Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 06-25-07 City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting ~onday,June25,2007 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, June 25, 2007, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members in attendance were Leo Dierckman, James Hawkins, Earlene Plavchak, Madeleine Torres and alternate Alan Potasnik, thereby establishing a quorum. Christine Barton-Holmes, Mike Hollibaugh and Rachel Boone represented the Department of Community Services. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mrs. Torres moved to approve the minutes of the May 21,2007 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5-0. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. Three items were tabled and one was withdrawn. The tabled items were Docket Nos. 07050018-07050021 Burger King for West Carmel Marketplace, 07030021-07030025 The Comer signs and 07010002-07010007 Applegate Condominiums until July 23,2007. The withdrawn items were 06120007-06120009 West Carmel Shoppes signage. Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. He had sent a letter to each of the Board members about pending litigation and asked them to confirm receipt of the letter. As Mrs. Torres announced, there were four items on the Hearing Officer's agenda which had been scheduled for 5:30 PM. That meeting has been recessed until 7:30 PM or the end of this Board meeting. One or more of those items had discussion regarding moving them to the full Board. However, the Zoning Ordinance and Rules preclude that from happening, unless it happens five days in advance of the scheduled hearing. That did not happen, so those items continue on the Hearing Officer's agenda. If they are delayed for a month, at that time they could be moved to the full Board's agenda. Mr. Dierckman asked at what point the decision had to be made to move an item to the full Board. Mr. Molitor stated ifthe items were not heard and tabled to the July agenda, they could be moved to the full Board's agenda, as long as the transfer takes place five days before the scheduled hearing. That gives the Board members five days to review the material. Mrs. Plavchak moved to dismiss Items 1 0-16i, Applegate Condominiums from the agenda. If the Petitioner is interested in bringing this business in front of the Zoning Board, they can re- file. It has been tabled a number oftimes and should not be carried on the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Hawkins asked about the items on the Hearing Officer agenda being moved or tabled to the next BZA meeting. He wanted to know if a Board member wanted to move an item to the full Board and had been notified that an item had already been moved to the full Board, was there any solution? Page 1 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Molitor stated it would be up to the Hearing Officer and her vote. The way the Ordinance and Rules work, the Board members get copies of all the items. If any member wants an item moved and heard by the full Board, they have between the ten and five days to make the request to the Director. H. Public Hearing: lh. Pet Angel Memorial Center Crematorium The applicant seeks the following special use approval: Docket No. 07050007 SU Chapter 19 of the ZO special use/crematorium The site is located at 172 East Carmel Drive and is zoned B8/integrated office/commercial. Filed by Coleen Ellis, Pet Angel Memorial Center. Mrs. Barton-Holmes reported that this Petition was noticed for the correct time, but noticed in the newspaper and on the sign for the TAC Hearing date of June 20. The mailed notice was correct and the sign has since been corrected. No one appeared at the T AC meeting. Mr. Molitor suggested the Board waive the Rules with regard to this item. Mr. Dierckman moved to suspend the Rules. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. Present for the Petitioner: Coleen Ellis, President of Pet Angel Memorial Center. They are the first pet funeral home in the United States. They are in their third year of operation. They service Carmel and the surrounding communities. They are expanding to have their own cremation machine on site. Pictures ofthe facility were shown. They are currently at 172 East Carmel Drive and plan to expand into 174 East Carmel Drive. The machine will be totally enclosed within the building. There will be no visible signs to the public/community. They have a back parking lot that backs to a tree row. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. As stated by the Petitioner, this will be a low intensity use. It would not be visible from the street or any of the surrounding properties. The use has been determined to be low emission, so there are no major concerns with pollution. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Potasnik stated in the analysis portion ofthe Department Report it states that the clients will be the Petitioner's clients only. He wanted to know ifthey would be individual clients and not commercial clients. He also asked the hours of operation and noise level. Ms. Ellis confirmed it would be her individual clients and not commercial clients. She said the machine would operate during normal workday hours, probably 8:00 to 6:00, and cool down in the evening. There would be no noise or emissions. Mrs. Plavchak asked about being the first pet funeral home in the country and how she knew this would not affect the surrounding area. Page 2 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Ms. Ellis stated that she comes from the human funeral home business with 18 years experience with the same types of operations. Mrs. Plavchak asked if this type of machine was in funeral homes in the area. Ms. Ellis stated not this particular machine, but other machines with similar technology with low volume and emissions were in funeral homes in the Indianapolis area. It will be the same kind of machines seen in human funeral homes. Mr. Dierckman asked if the Special Use was for pet crematorium or just crematorium. Mrs. Barton~Holmes said it was just for the crematorium. Mr. Dierckman asked if Ms. Ellis would limit her operation to pet cremation. Ms. Ellis agreed. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 07050007 SU, Pet Angel Memorial Center Crematorium, restricted to pets only. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0. 2-4h. TABLED Burger King, West Carmel Marketplace The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07050018 Section 27.08 minimum parking requirements Docket No. 07050020 Section 25.07.05 maximum number of driv~through menu boards Docket No. 07050021 Section 3 maximum percentage of logos on permitted signs/logo definition The site is located in West Carmel Marketplace and is zoned B3/Commercial Retail. Filed by Mike Dauss of Dauss Architects for Burger King Corporation and Duke Construction. This item was tabled to the July 23,2007 meeting, per the Petitioner's request. 5h. Monon & Main, Unit 2F The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07050027 V PUD Z-462-04, Section 15.26 Non-residential nses on 2nd & 3rd floors. The site is located at 234 West Main St. and is zoned PUDlPlanned Unit Development. Filed by Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Nelson & Frankenberger. Also present was Jeff Watkins, owner of Unit 2F. Mr. Watkins owns an environmental consulting firm named Environmental Services Associates. An aerial photo was shown of the Monon & Main area. A site layout was also shown. If this request is approved, it would only apply to this business. If the property is sold in the future, the future owner would need approval to operate a business. This is a low impact type of use. It is a small company that provides environmental consulting services. Typically the employees do not spend their entire day in the office. They are often out at sites, visiting projects or meeting with clients at off-site visits. When the clients do visit the office, the visits are usually brief to pick up or drop off documents or for short consultations. The business employs four full-time people including Mr. Watkins and two part-time office people. They do not believe the use will have a negative impact on traffic or parking in Page 3 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 the immediate vicinity. Mr. Watkins lives in Old Town and intends to walk to work. The garage in this unit will also provide parking availability. There does exist other on-site parking within the Monon & Main community and there should be nearby off-site parking spaces in the immediate area. As the Department Report explains, the City is implementing many measures in this area to address parking. One project is the parking garage to be located near the northeast comer of Second Avenue NE and Main Street which was authorized by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission and is under construction. The parking garage will provide additional spaces for the Old Town Arts & Design District. Since there are few visits from clients, the parking will be mainly for the employees. He did not feel this would have a negative impact on the traffic and parking. This request is consistent with the intent and spirit of the Monon & Main PUD Ordinance. Other requests to utilize the second and third floors of the Monon & Main units for non-residential uses have recently been approved by this Board. This request will have less impact than the Artichoke Design business that was approved in the Fall of2006. Mr. Watkins' business will not have the stop by retail traffic that could come to Artichoke Designs. He realized the granting of a prior request sets no precedence with this Board, but he felt it was helpful to compare the two requests because of the similarities. The Monon & Main project was never intended to be a high-intensity retaiVcommercial development. It was also not intended to preclude appropriate low-impact businesses that fit the spirit and character of the Old Town Arts & Design District. Jeff Watkins, principal of Environmental Services Associates. He grew up in Carmel and his parents still live in Carmel. He has lived in other areas with a succession of jobs. When he got married, they decided they wanted to come home and be near family. With the vision ofthe downtown area, they became intrigued to move into the community. Currently his office is about a half-hour drive each way. Invariably there is some item he needs that is at the office. When this opportunity presented itself, he had to jump on it and hope it would be approved. The number of employees will remain static for his business. He does not want to go to a larger business again. Mr. Shinaver felt it was important for the Board to hear from the people who will be operating the facility. He also grew up in Carmel. He likes to see people come back because ofthe vision that has been created and implemented by the City. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. This request is similar to other requests that have come through for Monon & Main. It is less intense than some ofthe others because the garage is still going to be utilized for parking. The Department recommended positive consideration for the docket. Mr. Hawkins asked if this was one of the ones originally designed for a live work unit since it is not directly on Main Street. Mr. Shinaver confirmed it was intended to be a live work unit, because it is in one ofthe units that is adjacent to Main Street even though they do not have frontage on Main Street. Mrs. Barton-Holmes also confirmed it to be a live work unit. Page 4 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Dierckman moved to approved Docket No. 07050027 V, Monon & Main, Unit 2F. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0. 6h. Kite Greyhound, LLC The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07050029 DSV PUD Z-344 One Ground Sign Permitted The site is located at US 31 North & 146th Street and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP for Kite Greyhound, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKinney & Evans. Also present was David Robinson, Kite Leasing. This is for a second ground sign for the southern part ofthe area that is owned by Kite. In 2000 the PUD was approved which directed the development ofthis project. At that time, the Lowe's Store was the only development that was perceived. The southern half of the site was conceptually developed with some permitted uses and that continued after the opening of the Lowe's Store. Lowe's owns their parcel and the street is shared. A four-pad restaurant development area was proposed. At this time there are two restaurants located there, Abuelo's and Fox and Hound. At the time of the PUD, there was one signs allowed on Lowe's Way. The Lowe's Store is prominent and enjoys good visibility as people move north from both Keystone and US 31. However, as the development of the restaurants has proceeded, it has become apparent and evident to the Kite Company that they need additional signage for these sites. He showed pictures of the topography and landscaping ofthe area from the US 31 highway. There is a significant grove of trees and bank, which precludes any view of the Abuelo's and the Fox and Hound. He showed a picture of the location for the proposed sign. That would identify the businesses for the people traveling north. Lowe's has an unobstructed view. He also shared pictures from the Keystone roadway view. There is an obstructed view of Abuelo's, but there is no view of Fox and Hound and the two undeveloped parcels to the south. He shared a picture of the sign location driving north on Keystone. The sign would be located on the Kite property. He showed the proposed sign in the packet. The sign would be consistent with Lowe's, Abuelo's and Fox and Hound. The sign is not overly large or towering. The proposed sign does fit within the PUD standards. The overall height of the sign is less than 10 feet. Each panel is approximately 45 square feet. The Greyhound Commons signage is approximately 12 feet. David Robinson, Kite Realty Group Sales & Leasing of peripheral outlots. Over the last 4 to 5 years they have attempted to create a 4 restaurant cluster for the neighborhood with a variety of selections. What they are finding from national restaurant groups is the northbound access is not a plus. It is manageable, but it is not manageable without some sort of visibility. This monument sign would give them the identification they need for primarily northbound traffic. They look at daytime population and businesses. Up and down the Meridian Corridor would be their business during the lunch hour. Abuelo's has come to Kite and requested additional signage. The two lots they are trying to market in the area further south has restricted visibility or no visibility from the tree line. Mr. Reis stated the public health and safety would be enhanced by the identification ofthese restaurants. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated in the Department Report that a better location would be near 146th Street. But the access for this will be from Greyhound Pass. There is no direct access to 146th Street from northbound US 31. People find the Lowe's Store and the restaurants, but this will be critical information for the two additional pads to the south. The sign will be attractive and complimentary to the design ofthe buildings. The use and value ofthe adjacent property will be enhanced by this sign because everyone wants a successful development. He did not feel this sign would detract from the Lowe's Store to the north. The tasteful design will differentiate it from the Page 5 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 signs further north on US 31, which was a major concern when they were looking at this PUD. The strict application ofthe PUD provisions which prohibits a second ground sign will make a great practical difficulty forKite in their attempts to further develop this site. Also, he felt the last thing the community would want for these restaurants would be for them to be unsuccessful and need to close. They felt this sign was critical and necessary for the development of the south part of the site due to the topography of the way the roads come in and also the trees. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. There are two concerns. First, there are very few signs like this along Carmel's stretch of Meridian Street. There are a number of signs like this north of 146th Street, but only a couple south of 146th Street. There is a concern that this may set a trend along US 31. The second concern has to do with access and safety. As the Petitioner noted, access to the site is not the best that it could be, but it is more directly accessed off 146th Street than Meridian Street. It might be misleading and confusing to people attempting to get to the site to see the sign on US 31 when there is no access on US 31. They recognized the importance of having a sign. Abuelo' s can be seen pretty easily from US 31. Fox and Hound is a little more difficult to see. There is a heavy tree line to the south they would like to see preserved. It will impact visibility. The Department felt there were other locations for the sign that would make more sense, recognizing they might require variances. The Department recommended negative consideration ofthe docket. Mr. Dierckman asked about a copy ofthe PUD. He wanted to know how the four lots were to be maintained. He thought it said the green area would be maintained and have sprinklers. Mr. Reis thought they could be maintained in undeveloped grass form. Mr. Dierckman stated he thought it was in the PUD. At the time the PUD was formed, the Plan Commission was very suspect ofthe four lots on the south and did not consider them to be developable. Those are difficult to get to. There was no signage provided for a good reason; there is no access from Meridian. Argument #3 in the Findings of Fact regarding successful operation because of lack of the sign could be argued for any business. The Plan Commission was very concerned about this when the PUD came through in 2000, but that was Kite's economic decision to more forward. It is difficult for you to come back at this point and say it is not viable. The Plan Commission did not think it was viable in 2000. Mr. Reis pointed out they showed a larger building with larger tenants as one plan in 2000. They did not show a four restaurant scenario. There is flexibility in the PUD and restaurants are a permitted use. The practical difficulty is that due to the configuration of this particular site, they cannot have the best identification of the businesses located there. Mr. Dierckman stated that difficulty existed on day one and they were determined they would still move forward. It was stipulated there would be no signs along Meridian Street. Mr. Reis said there was no stipulation. They only requested one sign at the time. Page 6 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Dierckman said if the Plan Commission would have offered two signs, the developer would have taken it. They were allowed one sign on Lowe's that was visible from Meridian Street. This is not a compelling argument. They knew the difficulties of the site when they purchased the site. Mr. Reis could not find the information regarding the care ofthe greenbelt area. There are ground signs along the Meridian Corridor. Hamilton Crossing has a very prominent sign. Mr. Dierckman stated that was not in this section of the Corridor. He asked the Department if there was a sign at Clay Terrace. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated there is a sign for the Clay Terrace shops just off US 31 on Clay Terrace Boulevard and one on 146th Street. Mr. Reis stated the Clay Terrace sign is at the corner of US 31 and Clay Terrace Boulevard right outside the right-of-way. Mr. Dierckman stated that was because they access off US 31. But these restaurants do no have access on US 31. The sign does not direct traffic on how to get there. Mr. Reis stated they did not create the difficulty. The difficulty has always been there with no visibility. You are saying you do not care about the southern portion. Ifit fails, that is Kite's problem. Mr. Dierckman stated that any developer can buy any piece of land and make a business decision on whether or not it is going to be successful or not. The Board cannot make economic decisions. They are not here for that reason. The developer has to be prudent with their funds. At the time it was understood that this was a tough site. A variance means it was not permitted; it was not wanted at the time. Mr. Reis stated they requested only one sign. At the time the development of Phase II was nebulous at best. All they tried to do with the PUD was get as much detail as possible, not knowing the future development ofthe site. At that time they said they would have one ground sign. Mr. Dierckman thought there was a difference of opinion. We all recognized the difficulty at the time and said we did not want that. They thought it was going to be difficult to market those four sites. The developer's economic decisions are not compelling. There is no access on US 31, so there is no compelling reason why additional signage should be granted. At some point there is going to be another ramp coming onto Keystone. Mr. Reis said the current plan was for a tight diamond intersection and pointed it out on the site plan. None ofthe site would be affected and the trees would remain that block the vision from US 31. Mrs. Torres did not feel putting a sign on Meridian Street was going to direct more traffic to the site, because they would have to go up and around and past Menard's and cross 146th Street. It is very confusing unless there are little directional signs along the way. She felt it would be more appropriate to do an off-site sign where the roads split. That is a much more direct shot into the restaurant facility. She did not feel anyone that would be coming off the Meridian Street part of the road would be assisted. It is too far away, even with a sign. She felt the sign would be more appropriate at the 146th Street ramp off Keystone Avenue. Page 7 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Reis stated the purpose ofthe sign would be for identification, not directions. There are signs in many communities that people know are not a direct route. They want it on Meridian to identify that the restaurants are there, but cannot be seen. Mrs. Torres suggested a billboard somewhere else in the City. Mr. Reis stated there are no billboards in the City. Hamilton Crossing has a sign listing its tenants. Mrs. Torres felt the sign should assist the public on how to get to the restaurants and that would not happen on Meridian. Mr. Reis felt it would be like locating Lowe's. People can see the sign and know that it is further north and on the right side of the road. Their point is Lowe's has identification because of the height ofthe building and the wall sign. They are trying to have identification that there are four restaurants in this area. They would need a variance to put the sign on other property. Mrs. Plavchak felt if identification for northbound traffic is the purpose of the sign, they should try to rent space on the sign that goes into Greyhound Pass at Village Park. That is where people need to turn to get to Lowe's and these restaurants. Mr. Reis stated that they are not a tenant in that center. If the sign were there, people would think the restaurants were located in that center. He doesn't know of any ground signs for a center that has a restaurant listed that is a half mile away and is not part of that center. He felt that would be more confusing because people would turn expecting to find the restaurant somewhere in that development. They are attempting to say there are four restaurants that are located in this area. They want the development to be successful. They felt this sign would achieve that by saying there are four restaurants located there. He did not think the Board would want the sign to say Greyhound Commons, the restaurants listed and continue north to Greyhound Pass, turn right and follow south. They felt people traveling north would see the sign and go to the first place they could turn right. That road would bring them back into the center. Greyhound Pass turns into Lowe's Way and goes into the center. Mr. Dierckman thought people from Carmel going to Abuelo's would take the exit off Keystone. He did not feel drive-by traffic would figure out how to get to it. It would probably be a mile or more from the sign to the restaurants. If they do sufficient advertising listing their location then everyone would know where they are located. Mr. Reis said ifthey could put a sign at the offramp ofthe state highway on someone else's land, that would be great and they would be there. Mr. Dierckman stated that sometimes on state highways restaurants have the little signs on the boards that say restaurant. Can they do that on Keystone? Mr. Reis understood from the Mayor that Keystone Avenue would not be a state highway much longer. At least on the interstates they have the restaurant signs. Mr. Dierckman felt it was difficult for someone from out of town to see that sign and figure out how to get there. Page 8 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Reis said the point is that someone coming up from the west side of Carmel on US 31 for the first time would notice the sign for the four restaurants. When the restaurants come in, they are obviously going to market and advertise. When someone is coming up US 31 for the first or second time, or a business that locates here, they will see the sign and know this is where these restaurants are generally located. It doesn't have the ability of Clay Terrace that has direct access onto US 31. Mr. Dierckman asked if the general public realizes that it is called Greyhound Commons. Has that been advertised as Abuelo' s in Greyhound Commons? Maybe the thing to do is forget about the tenant signs and put "Greyhound Commons make a right on Greyhound Pass". That is directional signage and then businesses could advertise "We're in Greyhound Commons". That might be more efficient and effective. Mr. Reis felt the names ofthe restaurants were more important and he had faith that the general public could figure out how to get there. Mr. Dierckman said that the people that know where it is located will take the easier exit off Keystone. The sign wouldn't help if you didn't know how to get there. Mr. Reis said if you knew there was a restaurant the first time you drove up, would that make a difference? Mr. Dierckman said you can see Abuelo's from the road so you know there is a restaurant. You may not know what they serve. Mr. Reis said Abuelo's is not visible from Lowe's Way because of the trees. In the winter time it is much easier. The embankment makes it hard to see. They just want the ability to identify that there are four restaurants. Mr. Potasnik worked a lot on the Sign Ordinance. Signs like this one were the ones they would not have to worry about because of the Sign Ordinance. He was not enthusiastic about it. This project is not based on the signs. According to the Ordinance, the purpose and intent of the signs are for identification. The success ofthe project would be based on the food and the service that the restaurants put out. Abuelo' s has an identification sign on the west side which is hard to see. The south side also has a sign. He assumed the Fox and Hound had a sign on the south side. Mr. Reis said the Fox and Hound signs were on the north and west. Each restaurant had a sign on two sides. Mr. Potasnik always asked "what if'. What if every restaurant had something like this? He did not feel it was the purpose and intent ofthe Sign Ordinance. He did not see where the success of this project was going to be hinged upon the addition of a monument sign. Mr. Reis stated that most ofthe restaurants along 1 16th Street, such as Macaroni Grill, Majors Sports Bar, Carrabba's which you have to drive around to get to, have wall signs in addition to the ground SIgnS. Page 9 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Potasnik also noted that when Friday's was at its original place at Keystone at the Crossing, you wouldn't know it was in there and yet it was constantly packed. Therefore the success of the project was not going to be based upon the addition of another monument sign. Mr. Hawkins was concerned because people were three lights away from getting to these properties. From a visibility standpoint, there are four arterials and there is visibility from three of them. His concern was the four lanes merging together and they did not need a distraction to try to move over four lanes. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 07050029 V, Kite Greyhound. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and DENIED 0-5. 7-9h. WITHDRAWN: West Carmel Shoppes - Signage The applieant seeks the follewiag ae'lelopment stafldards 'lar1anee appre'flll: Doeket No. g(i120007 V SeeBOD 2S.07 SigD Chart B sigD height Doek-et No. g(i120008 V SeeBOD 2S.07.01.04 off premise sigD Doel{-et No. 0(i120009 V SeetioDs 2S.07.01.08, 2S.07.02.09 &umber of signs The site is loeated at se1:1theast eorner ef l(){)~ St aRd US 121 is zoned B 3/Bl:lsiness aRd ',vitflin the US 121 Overlay. Filed by Pal:ll Reis efBese MeKinRey & EY{lms, LLP. 10-14h. TABLED: The Corner - Signs The applieant seeks the fellewing de';elepmefl.t stafldards 'fQfianee apprevals: Doeket No. 07030021 V SeetioD 23F.IJ.OL.... grel:lRd sign prohibited ia overlay Doeket No. 07030022 V SeetioD 23.07.02 9.b tetal al:HHber ef signs Doeket No. 07030023 V SeetioD 2S.07.02 9.b IHffilber ef tefl.aflts she'.YR OR groood sign Doeket No. 0703002~ V SeeDoD 2S.07.02 9.d ground sign height Doek~t No. 0703002S V SeetioD 2S.07.02 10.e leeation '1.<ithia proposed reae right ofvfllY The site is loeated at the sel:1tawest eerner ef 116~ 81. & Range LiRe Re. The site is zeRed B 3/Bl:lsiness ',vithia the Cannel Dr Range Line Rd O'.rerlay. Filee by Paul Reis efBose MeKianey & E';ans LLP. I. Old Business 1-9i. Merchants' Square - Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07020030 V Section 25.07.02-09.b number of monument signs Docket No. 07020031 V Section 25.07.02-09.b all tenants not on sign Docket No. 07020032 V Section 25.07 Sign Chart A sign height Docket No. 07020033 V Section 25.07 Sign Chart A square feet, monument sign Docket No. 07020034 V Section 25.07.02-11.b number of directory signs Docket No. 07020035 V Section 25.07.01.04 off-premise sign Docket No. 07020036 V Section 25.07.01.04 off-premise sign Docket No. 07020037 V Section 25.07 Sign Chart A setback Docket No. 07020038 V Section 25.07 Sign Chart A setback The site is located at 2160 Keystone Way and is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Amanda Gates of Sign Craft Industries. Present for the Petitioner: William Gershenson, Ramco Gershenson Inc., 31500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 300, Farmington Hills, Michigan. Also present were Randy Tambourine, Ramco Page 10 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Gershenson and Amanda Gates, Sign Craft Industries. He felt they had made great strides with their signage. He had a conversation with the City Attorney after the Plan Commission meeting and he was very encouraged by the way they were working with the City. The things they have done are more in line with the interests of this Board and the community. Two variances have been removed; Docket Nos. 07020032 for sign height and 07020033 for square footage ofthe monument sign. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated those two items had been brought within compliance of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Gershenson stated they had enlisted an engineering firm. The new sign for 116th Street and AAA Way would no longer be in the right-of-way. Theywill place the sign on their property. Ifthere was ever any eminent domain, they would pay the relocation cost. A site plan indicating location of the signs was shown. They should remove one of the off-premise variances and one ofthe setback variances. Now they would just be talking about the number of monument signs and how they would look. It was his understanding that the number of directional signs and the fact that all tenants were not listed on the directional signs was something this Board was in favor of supporting. He pointed out the location ofthe three directional signs. These three signs are within the height and square footage requirements. They had worked with the Plan Commission on the way the signs would look. They would have landscaping around them. There are two existing monument signs; one off-site and one on- site. The variance is for the addition of a new monument sign. They plan to make all three signs look the same which would be a modification of the two existing signs and the addition of a new sign. The monument signs will be less than six feet in height which is within the height allowed. They have Cost Plus World Market and Arhaus Furniture which are the only two locations of its kind within 50 to 100 miles. There are people from outside the community coming to the center to shop at these stores. They would like them to have the ability to know where these stores are located within the center. The addition of the new monument sign at 116th Street and AAA Way is needed because after they acquired the center the previous left turn from 116th Street into the center was eliminated. He believed the City had been in contact with Site Hawk and Site Hawk has contacted the City with regards to the individual tenant sign violations. Letters have been sent to assist with the procedure. They had been in contact with the City with regard to the information to be included on the reader board along Keystone Avenue. Mr. Molitor stated the Board had the discretion to open the Public Hearing on this Old Business item since there has been new information presented. Members ofthe public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. The General Information section ofthe Department Report provided the updates the Department had received. The height has been reduced to below five feet and the overall square footage ofthe monument signs has been reduced to 67.32 square feet, which are within the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. As for the setbacks, the information received for the sign to be located at Blockbuster Video looks as though it is out ofthe right-of-way. They had not received updated site information for the one located at AAA Way and Carmel Drive whether it was in or out of the right-of-way. It still does not meet the minimum lO-foot setback requirement from the right-of-way. The right-of-way at that point is very large at approximately 150 feet although it is not fully paved. It may still have a setback issue. The overall number and location of monument signs Page 11 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 remain the same. The only issues up for discussion are the number of monument signs which the Department does not support. There is currently a very large sign at 1 16th Street and Keystone and the building signs. The Department was in favor of all the tenants not being listed on the signs. There are so many tenants there is a concern they would not be legible if all were listed on the same sign. The number of directory signs, which has not changed, is supported by the Department because it is a large development and confusing to navigate if someone has never been there. The setback issues have not been totally resolved. The right-of-way issues appear to be resolved. They would need to check with the Engineering Department to see if consent to encroach would be necessary. Mr. Gershenson confirm ifthere was ever a problem with the location of the sign at 1 16th Street and AAA Way, they would be willing to relocate it at their expense. If the situation existed that they could not have it because it was not conducive, then that would be a decision that would have to be made. The modification of the existing sign on Carmel Drive and AAA Way will be less than two feet in height. It is not a very dramatic change in the sign. Again if the City needed to take the road, they would relocate it or take it away. Mr. Dierckman asked which Docket Nos. were still in play and the Department position on each. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated 07020030 V was still applicable and the Department was not in favor. Docket No. 07020031 V was still in play and the Department was in favor. Docket Nos. 07020032 V and 07020033 V are moot because of the modifications. Docket No. 07020034 V is still in play and the Department was in support. Docket Nos. 07020035 V and 07020036 V appear to be no longer in play with the information submitted. Docket Nos. 07020037 V and 07020038 V are still issues. The signs are no longer in the right-of-way, but there are still setback issues. There is definitely a setback issue for the one at 1 16th Street and AAA Way. Mrs. Torres asked ifthe Petitioner understood there were still setback issues. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the sign is no longer within the right-of-way, but it does not meet the setback requirements. The sign is required to be ten feet back from the right-of-way. It looks like it is about 2.5 to 3 feet from the right-of-way. According to the most current Thoroughfare Plan, this is as wide as the right-of-way will be at this location. It looks like the Petitioner would not need to move that sign if it were approved. Mr. Hawkins asked if the Petitioner would need to withdraw Docket Nos. 07020035 V and 07020036 V Mr. Molitor stated they seemed to be moot, so they could be withdrawn. The Petitioner would not want a vote on them because they are not applicable. Mr. Gershenson withdrew Docket Nos. 07020035 V and 07020036 V. Mr. Hawkins asked if there was already a sign on Carmel Drive that was in the setback. Mr. Gershenson stated the existing sign at Carmel Drive and AAA Way is already within the setback. Mr. Hawkins asked which signs need Docket Nos. 07020037 V and 07020038 V. Was it the one on 1 16th Street that is proposed and the one on Carmel Drive that already exists? , Page 12 of 16 . Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Gershenson stated it was the existing sign that was being modified. The number of monuments is the point of contention. They are only adding one and it is the most important one for the new main entrance at 116th Street and AAA Way. Mr. Dierckman asked ifthey were elevating the existing signs by about a foot. Mr. Tambourine said the existing signs are roughly 4 to 4.3 feet. With the modification, the signs will be just less than five feet. Mr. Dierckman felt the additional monument sign made sense, because that is the main entrance. The one within the development was a non-issue and pollution for people using the development and he was indifferent about it. The directional signs are a good thing because it is confusing throughout the center if they are from out oftown. Are you going to remove the tall sign along Keystone? Mr. Gershenson said they do not have the right to take the sign down. They acquired the center from Linder three years ago. He did not know the history of the sign, but he had checked on it. It was his understanding that they were contractually obligated to advertise not only the tenants at Merchants' Square, but the tenants at Merchants' Pointe and City advertising. Mr. Potasnik stated that was correct, but the City portion was not happening. Mr. Gershenson understood that it was happening for a period of time, but he was told by his people that the City stopped supplying the information. In the meeting they had previously, they took a pro- active approach and have been in touch with the City. The City is entitled to one-third and they ask the City to send the information. He would make it a personal task of his to make sure that was happening. He gave Mr. Potasnik his business card for follow-up. Mrs. Barton-Holmes covered the Docket Nos. and recommendations again. The Department is in favor of Docket Nos. 07020034 V number of directory signs and 07020031 V not all tenants on the sign. The Department does not support 07020030 V for number of monument signs. The Department does not have a concern with the sign at 116th Street and AAA Way. They see the necessity of advertising what is further within the site. They do not see the necessity for the more internal monument signs. At that point people are already in the center and see most of the signs on the tenant spaces. They recognize that two of them already exist and as they are being modified they fit within the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Gershenson stated that interior monument sign is used by the people who are able to enter the center by the Mellow Mushroom. So it would help to have Old Navy and Cost Plus and some of the others names on that sign because they are not visible from that entrance. Mrs. Barton-Holmes continued with Docket Nos. 07020037 V and 07020038 V the setbacks. Previously the Department had not been in favor of them but the signs have been moved back because the right-of-way for both areas is so large. The Department is now in support of the setbacks. It is a reduced setback, but the signs are no longer within the right-of-way. Essentially the negative recommendations are for the number of monument signs. Mr. Gershenson asked if the number of monuments was denied would that preclude them from constructing the new sign. Page 13 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25,2007 Mr. Molitor stated that a denial would leave them with the opportunity to have two ofthe monuments signs, in addition to the large pylon sign on Keystone Avenue. It would be up to the developer to determine which two signs they wanted ofthose three. They are requesting three and Staff is recommending that they continue to have two. Mr. Hawkins asked if the Staff was recommending the one on Carmel Drive and the one on I 16th Street and did not recommend the interior sign. Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed that. Mr. Gershenson wanted clarification. If they removed the existing interior one, they could modify the one at Carmel Drive and AAA Way and erect the new one at I 16th Street and AAA Way. Mr. Molitor confirmed they could have two signs. They want three places, so they need to pick which two places they want. He did not feel the Board was here to say which two, but only how many. Mr. Hawkins stated they were granting the setback for the sign they need. They are not telling them which one, but in a de facto way they are. Mr. Gershenson stated that in essence ifthe number of monuments is not approved, they still has the ability to build and/or modify two monuments signs. The Board agreed. Mr. Hawkins asked the height of the sign on I 16th Street and AAA Way. His reservation was height and how far back. Are people able to see around it if trying to turn right onto I 16th Street? Mr. Gershenson stated it was less than five feet. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated it did not block the view. Mrs. Plavchak stated she had requested at the last hearing for these variances that something be done with the very tall sign on Keystone with the electronic sign board. That was one of the reasons they needed to come back this month with some kind of plan to re-do or preferably get rid ofthat sign. She had not heard anything other than they were not going to do anything with it. That is not acceptable. Mr. Gershenson stated the pylon sign is a separate issue from the rest ofthe variances. They inherited that pylon sign and it is his understanding from the community that most people are very unhappy with it. He was confused as to why that was granted when the development was done. Nonetheless, based on their contractual obligations, for them to reduce the sign and move the reader board down would be outrageously costly. However, from leases done in the past they are contractually obligated to have certain of the tenants on that sign. If they bring the height of the sign down, they would be removing panels and in default ofthe tenant obligation. Mrs. Plavchak suggested they get rid of the top panel and the shopping bag. Give it a clean top like the new monument signs. Page 14 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Tambourine did not think there was anything electrical in the shopping bag. If so, they could disconnect it ifit is nothing more than a light. Mr. Gershenson said if the removal ofthat shopping bag is going to grant them all the approvals, then they would remove the shopping bag. Mrs. Plavchak stated the whole point of re-doing the monument signs was so that they all look alike and that one does not. Mr. Gershenson agreed and stated they would be happy to remove the shopping bag. Mrs. Plavchak did not understand why they could not lower that sign. Mr. Gershenson stated that based on the structure of the sign with the brick, it would be outrageous. They cannot remove it because they have contractual agreements with the City and Merchants' Pointe. Mrs. Plavchak wanted to know the length of the contract. Mr. Gershenson said he would have to look, but thought it was as long as certain things were in place. They inherited that sign. Mrs. Plavchak still wanted them to get rid of the shopping bag at the top. Mr. Gershenson stated that in consideration for the approvals, he would be happy to commit to that if the rest ofthe petitions are approved. Apparently at one point in time, the panels were all to be white and black. He would be happy to make it match the other signs or leave it the same. Mrs. Plavchak would like them to replace the burned out light bulbs. Mr. Gershenson said they continue to do it all the time. The problem is the ancient technology and the new technology costs a fortune. It is extremely expensive to replace the reader board. Mrs. Plavchak asked if they had looked into removing the advertisements for businesses that are no longer in the center. Mr. Gershenson stated one ofthe issues was that all the stuffwas done off-site. The technology is such that there was someone locally who was maintaining it. They can tell someone to do something, but unless they are at the center looking up at it, they don't see what needs to be done. They encourage the tenants and the City to let them know if something needs changed. It is difficult not being at the property on a daily basis. Mr. Hawkins asked ifthe removal of the M shopping bag on the top ofthe sign should be tied to only one of the variances. Mr. Molitor felt it would relate most directly to 07020030 V. That was acceptable to Mr. Gershenson. Page 15 of 16 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Agenda June 25, 2007 Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 07020030 V, Merchants' Square Signage, with the Commitment to remove the M shopping bag. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-1 with Mr. Dierckman casting the negative vote. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 07020031 V, Merchants' Square Signage. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-1 with Mr. Potasnik casting the negative vote. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 07020034 V, Merchants' Square Signage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 4-1 with Mr. Potasnik casting the negative vote. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 07020037 V, Merchants' Square Signage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dierckman and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 07020038 V, Merchants' Square Signage. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0. 10-14i. TABLED: Applegate Condominiums The applieant seeks the falla-.viBg develaflmeRt staRdaRls ,<,alianee and speeial1:lse aflflf8vals: Doeket No. 07010002 V Seetioo 23D.93.C.3.k(ii) maximam lJaildiBg height Doeket No. 07010003 V SeetiaB 23D.93.C.3.f(i) parkiBg iB froBt yard Doeket No. 07010004 V Seetion 23D.03.C.3.i(i) roofpiteh Doeket No. 0701000S V SeetioB 23D.93.C.3.a(ii) lJaildiBg mass/width WITBI>RAWN Doeket No. 0701000' V Seetion 23D.03.C.3.e(ii) laBdseape reflairemeBts Doeket No. 07010007 SU Seetion 10.02"^L speeialases WITBI>RA WN Doeket Ne. 07010014 V SeetioB 23D.03.C.3.e.iii(b) lot eoverage over 70% The site is located at 130 Second St. NW., and is zoned R-4/Residence within the Old Town Overlay - Character Subarea. Filed by Thomas Lazzara for On Track Properties, Inc. J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adjournment Mrs. Plavchak moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:58 PM. ~. S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2007\20070625.rtf Page 16 of16