HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 11-26-07
u
City of Carmel
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Monday, November 26,2007
Thetegularly scheduled meeting ofthe Camlel Board ofZonJng Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday,
November 26, 2007, in the COlU1Cil Chambers of City Hall, Camlel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Members ifl attendance were James Hawkins, Earlene Plavchak and Madeleine Torres, thereby
establishing a quorum. Christine Barton~ Holmes, Rachel Boone, and Mike Hollibaugh represented the
Department of Community Services. JOm1 Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present.
Mrs. Torres moved to approve the minutes of the October 22, 2007 meeting as submitted. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3-0.
Mrs; Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. She stated ItenllI Westwood Estates and Items 2-31
North Meridian Medical Pavilion were 'tabled to the December 17,2007 meeting.
U Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. For the pending litigation, he is starting to get notice of the depositions
of some of the staff members and himself. The Board may want to have an Executive Session in
December or early January for briefmg and to discuss strategy they may wish to undertake in the
litigation. The trial has been postponed until next fall.
Mr. Hawkins reminded the Petitioners that with only threeBoard members present, it would take a 3-0
vote to approve a petition.
H. Public Hearing:
1h. Williams Mill Deck
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 071000]6 V Section 2S.01.B.3.b.i.b deck encroacbingmore tban 3' into easement
The. site is located at 472 McLaren Lane and is zoned S2/Single-Family Residential.
Filed by Stephel1son Residential, LLC for the owner.
u
Present for the Petitioner: Lance Stephenson, Stephenson Residential LLC. He has been contracted by
the Jacobsons to build a screened deck offtneir residence. When he applied for the permit, he was
infonned they would need a variance because they are on the easement line. A site plan was shown.
The screened porch will come 12 feet off the main body of the house which falls right on the drainage
easement. They are not in the easement, but right on the line. There is also a row of 15-foot evergreens
on the back portion that is in the easement. He did not know if the previous homeowners or the
developer put them in that location. The trees will block all views from residences behind the parcel. In
Page I of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26,2007
U the design of tbe deck, he put a cantilever on tbe deck making the deck sit on piers. Therefore, the
foundation will sit one foot inside the easement.
Members ofthe pubhc were invited to sp'eak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Heating \vas closed.
Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. This request would pem1it the construction of a
deck that would be cantilevered out over an existing drainage easement. From the aerial photo, the
backyards in this neighborhood are narrow. It would be difficult to build much of anything back there
without it encroaching into or adjoining the drainage easement. Because it is going to be cantilevered,
tbe only part of the structure that would physically be in the easement is the support bearns. This
request has also been before the County Surveyor's Office which reviews structures going into
easements and they have granted their approval of the request. The Departnl.ent recommended positive
consideration of the petition.
Mr. Hawkins asked if they would also need approval from the Drainage Board, or was the Surveyor's
approval all they needed.
Mrs, Barton-Holmes stated that approval had already been granted.
u
Oocket No. 07100016 V, Williams Mill Deck was APPROVED 3-0.
2-31i. Medford Place - S~gl"age,
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07100018 V Section 25.07.02-09 b Ground sign not facing ROW
Docket No. 07100037 V Section 25.07.02-09 b NUlnber of signs per tenant
The site is located at 10485 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned B-3.
Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney and Evans.
u
Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKinney and Evans, 301 Pennsylvania Parkway, Suite
300. Lisa Held, Maquina Realty and Gary Hubbard, tenant, were also present. The Medford Place
Retail Center is located on US 421 just south of 106lh Street, near the Super Target, Walgreen's and the
Maplecrest Retail Center. A site plan was shown. The tenants and the 0\'v11er are seeking a variance for
an additiOllal ground sign to be added to the overall sign package for the Center. An aerial photograph
of the location was shown indicat~ng the approximate location of the ground sign. There is no access
from US 421 into the site. People who are entering the site from tbe south use 1061h Street and turn
east. They use the private drive as a public street going toward the Super Target to enter the Celiter. It
is essentially one Way into the Center. The location of the ground sign would be adjacent to the
entrance which would not have miy affect on the vision clearance as they exit the site. The variances
are forthe ground sign because it is not oriented toward a public street and secondly this would be
additional signage for the six tenants including their wall signage on the front of the building. The
importance of the signage is the number of prospective customers, as well as customers that are
COIning to the site, in order for them to be able to find this Center. An elevation of the sign was sho"wn
which reflected the colors of the Center. The sign with the tenant names is only five feet high by about
seven and a half feet side. There will be landscaping. Should they receive approval for these variances,
they will proceed to the ADLS Special Study review. At that point, they will have a more thorough
landscape plan. The specification sheet with the 6.5 sign area was shown. A traditional ground sign
Page 2 of 11
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26, 2007
U adjacent to a public street could be six feet high with sixty square feet. It is really a very small, but
very important sign.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Miss Boone gave the Department Report. If the rear of this property was facing a public drive, it would
be allowed a sixty square foot ground sign. As stated by the Petitioner, the sign is seven and a half feet
wide by five feet tall whi ch makes the overall area of the sign about forty square feet. The actual sign
face area for the six tenallts is about nine. square feet. The Departmeht has concerns with the readability
ofthis sign. However, they felt it was necessary because ofthe one-way traffic in and out of the site,
the public nature of the road and the retail centers it services to the east of US 421. They cunently do
not have any SigIlage on the back ofthe building for the tenants. This wolild create a neat, concise,
compact area for all of the tenants to have additional signage on that road. The Department was in
support of the variance requests.
ivIrs. Tones appreciated the need for thc sign in this area. She has noticed a lot of the establishments
have hicd to put different things out back such as sign boards or iilf1ated items. In approving this,
could there be a commitment that none of those extraneous items would remain?
u
Mr. Reis COnfll11led that would be fine and that would be what the Ordinance provides. He knew
tenants used the sign boards and other items because they wanted some type of identification.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 07100018 V and 07100037 V, Medford Place signage
with the Commitment the extraneous items used for advertising by the various tenants will be
removed. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and both were APPROVED 3-0.
4-8h. The Corner - Sign age
The appl ical1t seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07100019 V Section 23F.13.01-A Ground sign in Carmel Dt./Rangeline Rd. Overlay zone
Docket No. 07100020 V SectioIl25.07.02-09 b Number of signs' per tenant
Docket No. 07100021 V Section 25.07.02-09 b All tenants not l'epresented on ground sign
Docket No. 07100022 V Section 25.07.02-09 d Height of ground sign
Docket No. 07100023 V Section 25.07.02-09 e Sign located in ROW
The site is located at 11588 Westfield Blvd. and is zoned B-3/Wide variety of commercial and office uses in
transitional locations.
Filed by PatlI Reis of Bose McKinney and Evans.
u
Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKinncy and Evans. Also present was Kcn Petruska, Vice
President of Property Operations POlifolio Management with Kite Realty Group \\Tho is the property
manager for the owner of the center. A site plan was shown. The variances would allow for two ground
signs; one along 1 16th Street and the other along Range Line Road. In late 2004 the Carmel
DrivelRange Linc Road Overlay Ordinance was adopted. That Ordina11ce prohibited new ground signs.
The Ordinance is all attempt by the City to change Range Line Road as there are redevelopment
efforts. However, in this case there has been an attempt by Kite to make improvements to the Center,
but they are not completely redeveloping the site. The one ground sign has been grandfathered. It was
shown on the site plan. The sign does not provide any kind of tenant identification, nor is it very
Page 3 of 1 ]
Camlel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26, 2007
U visible from the two major streets at that location. The only identification is "The Comer". The
variances would allow nine tenants to be shown on these ground signs. Tltis is not all the tenants in
The Comer, so the variance is needed to show less than all the tenants on the sign. The vacancy and
vitality of The Corner depends on this additional signage. The sign on 116th Street would be in the
future tight-of-way for 116th Street. The two elevations were ShOWil. The signs are attractive and easy
to read from each street. The signs will each highlight ni ne of the tenants. If all of the other ten tenants
\vere listed, the readability would have gone down greatly. The grades decline from the roadways into
the center. In order to make the sign level, the height of the sign will be increased one foot six inches
along Range Line Road and one foot eight inches along l161h Street. The overall height of the sign is
only five feet, but the additional height/signage at the base makes the sign exceed the six-foot
maximum. The final variance is for the right-of-way. A site plan indicating the right-of-way was
shown. The future right-of-way line goes through the parking lot along 116111 Street. The existing right-
oI-\vay line is to the north. The 116th Street project is completed and the line shown was accurate. The
positioning of the sign in the future right-of-way will not have any impact on the existing right-of-way,
nor the pedestrian pathway along 116th Street. He reviewed the Fi ndings of Fact. These signs will be an
enhancement to the center by providing better tenant identification, making the center more successful.
Moving the sign outside the right-of~way wou.ld put it in the middle ofthe dlive aisle.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
The Public Hearing was closed.
u
Ms. Boone gave the Department Report. The sign \vill be five feet tall by twelve feet wide. It is 47
square feet which would be within the 75 square feet the Sign Orciinance allows. The buildings are set
back 200 to 400 feet from the respective roads. Because oftrus distance, the Depa11ment felt the
addItional signage at the roads would help the tenants have better visibility as people are passing. If all
the tenant names were placed on the signs, it would be detrimental and not as aesthetically pleasing
because it would not be readable. The sign is only a foot and a half or so taller on one end and the
actual sign is only five feet tall. The signs will be internally illuminated. The letters will appear white.
The Department did not feel it would be detrimental to have the sign in the right-of-way. They will be
removing two parking spaces and adding a landscaped area to keep the flow of traffic. The Department
supported all the valiances. If there were to be more road improvement along this site, it would be up
to the Petitioner to take care of renloving and relocating the sign. If the site were to be redeveloped
completely, these ground signs would not be allowed. Since they are currently trying to improve the
site, these ground signs will help for tenant identification.
Mrs. Plavchak stated the diagrams had shown six tenants on the sign, but nine was used in the
presentation.
Mr. Reis stated she was correct. There will be six tenants listed and there are over ten in the center.
The existing sign will be removed.
Mt. Hawkins asked if anything needed to be included in the approval in tenus ofthe right-of-way to
mitigate ailY costs associ ated with the City utilizing the full proposed right-of-way.
u
Mr.Molitor was not sure. He thought all the right-of-way had already been dedicated to the City, but
part of the right-of-way is being utilized as part of the parking and access to the site.
Page 4 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26, 2007
U Mr. Reis stated he had spoken with Gary Duncan in the City Engineering Department about an
encroachment. Technically the land is still owned by the Petitioner who does not have any problem
with it going into the proposed thoroughfare. lfthe City takes the land, the sign would be removed.
Mr. Hawkins asked if there would be any compensation to the landowner from the City. He wanted to
make sm'e the City was protected in the event the sign was put in the right-of-way and would then need
to he removed.
Mr. Reis stated that right now if the City were to further widen 1161h Street and take additional right-
of-way, they would need to compensate for the sign because the sign is on private property. It is not on
City property. Gary Duncan in the City Engineer's Office has no problem with the signs, because right
now they do not show any fmiherplans for widening 116[11 Street.
Mr. Hawkins asked if the Petitioner would be willing to waive any right to compensation from the
expansion of the right-of-way, as part of the approval
Mr. Reis confirmed they were willing to waive compensation.
Mrs. Torres asked fot clarity. Was the sign really in the right-of-way or the proposed right-of-way? Do
they really need a variance ifit is not an existing right-of-way?
.w
Mr. Reis stated the way the Ordiilance reads, if this was a barren piece of land typically they would not
be able to do anything in this right-of-way, even the right-of-way shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. He
indicated the line on the Thoroughfare Plan and the existing right-of-way. They have more shown than
what they need for right-of-way. Technically it is not in the right-of-way.
Mrs. Tones asked then why do they treed the variance.
"MY. Reis stated it is because it is in the proposed right-of-way.
ML Molitor stated that it is in the right-of-"way as shown by the Thoroughfare Plan which is part of the
Comprehensive Plan. Any improvement to the site needs to be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan. It is showing a theoretical encroachment even though that right-of-way is not yet owned by the
City. ill his opinion a variance is needed. The City has not yet requested that the right-of-way be
dedicated for road improvements.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 07100019 V through 07100023 V, The Corner sign age
with the Condition the City will not need to compensate for the sign for any taking of the right-or-way
in the future. The l'notionwas Seconded by Mrs. Plavchak. ALL Variances were APPROVED 3-0.
9-10h. Woodhall Subdivision
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07100024 V Seetioil 5.04.03A 40' Front Yard Setback Required, 30' requested
Docket No. 07100025 V Section5.04.03(e)(1) 30' Aggregate Side Yard Required, 20' requested
The site is located on West l06th Street and is zoned S lISingle-Family Residential.
Filed by Joseph Calderon of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for JBCl, LLC.
u
Page 5 of II
u
u
u
Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26, 2007
Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKinney and Evans. Jeff. Cohen, the Petitioner, was also
present. This is a proposed high-end subdivision for 106th Street just east of Towne Road. A location
map was shown. there is approximately 11.5 acres ofland. They ate proposing a nine-lot private
subdivision. This will be similar to the development Mr. Cohen has done at Laurel Ridge at 106th
Street and Ditch Road. This is primarily for empty nesters and snow birds which will have low or no
maintenance homes. In developing this project, the developer looked into attractive land. The parcel is
very long from north to south, but not very wide from east to west. It is next to the Windemere
Subdivision. There are nine lots along a cul-de-sac. The Developer is setting aside two acres of
wooded property to serve as an extensive buffer between this subdivision and the Windemete
Sub<:livision. By doing that, they are further shrinking the size ofthe subdivision. In that regard, they
are seeking two vatiances. The first is a 3D-foot setback line in lieu of a 40-foot setback. The second is
a.20-foot aggregate side yard iulieu oftlle required 3D-foot. A site plan was shown. The lots are
comparable to the lots in Wjndernere. They fit the lot area for the S-l zoning district. The only
difference is the front yard setback and aggregate side yard are dimini,shed slightly. There is an
extensive common area and potential lake in the COmmon area. It is a very attractive subdivision that is
not overly dense. These vatiances will not in any way affect the density nor the lot sizes within the
subdivision. None of the variances will affect the public health, safety or general welfare of the public.
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 being'hiade primarily to preserve an
existing fairly heavily wooded treeline to the east and south of the property. That would serve to buffer
the proposed subdivision from the existing subdivision to the east. The reductions requested for the 30-
foot front yard setback and the 20-foot side yard aggregate would just be reductions of 10 feet in each
instance. The lots would still meet the required minimum width and size requirements. They are very
similar in size and dimensions to the subdivision lots to the east. The Department recommended
positive consideration of both variances.
Mrs. Torres asked about the proposed 6-foot asphalt path. Will it be asphalt or will it match the
sidewalks in the area?
Mr. Reis stated it will match up with the Windemere sidewalk. The Altemative Transportation Plan
probably calls for a path, so that is what has been put into this Altemative Transportation Plan.
Mrs. Torres stated that maintaining the common area is very important to the people who bought lots
in Windemere for the beautiful view out the back.
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 071 00024 V and 07100025 V, Woodhall Subdivision.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and BOTH were APPROVED 3-0.
11-14.h Thomas English W Carmel Dr Retail Development (Meijer Outlot) -- Signage
'The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07100026 V Section 20G.05,07 B (4) b Retail entrances on west facade
Docket No. 07100027 V Section 20G.OS.07 B (4) d Number of parking spaces in front of building
Docket No. 07100028 V Section 25.07.02-09 b Signage not facing east and north ROW
Docket No. 07100029 V Section 25.07.02-09 b Number oftcmtnt signs
Page 6 of 11
u
u
u
Catinel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26, 2007
The site IS located at thc 1400 block ofW. Carmel Dr., NE corner of Pennsylvania 81. and W. Carmel Dr. and is
zoned OM-M: Meijer zone.
Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney and Evans.
Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKinney and Evans. Also present was Ken Cave, who is
heading up the project on behalfofMr. English. A site plan was shown indicating the redevelopment
and potential site of the outlot ofthe Meijer Store on Cannel Drive. This is the first development
within the Old Meridian District Meijer Zone since the Ordinance was adopted. When the Old
Meridian District was established, the Meijer parcel was included in its own zone so that it would
guide redevelopment of this site. However, in the drafting of tlus Ordinance there were a variety of
things that were ih the general Old Meridian District that applied to all the zones within the district.
Some of those are a little difficult for redevelopment on a piece of property that is in a parking lot. The
first variance is for the entrance on the west side. The overall development standards for the Old
Meridian Disttict were essentially for development along Old Meridian Street for retail up against the
right -of~wa y. In the case of the Meij er it was the open drive and the drives that went in front of the
store. That can happen at this site for the south open drive, but on the West side there is significant
exposure to Pennsylvania Street. To make the building more attractive; they want to add retail
entrances on the west fayade. But with the open drive, they would have intervening parking. The
intervening parking needs a variarice. The building CaImot be moved further west to pick up both of the
drives, because of the contractual agreement with Meijer to buy the outlot. Meijer is requesting a visual
clearance remain in place so that their store can be seen. Therefore the building has been positioned on
the outlot to maintain the sight line to the store. Secondly, they are looking at parking spaces in front of
the building. In maintaining the traffic flo\v and handicap parking spaces, the site plan has a few spaces
in front of the building. Essentially the open dlive is adjacent to the retail entrance, but Carmel Drive is
also there. Becalise of the peculiar nature of the site, they have parking spaces between the bui Iding
and a public street. A rendering of the building was shown to indicate the minimal parking which docs
not affect the look of the building that would be seen along Cannel Drive, Also it highlighted the retail
entrances along Pennsylvania which makes for a more attractive building than having a solid fayade
along that side. They were alsQ seekingadditional signage along the north for the one tenant in the
comer. The reason for that is, when they reviewed the project with the Staff, they were looking at the
traffic flow. There will be a significant amolUlt of traffic that will be coming in the main entrance off
Cannel Drive. They wanted to pick up identification of the tenants along the west side and the one
tenant on the nOlth side. The building elevations were shown with the relative location of the signs and
the size of the signs with respect to the building. The variance is for the one sign on the east and one on
the north. The sign plan that will be presented to the Plan Commission and govern all the signs on tlus
building Was included in the Board's packets. Paragraph 7 specifically talks about the sign area on the
east side of the building. The sign criteria also talks about the colors, etc. for the other signs. On the
north facade they will be adding a significant number of signs they feel are important for identification
for the people going east or west on the Meijer side. They are limiting them to white internally
illuminated individual channel letters with white retums. They will be 36 inches in height and will
identify the tenant name. There will be no colors or logo identifications. The final drawing showed the
signage on the glass. They will be using a raceway that does not extend beyond the individual
busi nesses. It will contain the name and logo. The raceway will not extend across the whole side of the
building. They are working on the drawing for the Thursday Special Studies conmlittee meeting. He
covered the proposed Findings of Fact. None of the variances will affect the public health, safety or
general welfare of the community. They believe the variances will enhance the value of the building
and will not have any impact or affect on the use or value of adjacent properties. The strict application
of the Ordinance will make it more difficult for the success of the tenants.
Page 7 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26,2007
U Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared.
u
u
The Public Hearing was closed.
Ms. Boone gave the Department Report. All four sides of this building are exposed to roadways, thus
the reason for all the extra sigtlage requests. The Department supports .the retail entrances on the west
fa9ade. The frontage on Pennsylvania would be good for this development in order to make it more
dynamic, aesthetically pleasing and give more frontage for the tenants. The Old Meridian District
Meijer Zone states that no parking spaces are allowed between the building front and the street, except
for convenience stores. In this instance it would not work to bring the building closer to the street in
order to maintain the traffic flow through the site. The Department supported the variance for signage
for one tenant not facing the east right-of-way, which is the main entrance off Cannel Dlive. Because
there is significant traffic along Meijer and through the site from Pennsylvania and Old Meridian, the
Department supported sigtlage on the north to help with identification. The strict requirements for the
signs make it easier for the Department to support that variance. The white 36-inch letters with white
returils and no logos is very restrictive. The Department also supported the number of tenant signs.
Overall, the Department recommended positi ve consideration of all the variance requests.
Mrs. Tort'es asked if they wanted to clarify the overall sign size for the sign facing north with the 36
inches letters.
Mr. Reis stated they did not specify the area because it will be the store's name. They are 36-inch
letters. So if the store is Black and White, the sign will just say "Black and White", etc. The sign will
be different depending on the length of the name of the store.
Mrs. Torres would like to better define the area and have it be a set area rather than 36 inches by
whatever.
Ms. Boone suggested they could use 30 square feet. That is usually the sinallest sign size allowed per
tenant, but they could maximize it at that size.
Mr. Reis stated the only problem WOllld be readability.
Mr. HaVvl:ihs stated they were putting up a monument sign along the Michigan Corridor for Medford
Place, but here the signs will essentially be on the back of the building. Was there a reason they did not
go with a monument sign here?
Mr. Reis stated they did not use a monument sign because the building's location within the parking
lot. They were working with Meijer on the traffic circulation within their drive aisles and coming off
the main drive. tbey wanted to keep it simple with the white letters on the back of the building.
Mr. Hawkins stated that with 36-il1Ch letters the sign could go quite a way across the back oftbe
building, depending upon the name of the tenant.
Mr. Reis said they would be limited by the width of their tenant space. The maximum height is 36
inches, but if they have a particularly longer name they may have to make it smaller to fit it in.
Page 8 of ] I
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Reg,Jlar Meeting Agenda
November 26, 2007
U Ms. Boone said if they did notrestrict the 36~inch height, they could put a restriction on the percentage
of their frontage. It could be 75 to 80 percent of the tenant's store frontage at 36 inches tall, no matter
the length of the name. That is generally a standard sign restriction. Ifit were a maximum percentage,
that would leave a reasonable amOunt of space between each sign.
Mr. Reis stated it was in their sign criteria that the length of the sign would be proportionate to letter
height, but shall not exceed 80 pen;ent of the store front length.
Mrs. Torre~ still felt it needed to be set at 30 square feet or it needed to be better defined. She asked
about the sight line fot the Meijer Store.
Mr. Reis stated it was in the purchase agreement to maintain a sight line to the Meijer Store from
PelU1sylvania and Carmel Drive. They felt people might be tempted to park at the convenience store
and walk over the north/south roadway. Therefore, they added a strip of parking so people would not
walk across that main entrance. That is as far west as Meijer is allowing the new development.
MfS. Plavcbak asked what kinds of retail businesses they expected to populate this building.
Mr. Reis said it would be general service retail such as a restaurant or a package shipping store.
Mrs. Torres felt Meijer offers so much within its own walls, what would go in there?
u
Mr. Hawkins asked if the Department Was comfortahle with the proposed sign criteria. He was
concerned there were not enough restrictions to keep the signs reasonable.
Ms. Boone felt the 80 percent of the store front area was a good restriction for keeping the spacing
between the signs and keeping the size of the sign down. They are allowed 40 square feet on the south
fayade. The signs facing the north would be secondary signs to the ones. facing the south.
Mr. Reis said they were comfortable with making the sign size 30 square feet and he would amend the
sign criteria accordingly.
Ms. Boone stated if these were divided into parcels, the 30 square feet ,,,ould put them in the smallest
category for the sign chart. She was comfortable with 30 square feet being the maximum allowed.
Discussion continued between the Board and the Petitioner regarding size of the signs and the window
sigI1age allowed. The sign criteria .states window signage will be allowed for all tenants and shall
conform to the standards established for window signs under Chapter 25 of the Carmel Zoning
Ordinance. This sign criteria is given to all tenants so that they know they need to comply with the
Sign Ordinance.
My: Molitor stated the Board was not granting any variances by approving the sign criteria. The
audience for the criteria is the tenant, not the City.
u
Mrs. Torres asked if Docket No. 07100028 V could be separated into signage not facing east and
signage not facing north. That could allow one to be approved and one not.
Page 9 of 11
Canilel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meetillg Agenda
November 26, 2007
U Mr. Molitor confirmed the Board could approve the docket in part or ask the Petitioner to withdraw
part of it.
Mrs. Tortes asked if it could be done in writing on the ballot.
Mr. Molitor stated it might be neater if the Petitioner were receptive to such aI1 amendment to the
petition.
Mr. Hawkins had trouble with Docket Nos. 07100028 V and 07100029 V. He would like them to be
tabled to the next meeting. Hewantcd tighter controls around the signage proposal.
Mr: Reis stated he could not go to the Plan Commission Committee with signs to work on the design
without the variance. Without the variance there are no rights to install those signs. This Board was
uncomfortable about additional signs Without having more dialogue on some specifics. They wanted
the signs on the north side for identification. Some of the parking lot islands are being redesigned for
some landscape issues.
Ms. Boone did not feel a monument sign would be in character. She noticed there were no logos on the
signs on the north. However, sometimes \vith multi-tenant buildings, the logo is a good way to regulate
the sign size due to the 25% o ita tal sign area rule. A thirty square foot white signs would be non-
intrusive.
u
Mr. Hawkins had some concerns abouttbe sign size. He thought there needed to be some limitation,
especially 011 the north side. He agreed with Mrs. Tones that the building had too much signage on the
north fac;ade. He understood the rationale for the east side. He did not know if it needed so much
Sig:Ilage, giveil the way it sits on the parcel.
.Mr. Reis asked if he was talkingabout more than the 30 square feet that Ms. Boone had proposed. The
tniniber of signs will be set by the nUhlbcr of tenants in the building. lfthis building was between two
public streets, it w:ould have signage on two sides. The intent is to make the signs on the back not seem
as signs, but only tenant identifi,cation. They feel they are important for the east/west traffic. They
needed some guidance to go back and Ie-design them.
Mrs. Plavchak aSked if the purpose was to identify the stores, maybe the names could he stenciled on
the doors.
Mr. Reis said the signs are not for the deliveries. The delivery people know where they are going.
These signs would be for the east/west traffic in the Meijer parking lot.
Ms. Boone stated the signs could be reduced to 24 inches to create a smaller allowable size for the
signs. She felt the sign companies would help in creating/designing the signs. If the height is restricted,
they would 110t be able to stretch/distort the letters.
u
Mr. Hawkins suggested they split Docket No. 07100028 V for one for the north and one for the east.
Mr. Molitor stated the Special Studies Committee would review the actual look of the sign. So if the
letters are stretched out or look too fat, the Special Studies Committee might not accept it.
Page 10 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Agenda
November 26, 2007
u
Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 07100026 V through 07100029 V, Thomas English W
Carmel Drive Retail Development (Meijer Outlot) Siguage with two Docket Nos. 07100028 V, one
facing east and one for the north limited to 30 square feet. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres.
Docket Nos. 07100026 V, 07100027 V and 07100029 V were APPROVED 3-0. Docket No.
071 00028 V part A for signs facing east was APPROVED 3-0. Docket No. 07100028 V part B for
signs facing north was a No Vote 1-2, with Mrs. Torres and Mrs. Plavchak casting the negative votes.
Mr. Molitor reminded the Petitioner Docket No. 07100028 V part B for signs facing north will be
heard again at the December 17, 2007 meeting.
I. Old Business
11. Westwood Estates Buffer Yard
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07080010 V Section 26.04.04 Buffer yard in regulated drain easement
The sites are located at 2165 Renegade Court-2095 Renegade Court and are zoned Sl/Single-family residential
Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for Justus Home Builders, Inc.
This item was tabled to the December] 7,2007 meeting.
u
2-31. North Meridian Medical Pavilion - Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval:
Docket No. 07080011 V Section 25.07.02-10 Number of signs facing ROW - Bldg. A.
Docket No. 07080012 V Section 25.07.02-10 Number of signs facing ROW - Bldg. B.
The site is located at 1 2188 N. Meridian 81., and is zoned B-6.
Filed by Doug Staley, 1r. of Staley Signs.
This item was tabled to the December 17, 2007 meeting.
J. New Business
There was no New Business.
K Adjoununent
Mrs. Torres moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 3-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM.
~;tlh
I James R. Hawkins, President
u
S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2007\20071126.rtf
Page 11 of 11