Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 10-15-91 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 1 The regular meeting of the Carmel Planning Commission was brought to order by Jeff Davis, President at the City Council Chambers on October 15 , 1991 at 7 : 34 P.M. . The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance . The board members present were : Judi Jacobs , Caroline Bainbridge, Annabelle Ogle, Tom Welch, Alan Potasnik, Henrietta Lamb, Henry Black, Max Moore, Tom Whitehead, Richard Klar, Ron Houck, Jim O'Neal, Jeff Davis, Norma Meighen, Sue McMullen and Sharon Clark of Hamilton County Plan Commission . The staff members present were : David Cunningham, Mike Hollibaugh, Terry Jones, Wm. Wendling, Jr. , Karen McClure and Dorthy Neisler Mr. Potasnik moved to approve the minutes from the September 17 , 1991 meeting as amended on Page 1, paragraph 8 , addition to the paragraph that this will be sent to the Land Use Committee; page 5 , paragraph 2, following the last line should read: Commitments concerning the Use of Real Estate are attached to the Master Copy of the minutes; page 7 , 4th line down should read: The vote was 11-1, Mr. Moore dissented to instruct the staff to . Mr. Klar seconded. Unanimously approved. F. COMMUNICATIONS, BILL, EXPENDITURES AND LEGAL COUNCIL REPORT Mr. Wm. Wendling, Jr. stated that there was a suggestion made by Steve Andrews and addressed by Council regarding the zoning ordinance as it applies to Government Facilities . The City of Carmel facilities are excluded from the Zoning Ordinance and that should apply to the Governmental Facilities of the township since they do share the cost and the operation of the income within the preview of the Zoning Ordinance . There was a public notice put in the newspaper for next months meeting that that issue would be discussed pursuant to he felt was the request from the City Council. Mr. Davis read an unofficial copy of the minutes of the City Council meeting: Mayor stated that the township is asking for an amendment that would exempt all City and Township facilities and buildings from zoning requirements and procedures . Mr. Andrews said that he was contacted last week by Bob Campbell, Attorney for the Township, and they requested the City of Carmel exempt them from zoning requirements . Andrews said that this is something that referred back to the Council, by this council to the Plan Commission for recommendation to Council . Mr. Lonzo so moved. This was sent to us asking that the township and city be treated equally and Mr. Davis feels that should be done, but there are CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 2 more than one thing that we could do about this but wanted the board members to be thinking about it before we have the public hearing next month. He has never felt that the city can build an obnoxious building and because it belongs to the City it is not obnoxious . Because the City builds it it does not need to obey the setbacks , right of way setbacks, or anything that a private individual would happen to be . He suggested that they require the township and the city to at least go through the procedure, maybe they don; ' t want to go through the procedure but have to abide by the zoning regulations as it applies to buildings . If they don' t want to do that get a variance like anyone else does . G. PUBLIC HEARING lg. Commission to consider Docket No. 43-91 Z, a rezone application for John and Margaret Fillenwarth. Site consists of . 41 acre of land located approximately 320 ' north of 103rd Street, on the east side of Pennsylvania. Site is currently zoned R-1(residence) . Rezone request is to zone this property to R- 3 (Residence) for the construction of a two-family dwelling. Filed by John and Margaret Fillenwarth. The public hearing was opened at 7 : 47 P.M. Mr. Fillenwarth stated that the land is located approximately 1000 ' north of 103rd street . Mr. John Fillenwarth, 10430 N. Delaware, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Mr. Harold Sark, friend, brother-in-law and architect was present . A packet was distributed to all board members . A development plan, a floor plan, and the front elevation was displayed. Ms . Kelly Jones, 10412 N. Delaware, spoke in favor of this project and if further duplex' s go in that they would consider the same thing as Mr. Fillenwarth has and that would be not to put in anymore than one duplex per 100 ' of property space. Mr. Craig Longardner, 10404 N. Delaware, spoke in favor of this project and that a buffer between these four story buildings and residential is very much needed. Ms . Beatie Cummings, 10410 N. Delaware, spoke in favor of this project . CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 3 Mr. Doug Buck, 10427 N. Delaware, spoke in opposition to this project . He stated his concerns regarding the traffic, the density, the schools and feels it should stay zoned R-1, one family per lot . Mrs . Kevin Miles, 10407 N. Delaware, spoke in opposition to this project. Would like to maintain our neighborhood in tact . Ms . Eva Swilling, spoke in opposition to multiple family housing, and prefers it to remain zoned R-1 . Ms . Betty Hawkins, 10240 N. Delaware, spoke in opposition to this project . She request that it remain R-1, there will be others to come from outside areas if this is rezoned. Would like to keep the quality we now have . We consider this a unique location and would strongly object to a R-3 zoning anywhere else in our area . Mr. Fillenwarth spoke in rebuttal to the above comments . In response to the traffic that will be generated from the double, according to the Comprehensive Plan, Pennsylvania eventually will be four lanes from 103rd up to Old Meridian. The traffic from the office building he feels would be more than from the duplexes . In response to Mr. Bucks comments , when we moved here it was like a little village, it was great, but things have changed. Wanted to build behind his home and that commercial would devalue his property when this duplex won ' t . He is looking at it for an investment when he retires . If the board would approve this Mr. Fillenwarth would make some kind of commitment if there is something that someone doesn' t like and to insure that it stays nice back there . Mr. Blackwell asked if there are any other doubles in the area? Mr. Fillenwarth stated there are some about three blocks away, south side of 106th Street and north of 106th Street which are not in the subdivision . Mr. Houck asked if there is sufficient right-of-way for enlargement of Pennsylvania? Mr. Fillenwarth stated that yes there is . This item will go to the Land Use Committee on November 12 , 1991 at 7 : 30 P.M. in the Caucus Room at the City Hall . 2g. Commission to consider Docket No. 44-91 PP, A Primary Plat application for Rosemead Commons , located at the north side of 116th Street, approximately one quarter mile west of Rangeline Road. The plat includes 19 lots on 10 . 98 acres of land, that is zoned R-1(Residence) . The petitioner is also requesting the following Subdivision Regulation Variance : 6 . 3 . 22-Installation of required accel/decel lanes CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 4 and passing blister Filed by James J. Nelson for R.A. Dine Co. Inc . The public hearing was opened at 8 : 22 P.M. Mr. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . An informational report was given to all board members . Mr. Scott Unger and Mr. Bob Dine owner of R.A.Dine Co . , Inc. were present. An aerial view, rendering of front elevation of victoria style, primary plat was displayed. Mr. Paul Bolen, 1217 Donneybrook, in favor of the development, the value and the style of neighborhood. He is concerned about the destruction of trees and the appearance of the area . He also oppose any wholesale variance in accel and decel regulations . He is also concerned about the traffic. Ms . Yvonne Bower, 11510 Ralston Avenue, spoke in favor of this project . Her concerns are regarding the traffic and the hazards of the intersection. This is an attractive neighborhood development if consideration is given to the traffic situation . Mr. Ralph Daly, Jr. , 11460 Ralston Avenue, spoke in reference to the traffic, would like accel and decel lanes, look forward to having a new neighborhood. Mr. Dave Coots, representing Engineering Cooling System, stated that less than a year ago they had received approval for an expansion to the facility that they currently operate immediately to the east the monon right of way and north of the Rosemead Common Subdivision. At that hearing there was area neighbor input from properties along 116th Street that they are an industry and they do make noise and that were certain activities that go on in the area of an I-i zone district . Want to make sure that the Plan Commission has in mind as well in considering this the possibility of buffering or some treatment to the north end of Rosemead that would keep the industrial and the residential characters of these two properties identified. They did receive at the time the expansion was approved to the Engineering Cooling System facility a variance into the Hawkins legal drain that runs along the railroad right of way and runs along the northwest corner of this piece of property which is a 75 ' setback. They would ask that also be presented to TAC to be certain that the drainage for the area that we occupy as well as Gradland Industrial Park that utilizes Hawkins Drain be preserved CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 5 Mr. Dick Shaw, 1414 E. 116th Street, spoke in favor of this project and his concern is the traffic and if the traffic engineer would suggest that the access to this development be adjusted further west, it is right at the top of this hill . The public hearing was closed at 8 : 37 P.M. Mr. Nelson stated that they are providing acceleration and deceleration lanes . The variance was to decrease the width of the deceleration lane only. The right-of-way does not exist for this passing blister. They consider the location of their entrance drive, it is located nearest their east property line and the purpose for that was to locate it nearer the crown of the hill on 116th Street . This item will go to the TAC committee on October 17 , 1991 and then to the Subdivision Committee on November 12, 1991 at 7 : 30 P.M. at the City Hall in the Caucus Room. 3g. Commission to consider Docket No. 45-91 Z, a rezone application for P. I .A. Indianapolis . Site consists of 11 . 25 acres of land located approximately 700 ' south of 111th Street, on the east side of Pennsylvania . Site is currently zoned B-7 (business ) . Rezone request is to zone this property to B-6 (Business ) . Filed by James J. Nelson for P. I .A. Indianapolis . The public hearing was opened at 8 : 44 P.M. Mr. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumely Way, Carmel, made the presentation, which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . A packet was distributed to all board member. An aerial view and a composite site plan and a rendering of the residential treatment center was displayed. Mr. Glenn Hunsucker and Margaret Hunsucker, 10649 Penn Dr. , spoke in opposition to this project (per letter attached which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . Mr. Will Bishop, 10820 N. College, Chairman of the Greater Home Place Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to this project. PIA had in the past stated that the neighborhood could use their gymnasium and to this date they have refused the usage of the gym. Would like PIA to state their position on this plan . They also stated that they would provide free evaluations and consultations to members of the community. They would like a CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 6 publication of some statistics to how much of this they have really done to help the community out . He stated his concern of landscaping that there should be much taller and more substantial mounds along the east and south sides of the property that would more effectively screen this property if the rezone is approved. Mr. Bishop feels that it would be useful to have a statement stating the use of the triangular area on the south end of the property between the Indiana Gas easement and the drain easement . A long term psychiatric hospital on the property would have a negative effective on property values much more than other approved uses of B-6 or B-7 properties . (per letter which is a part of the official minutes and attached to the Master Copy) . The public hearing was closed at 9 : 11 P .M. Mr. Jim Nelson spoke in response to the remonstrators comments . All of the landscaping has been completed and the trees have been installed. With respect to confidentiality regarding the availability of the common facility being unavailable for community events that was true, because of patient confidentiality, the prior administrator of the hospital did not deem it appropriate to have members of the public in the hospital . They stated that the current administrator of the hospital would reconsider that policy but it would be subject to their prior approval of the community event . Beyond our residential treatment center we have no further plans to develop the real estate at this time . There is a significant existing condition and that is the gas transmission line that dissects the property in the area. They are unable to construct any improvements over that utility line . They have provided for a permanent green belt along the south property line, 100 ' in width. With respect to the type of patients that are treated at the center, that while these people are staying longer their diagnosis is substantially less acute than those presently being attended to at the hospital . Mr. Dan Lavengood, 503 Shadowcrest Ct . , Noblesville, IN , described more in detail the type of patients that are and will be treated at the P. I .A. hospital . The board members asked Mr. Lavengood questions regarding the type of patients and the illnesses that they would have and the length of their stay. Mr. Davis submitted two letters for the record from Mr. Will Bishop and Mr. and Mrs . Glenn Hunsucker. This item will be sent to the Land Use Committee on November 12 , 1991 at 7 : 30 P.M. at the City Hall Caucus Room. H. OLD BUSINESS CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 7 lh. Commission to consider Docket No. 26-91 PP, a Primary Plat application for Hamilton Business Park, located at the southeast corner of 106th and US 421(Michigan Road) . The plat includes streets , easements , right-of- ways and 7 blocks for future commercial development on 84 . 83 acres of land. Site is zoned B-3 and B-5 and is partially located within the US 421 Overlay Corridor. Filed by James J. Nelson for Wurster Construction Company, Inc. Tabled at the Technical Advisory Committee . 2h. Commission to consider Docket No. 27-91 PP, a Primary Plat application for Hamilton Center, located at the southwest corner of 106th and US 421(Michigan Road) . The plat consists of one block for future commercial development on 16 . 89 acres of land. Site is zoned I-1 and is partially located within the US 421 Overlay Corridor. Filed by James J. Nelson for Wurster Construction Company, Inc. Tabled at the Technical Advisory Committee . 3h. Commission to consider Docket No . 42-91 Z, a rezone application for Susan Swanson . Site consists of . 75 acre of land located approximately 117 ' north of 106th Street, with Park Avenue on the East and Ruckle Avenue to the west . Site is currently zoned R-3(residence) . Rezone request is to zone this property to B- 5 (Business) . Filed by James J. Nelson for Susan Swanson. The Land Use Committee report was that the vote was unanimously voted in favor of rezone . Mr. Potasnik moved to approve Docket No . 42-91 Z as presented. Seconded. Unanimously approved. I . NEW BUSINESS 1i . Commission to consider an ordinance amendment to Ordinance Z-160, the proposed amendment is to regulate the installation of Communication and Similar Towers within the Carmel/Clay area. Mr. Wendling, Jr. submitted an Ordinance to prohibit mobile or cellular telephone towers in residentially zoned districts as a permitted use, special use, or accessory use . CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 8 There was further discussion. This will be set for public hearing at the November 19 , 1991 meeting. Mr. Blackwell moved to adopt Ordinance No. Z-160 as amended, be amended by adding a new subsection 25 . 13 , reading as follows : "In all residentially zoned districts a mobile or cellular telephone tower is not allowed as a permitted use, special use, or accessory use . " Mr. Houck seconded Unanimously approved. 2i . Commission to consider Docket No. 53-91 ADLS, an Architectural Design, Lighting and Signage application for 160 Medical Drive . Site consists of 1 . 396 acres of land located approximately 500 ' east of Rangeline Road, on the northside of Medical Drive . Site is zoned B- 8(Business) . Petitioner requests approval to construct a 11, 760 square foot, single story office/warehouse/retail facility. Filed by Rex Weiper. Mr. E . Davis Coots, Attorney, 255 E . Carmel Dr. , Carmel, made the presentation, a copy of which is on file at the Carmel Department of Community Development . Mr. Gary Murray, Midstates Engineering and Rex Weiper were present A site plan was presented. Mr. Potasnik asked if there is a tenant or a proposed tenant for this space . Mr. Coots stated that there have not been any tenants that have signed lease space . This item will go to the Industrial and Commercial Committee on November 12, 1991 at 7 : 30 P.M. at the City Hall Caucus Rooms . 3i . Commission to consider Docket No. 54-91 ADLS/DP (amend) , an Architectural Design, Lighting & Signage and Development Plan amendment application for Duke Associates - Parkwood Building 2 . Site consists of 4 . 6 acres of land located approximately 500 ' east of the existing Building 1 within the Parkwood development at the northwest corner of 96th Street and College Avenue . Site is zoned B-6(Business ) . Petitioner requests approval to construct a 97 , 800 square foot, four-story office building. Filed by Philip Nicely for Duke Associates . CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 9 THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED BY THE PETITIONER UNTIL NOVEMBER 19 , 1991 . Mr. Davis stated that the Sign Committee continues to meet . Mr. Blackwell reported on the Cluster Committee . They now have in draft form of an amended ordinance ready to be sent to Wm. Wendling, Jr. , Attorney. Mr. Potasnik asked for a report from the staff regarding the enforcement of lighted window signs , if that is currently being done . Also, the plant stand at Keystone Mall was cited and would like to know the status of that citation and finally, would like to know information regarding the plant shanty located on Range Line Road. Also, requested the status of the Sign Ordinance . Mr. Cunningham stated that the Plant Stand at Keystone Mall have been noticed and he has stopped by on two occasions , dropped off what we call a temporary use permit and at this time that has not come in, they have not been cited for it as of this date . Mr. Davis requested that they be cited on the following day. Mr. Bucher stated that in reference to the shanty, he is aware that it has grown over what was originally approved, they had come in for a Temporary Use Permit, which we issued out of our office, which is a B-1 which is allowed accessory use of their land, allowed it under temporary use and it has expanded beyond what was on our approved permit and the process was designed to work fast and we are currently working on two others and both of those have taken almost 30 days to just put through the paper work and working are closely with county prosecutor and get the legal notice and all out to people, so it is not all immediate type of situation and will double check on this one . They should be noticed and at least brought back into the size that they were approved to do initially. Mr. Bucher stated that about two years ago when this was discussed, that temporary use is defined as up to 120 days they are allowed. Again, the ordinance will allow you to use your property for an accessory use or a temporary use of your land and buildings . In fact, O'Malia ' s can sell pumpkins and another type of store can put up a flower shop or whatever they want to sell as an accessory use . You are not limited to just an accessory use of an existing business . The ordinance reads you are allowed to do with your property an accessory use of your building and use your land as you see fit as long as it allowable within that zoning district . Some of the zones they have to come in for approval and some they don' t if it is within the preview of our department, we take the same basic look that the ADLS would be and where you have them and make them come into to get a permit, CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 10 fill out an application and pay a fee and that is how those are handled. In that case, the one by the police station was done under that same premise, the property owner has to sign the permit, he is allowed to use his land as an accessory use or with temporary use facilities . There was further discussion. Mr. Potasnik asked what is being done with the enforcement on lighted window signs? Mrs . McMullen would like to know what the status of the outside storage ordinance change is? Mr. Bucher stated that the last record he had was that Mr. Wendling, Jr. and Mr. Potasnik was going to get with staff and work on that to put in the draft of the new ordinance that Mr. Wendling, Jr. was doing. He thought it was sent to public hearing and then to Land Use Committee . Industrial and Commercial Committee did write up a sample draft ordinance and has not been dealt with yet . Mr. Wendling, Jr. said he did send Mr. Potasnik a more complete portion of the screening and buffering zone and the way that we were going to address outside storage and sale . That was his understanding of what they wanted. Mr. Davis stated that there is being done a total update of the ordinance which we will have a copy of this year. Mr. Bucher stated that he knows signage was discussed at the last meeting and tonight he is prepared to discuss that with the Commission. Tonight will probably provide him with one of the last opportunities to address this Commission prior to ending my service as Director. Unfortunately, tonight he has come to express some disappointment with your actions at the last meeting. He wants to talk about window signs as outside storage has already been discussed and he will check into those things . As he watched the video tape of the last meeting, he is convinced that the Plan Commission was presented with an incomplete, sometimes erroneous, and perhaps, and what disturbs him most of all, with an effort made to seek to embarrass him or the department or this administration with some of the things that were said at the last meeting. He passed out to the board a copy of the current Carmel Sign Ordinance . He doubted that when they had the discussion last week that many looked at copies of the ordinance to see if what was being said is actually in the ordinance. Page 12 addresses window signs, both permanent and temporary with CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 11 the definitions . Mr. Bucher quoted from the curren Sing Ordinan, "A permanent window sign, is a sign located in the window of a building or other enclosed structure which is visible from the exterior and is affixed in a permanent manner, such as lettering painted upon the window. Said sign should not be greater than 1/3 of the window area in which the sign is established. A window sign - temporary is a sign located in the window of a building or enclosed structure which is visible from the exterior and is affixed in a temporary manner. Said sign should be displayed for a maximum of 30 days . " He also asked to turn to the definition of illumination on page 6 . "Illumination should be white and not colored light and shall not be blinking, fluctuating or moving, light rays should shine only upon the property within the premises and shall not spill over the property lines in any direction except by indirect reflection . " Turn to page 2 under exempted signs, the second paragraph, "the following types of signs are exempted from all provisions of this section, but must be established and maintained in the manner as to not cause safety hazard. " Then G, in that list of exempted signs, exempted from all provisions of this ordinance is temporary window signs . When he came a year ago and addressed the Plan Commission about temporary versus permanent window signs , he stated that he felt most of the internally illuminated window signs that you see in this community are not affixed in a permanent manner, such as being painted on the window. They were generally hung by a chain, they were moveable, they were able to plugged in and he had difficulty under the definition of our ordinance saying that they were permanent window signs . In temporary window signs, he realize there is a 30 day limits, but again, the 30 day is a very tough thing for them to enforce . It forces them to take almost a daily snapshot of the windows to see if they change . They have been out on three occasions taking pictures and working on these window signs follwing after the last Plan Commission meeting. Again, he came to this group over a year ago to address his concerns and his interpretations of this ordinance . Mr. Bucher shared some of the things that were said at the last meeting. The statement and he quotes , "that the ordinance is too confusing to enforce" , he doesn' t feel that Bill was necessarily attributing that comment to him. He does not believe that he has ever made that statement and he does not agree with it . It is sometimes a confusing ordinance . Again, he asked them to look at the definition of illumination on page 6 . If you recall, that does not talk about any specific type of illumination. If a sign is a permanent sign, is painted on the window and the building is lit up with spotlights such as this building is, then a painted on window sign would be illuminated under this definition . It does not sort out an internally illuminated window sign, such as an open sign, from one being painted on. By that definition, all those would be illegal also, so he can talk about intent and yet CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 12 he doesn' t think the intent of this ordinance necessarily is to say that those painted on signs , just because they are illuminated is part of the illumination of the building or the, walkway or whatever, was intended for all those to be illegal . However, you can read this that they certainly are . Mr. Bucher has noticed that about 30 business fall under that category, having permanent painted on window signs that are someway illuminated and would wonder if the commission ever intended for those to be illegal . There is no easy answers when they are dealing with the ordinance . They try to do their best . You were told last month that there is a "proliferation" of these signs in Carmel . In 1986, O'Malia' s Bakery came before the BZA requesting some internally illuminated window signs that said, donuts, hot coffee and ice cream. A statement then was made that there were 30 illuminated window signs now is existence on Range Line Road in Carmel . On September 30, 1991 there were 34 illuminated window signs in existence on Range Line Road in Carmel . Four of these signs have gotten variances from the BZA and one sign is probably a legal sign because it says, Lotto, and it is the actual official Lottery logo of the Indiana Lottery. We probably have no control over that one . The fact is , there has not been a tremendous proliferation of the signs . Yes , he supposes that some of these are probably more obvious than they were a few years ago, some are probably larger than they were five years ago. In fact, there are 42 new buildings or businesses located on Range Line Road then there were five years ago. There may be more signs in the entire community then there were five years ago, but again our community has grown in five years . Some other information that was brought up at the meeting was the Browning case in 1982 . That was under the previous Sign Ordinance, although it reads almost identically to the one that we are using now. In the case that was mentioned, Browning asked for an illuminated window sign for a bank at 116th and Meridian. What you were not told at the meeting was that the BZA gave that permission and that variance, in fact was a 5-0 vote . In 1987 , O'Malia ' s came before the BZA to ask for approval for three internally illuminated window signs . They were given a variance . At least one other sign has been approved in recent years . The O'Malia' s signs were approved as he recalls by a 3-1 vote and he would like to read some of the testimony that was given . The staff report was quoted from the minutes, "they need information that this is a retail outlet to get to the public and it would have no adverse effect on the public to grant this signage . The total sign package will be an improvement for that site and the community as a whole and recommend that the board vote in favor of this petition. " In the fall of 1988, a committee of Plan Commission members, Mrs . Ila Badger as Chairman, Mr. Ted Johnson, Mrs . Betty Stevenson voted at the Sign Committee meeting to recommend the Sign Ordinance be changed to allow illuminated window signs that say, Open . On September 10 , 1991, committee of CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 13 Plan Commission members and citizens and chamber members discussed a recommendation that the Sign Ordinance be changed to allow illuminated window signs . Although a vote was not taken, one member again stated that they did not object to illuminated window signs that say Open but they did not want them to say Budweiser. There was no committee member that stated any objection to these signs . Although, there was some discussion concerning size and other standards . There has been at least one other variance granted by the BZA for an illuminated window sign . In the past four years , and he is not being critical of BZA, the BZA has granted variances allowing over 100 signs to be allowed, signs that would be illegal by the present ordinance . That tells you a little bit about some of the problems with Sign Ordinance, when that many signs are coming in and being granted variances . These go from number of signs on a project to size of signs on a project to height of signs and that tells him that there are some problems with the ordinance . What is involved in a BZA appeal? Finding of fact, for those of you that have served on the BZA, the members fill out a form that say, this approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected to the substantially adverse manner and the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. In those cases, the board has ruled that those extra signs or those larger signs or those illuminated window signs meet that test . It was mentioned that because Browning came in and asked for a variance that these certainly are not allowed or these must need a variance and is not a legal sign. Mr. Bucher refers this to Mr. Wendling, Jr. and he can address it at some point, but Mr. Bucher does feel that there is some reason to say that variances, just because a person goes in and requests a variance does not mean that the sign is illegal . Mrs . McMullen stated that her whole point in making that observation was that Browning did come in for a variance and that Mr. Bucher did not need to go through all of this . Mr. Bucher stated that Mrs . McMullen did make a number of statements last time and he will get to those in his comments . He does feel it is important for this Commission to hear a number of facts other than what was presented last time . The Plan Commission as far as he can see, does not have legislative intent, but does however, write the ordinances and recommend them to the City Council . The Department of Community Development is, by our ordinances , the body that is in charge of CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 14 enforcing the Zoning Ordinances . They read and interpret the ordinance on what it says, not what you meant it to say. The BZA is the final interpreter of the ordinances . If a person or business feels that my decision is wrong, as I interpret the ordinance, then they can appeal that decision to the BZA. Sometimes we can use a citation process or it might get resolved in court. Several of you contacted him after the last meeting and discussed why you voted the way you did. Some said it was to get a court challenge, cite somebody and take them to court . Some said it was, that if we have an ordinance then you need to be enforcing it, some say and some agree with Sue' s interpretation that these illuminated window signs were never met to be allowed. Whatever your reason, he hopes he is right in stating that most of you voted the way that you did, not with malice or grudge towards me, but because a lack of understanding and information on the issue . Your actions create a dilemma for him. When he became Director, one of the main things he set out to do, was to do what was right . Some of you may believe that his interpretation is wrong, but he believes that the Plan Commission action telling him what they meant to say and asking him to do something based on your interpretation not his , is also wrong. He does not necessarily believe that two wrongs can make a right . Should a business be requested to spend hundreds of dollars to appear before the BZA to get a sign . Up until last month no one on this Commission and no one on the BZA board, other than Warren Saunders on one vote, has ever said that they don' t like them. Should the city spend hundreds of dollars on staff time necessary to cite businesses, writing violations and should you and the BZA have to listen to all those cases? Should the city spend thousands of dollars of legal fees to take those alleged violators to court . AGain, maybe those are not all my decisions . There is a method for dealing with our ordinance . If you disagreed with his interpretation, and he came before this body and spelled it out to them, the Commission as a whole or anyone of you could have appealed that decision to the BZA. Or you could have called him and sat down with him or anybody on his staff and they would have gladly worked with you to write a new ordinance banning these signs . You did not do that . No one has come to him and said "put something down on paper, we don' t like those signs let' s ban them" . Mr. Bucher stated that he is not real sure what you are telling him. He is not sure what has caused all the controversy and he is really sorry to have dragged all of you through this presentation and through all the controversy about signage, when he thinks that most of you would rather not be involved in it . Mr. Bucher said that before your last Plan Commission meeting, at one of the Sign Committee meetings, it was mentioned that over three fourths of the Plan Commission disagreed with my interpretation. It was strange that the vote was taken some time after that . When he took office four years ago, there were CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 15 certain decisions that were made . This administration wanted to take a different direction in this department and that certain factions or groups or individuals should not be running their decisions through his office . His agreement with the Mayor was that no factions or individuals or special interest groups would play a powerful influence in decisions in our office . The Sign Ordinance doesn' t mean a lot to him other than it has been a hassle for four years and he wishes it would go away. He wished they had a good ordinance . And, Sue, yes , he will put in an appeal for a new ordinance and he doesn ' t care what it is because he is not going to have to deal with the problem any longer. The problem is that it won' t go away until something is done about it . The Mayor has never called him to say, "I want you to interpret this ordinance this way" . In the past, schools did not come in to the BZA for a Special Use . Schools were built and if they brought plans into the office they got a building permit and up went a school . That changed when he came in because they looked at the ordinance and it said that schools were Special Use . It didn' t make the schools real happy but starting with his administration they started bringing schools in for Special Use before the BZA. They tried to operate that way with individuals with groups no matter how important they are in this community or influential in the way that they have conducted business . He can look all of you in the eye and say that he has held true to those principals . He has not kowtowed to special interest, or to any certain individuals or even the whims of the Plan Commission that want certain things done . He has tried to be honest, fair and work in the best interest of this community. Until the last Plan Commission meeting again, he had never seen any indication from any official body here that these signs were really something that was detrimental to the community. He felt as long as they were working on the draft of the Sign Ordinance, it would be something that would be addressed so why go through the hassle . Maybe he was wrong, because he doesn' t mean to be at odds with you. He feels that the department has stayed true to their mission and their job. He respects their vote last time, he hopes that they understand a little better his position on it . We are looking at the Sign Ordinance, we have taken some pictures . Wes will review them, he will see how they fit with the ordinance and if they decide to cite them in the court they shall do that. He wants you to know that it is a time consuming process, they are reviewing it and he understands your concerns . He is not sure overall that what you voted to do is the direction this body really wants . And the last thing he was going to ask, if he writes a letter saying that the Plan Commission members wants this enforced and don' t like these signs, would all of you sign it, but he isn' t asking them to do that because he has to do it anyway. Mr. Bucher said the department will look at it and he appreciates their time and it has been an interesting time working with you. Thank you. 11111 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION COMMITTEE MINUTES - OCTOBER 15 , 1991 16 Mr. Terry Jones stated to clarify the outside storage thing very quickly there was a public hearing and it was Docket No. 4-91 OA. It was heard in February the first time, the rezone of that property was at the same hearing, then heard again in March and sent to Land Use in April. At the April meeting Terry quoted that, "Mr. Wendling recommended that this item be tabled and to allow him to get with staff and address this issue and the redraft of the overall zoning that he has been contracted to do. " Mr. Houck moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 19 P.M. . President Secretary ;CZ- ,5 27