would do. There are no other towers that could cover this area. If there are materials missing or requirements that have not been met, the petitioner was willing to return to the Board next month, thereby allowing them 30 days to address missing information. Docket No. SE-59-00 was TABLED until the July meeting to allow the petitioner an opportunity to meet with the Department of Community Services to address any items outstanding. 13h. Carmel Pro Printers Parking(V-60-00) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 27.5: Amount of Parking Spaces Required in order to reduce the number of spaces mandated by the addition of new storage space. The site is located at 303 West Carmel Drive. The site is zoned I-1/Industrial. Filed by Joe Stilwell of Wathen Remodeling &Design for Carmel Pro Printers. Dyon Luisee, 17926 Amberwood Court, Westfield appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Approval is being requested for a variance to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces due to the addition of an upstairs for storage and floor space. In response to questions from Mr. Weinkauf, Laurence Lillig reported that the footprint of the building remains the same; the petitioner is building up, not out. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed reduction in number of parking spaces; no one appeared. It is the Department's understanding that the additional space will not entail an increase in the number of employees or traffic on this site. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of Carmel Pro Printers Parking V-60-00. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 19 14h. Merchants' Square—Petco Signage (V-61-00) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance for additional signage for Petco. The site is located at 2208 East 116t Street within the Merchants' Square Shopping Center. The site is zoned B-8Business. Filed by Gordon Byers for Petco. Gordon Byers, attorney at law, Noblesville, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Approval is being requested for a Developmental Standards Variance for additional signage at the Petco facility. There are two variances being requested; the grooming sign on the façade of the building, and the signage facing Keystone. At present, Petco has been approved for signage on the west façade, although the signage is not yet in place, and on the north façade. Any variance would be conditioned upon the removal of the signage on the west façade. There is also signage on the pylon on Keystone Avenue. The Petco sign is in place and the grooming sign is being requested. The grooming sign is 15 inches high, 9 feet long, over the entrance on the north façade, next to the existing sign. Within Petco, some facilities have a separate grooming operation and separate entrance, some do not. The Ordinance allows signage to go in the window as long as it does not exceed 30% of the window space, but this avenue was not pursued. After consulting with the Department, the most appropriate course of action was felt to be a variance. The basic reasons being: separate entrance; different hours; different function; and the signage will identify to customers and the general public the two different operations. The petitioner is requesting a Petco sign to be put on the façade of Keystone Avenue--it is in close proximity to Hobby Lobby. The purpose of the signage is to direct to Keystone. The signage has been approved by Binmar LLC, (The Linder Company) designer of the signage wall, but it is not allowed by the Ordinance. If the Board sees fit to grant approval of the sign facing Keystone, the petitioner will withdraw and remove the sign on the west facade, AAA Way. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to this petition; no one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending negative consideration of this petition. Pat Rice asked for clarification of the sign facing Keystone--the back side of the Hobby Lobby signage wall is very offensive and looks like a Hollywood backlot. Ms. Rice was not inclined to add to the signage. Laurence Lillig responded that it was the Department's understanding that the Hobby Lobby sign was to be the only signage placed on the wall. If the grooming sign is s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 20 approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the petitioner will forego signage on the west façade; the grooming sign wouldn't necessarily require a variance. Pat Rice moved for the approval of Petco Signage (V-61-00) "grooming" signage B on the north façade only. APPROVED three in favor, Pat Rice opposed, no one abstaining. I. Old Business Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit Amenity Area (SU-13-00) TABLED 3i. Kingsborough remainder(V-17-00) Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 5.4.6:Minimum Lot Width in order to reduce the permissible width from 120 feet to 100 feet on 0.869 acres. The site is located at West 14151 Street. The site is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by John B. Urbahns of Kingsborough LLC. Jeff Reasner, with John B. Urbahns, 3905 Vincennes Road, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. This item was tabled at the previous Board of Zoning Appeals meeting in May. The petitioner is requesting a variance of developmental standards in order to construct a single family home on a 100 foot frontage lot rather than the required 120 foot frontage lot as required. The parcel fronts on 141st Street. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Charles Weinkauf referred to a letter received from P. Thomas Murray, Jr. representing the Ponds West Homeowners Association, which states, in part "The Ponds West Homeowners Association's Board of Directors opposes any variance for the developmental standards. The Board believes that it is in the Association's members' best interest that the application under Docket No. V-17-00 be denied." Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Chuck Adkins, 14350 Quail Point Drive, Carmel, stated objection due to the number of trees that would be removed in order to accommodate the construction of a single family residence on this site. The trees are currently an effective site buffer between Mr. Adkins' home and his neighbors. Mr. Adkins stated that at the time Kingsborough was mapped out, the developers met with the adjacent neighbors and promised that the wooded lot immediately in back of Mr. Adkins and the side lot, the lot in question, would not be touched. This was a verbal commitment from the developer to Mr. Adkins, his father, and his neighbors to the west s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 21 of Kingsborough in Ponds West. The granting of the variance would substantially affect the property values of the adjacent homeowners, and the residents would like to see the verbal commitment honored. Tom Harrison, 1000 141A Street, Carmel, voiced opposition to the petition by reason of public safety. A hill to the west of the site obscures the view of traffic from the west to anyone entering the right-of-way. The drive would also be hidden from view of traffic eastbound on 141st Street. The speed limit in the area is 45 mph, although traffic is known to travel almost 70 mph. With increased construction in the area,there is a tremendous increase in the amount of traffic flow on 141st Street. Bob Fritsche, 14360 Quail Point Road, stated objection to the proposed development by reason of waterway disruption and endangering wildlife habitat. Altering a controlled waterway at the front of the property could cause flooding to surrounding properties or change the status of some area properties to a flood zone and cause financial burden on property owners of the entire area. The proposed site is one of the few remaining areas that give refuge to many wild animals in the area and would endanger their habitat. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of V-17-00, Kingsborough remainder. The vote was 0 in favor, 4 opposed, none abstaining. MOTION DENIED. NOTE: Items 5i. through 15i. were heard together and voted on separately. 4i. Bauer Commercial Park- UAG Honda(SUA-21-00) Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval to alter the existing approval for an automobile dealership. The site is located at 4140 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson&Frankenberger for UAG Young, Inc. 5i.-10i. Bauer Commercial Park-UAG Honda (V-22-00; V-23-00; V-24-00; V-25- 00; V-26-00; V-27-00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02-7(b): Number & Type to increase from one sign to eleven; and 25.7.02-7(c):Maximum Sign Area to allow the following: V-23-00 one 55.42 square foot "Honda" sign V-24-00 one 80 square foot Honda logo V-25-00, V-26-00 two 65.625 square foot "Service Center" signs V-27-00 one 69.75 square foot "Dan Young" sign The site is located at 4140 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson&Frankenberger for UAG Young, Inc. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 22 l li. Bauer Commercial Park- UAG Oldsmobile (SUA-28-00) Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval to alter the existing approval for an automobile dealership. The site is located at 4100 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson&Frankenberger for UAG Young, Inc. 12i.- 15i. Bauer Commercial Park- UAG Oldsmobile (V-29-00; V-30-00; V-31-00; V-32-00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25-7.02-7(b): Number & Type to increase from one sign to ten; and 25.7.02-7(c):Maximum Sign Area to allow the following: V-30-00; V-31-00 two 55.33 square foot "Service Center" signs V-32-00 one 99.66 square foot "Dan Young Oldsmobile sign The site is located at 4100 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B-3Business. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson&Frankenberger for UAG Young, Inc. Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing United Auto Group in connection with its request for Sign Variances and a revision to a previously approved Special Use. Approval of the requests will allow Dan Young to operate an Oldsmobile dealership and a Honda dealership in two buildings, presently occupied by Dellen Oldsmobile and Dellen Lincoln Mercury. The petitioner appeared before the Board in May. At that time, the vote was 2 in favor, one opposed to the Special Use request, and there was no vote on the sign variances. Consequently, the entire matter was postponed until this evening. The original Special Use permitting the use of the two buildings for an automobile dealership was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on March 23, 1987. As a result of the prior approval, Dellen was permitted to operate a Lincoln Mercury dealership in one building and an Oldsmobile dealership in another building. Under the request this evening, the use will remain the same; it is being presented because the front of the buildings has changed to reflect the new proprietor. An overhead was displayed showing the site and the surrounding area. The elevation of the Honda building was also shown. The building remains substantially the same except for the front. The building will be a white textured material with blue trim. Originally, 11 sign variances were being requested, one for the number of signs, the other 10 were for the sizes of signs. After conferring with the Department, the petitioner has eliminated six of the bubble signs that were below the Service Center and they do not appear in the renderings. The Dan Young and Honda signs were consolidated. Therefore, the number of signs has been reduced from 11 to 4. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 23 The logo is silver and on-let; the other signs are individually mounted, internally illuminated, blue lettering. Again, the building is white with blue trim and remains substantially the same except for the façade of the building. The Oldsmobile building remains substantially the same except for the front. The building will be white with red trim. The signs being requested require four variances; three for the size of signs, one for the number of signs. Again, the petitioner conferred with the Department and as a result of that meeting, the number of Oldsmobile logos has been reduced from 7 to 4. A photographic rendering was shown of the proposed building. With the exception of logos that are on-lit and silver, all other signs are internally illuminated and red in color. The exterior surface will also be a white textured material with red trim. Mr. Frankenberger commented that the signs are believed to be appropriate for the 96th Street commercial corridor and enable the petitioner to compete with the neighbors to the south in Marion County. The signage also provides the public with needed information by identifying the logo, vehicle make, identity of the dealer, and the availability of service. Mr. Frankenberger stated the following reasons for disagreement with the Department's recommendations: The Department has expressed a preference for the style of the existing buildings and therefore recommends denial of the Special Uses and the attendant sign package. In the alternative, the Department recommends approval of the sign packages if the Special Uses are approved. The points of disagreement are as follows: It is the petitioner's understanding under the Zoning Ordinance that Special Uses are generally to be considered favorably unless they are obviously inappropriate. The petitioner's believes that this use is appropriate and consistent with surrounding businesses. The primary use of the real estate for automobile sales and service was already approved in 1987. The only thing being changed is the front of the building--all else remains substantially the same. There is no Overlay Zone applicable to 96th Street and there are no architectural standards in the Ordinance. If architectural standards are to be applied, they should be specified, predictable and uniform. The revised frontages shown have evolved as part of the manufacturer's identity and indicate that there is a new proprietor. The architectural styles were not arbitrarily chosen--there are those who prefer these revised frontages and consider them to be newer, cleaner, and fresher. The granting of the petitioner's request should not be considered in any manner to be a reversal of the 1987 Board's original approval. In other words, the granting of the petitioner's request is not a disagreement with the decision of the 1987 Board--It is not a statement that the 1987 Board was wrong. It is the petitioner's belief that the 1987 Board's decision was correct, but that different proprietors and different manufacturers now want to occupy the building. Therefore, an amendment to the existing Special Use is being requested. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 24 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to any or all of the proposed petitions; no one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department agrees with Mr. Frankenberger in that the use of the site is not affected by the change;therefore, the Department stands by the 1987 Board's decision to approve the red brick, architectural style for the building. The Department's recommendation also makes provision with respect to the sign variances, that if the change in style is not approved, a sign package appropriate to the existing façade should be submitted. Pat Rice's comments: The corridor does have a corporate look with the exception of the grandfathered businesses close to Keystone, and the proposed certainly breaks the corridor look. The existing facades could have been used with signage reflecting the new ownership. Earlene Plavchak agreed with comments made by Pat Rice. The proposed is a very different look and difficult to believe that it is the 96th Street corridor. A proposal should be brought forth preserving the corporate façade with different signage. Michael Mohr's comments: One of the things being looked at is the dealership itself and demands on the owners. From the standpoint of expectations for those buildings and drawing traffic in and attracting customers, there may be some "tweaking" that can be done. However, the proposed buildings are beautiful and consistent with both sides of 96th Street. Earlene Plavchak asked if the corporate headquarters of Honda and Oldsmobile had a recommended set of drawings or guidelines for new buildings. Randy Reifsnider, representing Presnell Group, Architects, responded that both Honda and Oldsmobile have corporate standards produced in a booklet. The guidelines are not only for the buildings but the furnishings and finishings inside. Earlene Plavchak asked if it was very likely that other, relatively new, Honda and Oldsmobile dealerships will look like what is proposed. Mr. Reifsnider responded in the affirmative. Ms. Rice referred to other projects that have recently been approved and the fact that sign packages have been totally different from those anywhere else in order to fit what Cannel desires. It is not impossible for these companies to submit alternate designs for signage. Ms. Rice recommended a compromise be worked out. Ms. Rice asked if the petitioner were willing to return to the Board with a revised sign package, utilizing the existing architectural design of the buildings and façade. s:\BZA\Minutes\bz27000june 25 • Mr. Frankenberger asked for clarification: If the request is denied, is there anything that would prohibit the petitioner from filing again and only requesting the sign variances for the existing building, and not being required to wait one year before filing. Mr. Molitor confirmed that there would be a wait period for re-applying for a Special Use. Laurence Lillig reported for the Department. If the Special Use Amendments are denied, the Department could meet with the petitioner and discuss amending the Variance petitions so that they would then be specific to the existing architecture. The Docket numbers could then by recycled and scheduled for the next available agenda. Mr. Molitor concurred. Mr. Frankenberger reiterated his belief that architectural standards and preferences should be applied on an ad-hoc basis where there is no basis in the Ordinance; there is no Overlay Zone. There are those who prefer the proposed buildings to the existing buildings and the 1987 Board did not say that "We are approving a red brick building and the only thing that can ever go there is a red brick building." The petitioner is requesting that the Board vote on the Special Use before them, and if there is a negative vote, the petitioner requests a tabling on the sign variances. There was a question of clarification from Pat Rice regarding the square footage of the entire Honda sign. Laurence Lillig explained that the diameter of the semi-circle, multiplied by the height from ground to the roof line, totals 870 square feet. The public hearing was then closed. Michael Mohr moved for approval of Bauer Commercial Park-UAG Honda (SUA- 21-00). The vote was 2 in favor, 2 opposed (Earlene Plavchak and Pat Rice) NO DECISION VOTE. The petitioner will return to the July meeting. Michael Mohr moved for approval of Bauer Commercial Park-UAG Oldsmobile (SUA-28-00). The vote was 2 in favor, 2 opposed (Earlene Plavchak and Pat Rice) NO DECISION VOTE. The petitioner will return to the July meeting. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was Adjourned at 12:50 AM. Charles Weinkauf, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\BZA\Minuteslbza2000june 26