Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 12-17-07 City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, December 17,2007 The regularly scheduled meeting orthe Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals was called to order at 6:25 PM, immediately following the Hearing Officer meeting, in the Caucus Rooms on the second floor of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members in attendance were James Hawkins, Kent Broach, Earlene Plavchak and Rick Ripma, alternate, thereby establishing a quorum. Christine Barton-Holmes amI Mike Hollibaugh represented the Depalimcnt of Community Services. Jolm Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mr. Broach moved to approve the minlltes of the November 26, 2007 meeting as subnritted. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3-0, with Mr. Ripma abstaining. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. She stated Docket No. 07110001 V Monon & Main, Unit 3A from the original agenda had been withdrawn. Also, Docket Nos. 0711 0006V-07110012V Mike's Express Carwash; Docket No. 07080010V Westwood Estates Buffer, Yard and Docket Nos. 07080011 V -07080012V North Meridian Medical Pavilion from the December 13 revised agenda had been tabled to January 28, 2008. Mr. Molitor gave the Legal RepOli.With respect to the Westwood Estates Buffer Yard, it is showing significant signs of progress. lfthat is resolved, the Board would be ableto approve the Resolution at next month's meeting. There is art Executive Session ofthe Board scheduled immediately following the regular meeting involving Mr. Hawkins, Mrs. Plavchak and Mr. Potasnik Hopefully it will be only twenty to thirty minutes. H. Public Hearing: 1-7h. Mike's Express Carwash Michigan Road TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 28 The applicant seeks the follov,ing development standards varianoe approvals: Daeket Nfl. 07110006 V Seetion13C.08.02.A Reduetionof requircdfreHt yard greenbelt "Docket' No. 07110007 V Section 23C.l LA~ Reductilln of required Humber of parking spaces Dock-et Na. 07110008 V Seetion 23C.lO.02.2 Rcdl-IetioD in perimeter landscaping DoeI..et No. 07110009 V Section 23C.l1.C Car stacking ."blble from Mich.igan Road Docket No. 071100H)Y Section 25.07.02 09 Increase in pcrmittedwaU sign size Docket Ne. 07110011 V Seetion 25.07.05 Twa driYe through menu boards requested Doelwt No. 07110012 V Section 23C.09.D Partial relicffrom buildiHg fa~ade bFeak requirements The site is Ioeated at 10580 North Miehigan Road and is zoned Il/Indus~Tial withm tho us 121 Overlay. Filed by Jim Shinnvcr ofNelsoH & Frankenberger for Mike's Express Car Wash 8-10h. Deca Environmental & Associates, Inc. The applicant seeks the folJowing use variance and development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07110013 UV Appendix A: Use Table Office uses in residential distr.ict Page 1 of 10 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17,2007 Docket No. 07110014 V Section 27.06.C Elimination of required bicycle parking Docket No. 07110015 V Alternative Transportation Plan Elimination of required sidewalks/paths The site is located at 410 First A venue NE and is zoned R3IResidential. Filed by Jim Shinaver of Nelson & Frankenberger for Deca Environmental & Associates, Inc. Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver and Jim Euler, owner. This use variance is to permit a very low-impact professional use for a property that is zoned residential, as well as two other development standard variances. From the packet, an aerial photograph ofthe area was shown. Mr. Euler purchased the property in 2004. Since that time he has operated his low-impact environmental consulting business out of the home on the property. When Mr. Euler purchased the property, the prior owner explained that he had used the real estate for his ice business and oiJ business for approximately thirty years. After Mr. Euler began litilizing the residence for his environmental offices, he began to meet surrounding neighbors who also cOhfim1.ed the prior owner had used the property for almost thirty years for various business uses. Based on this background information, Nir. Euler understood that he would be permitted to use the property for his low-impact professional office use. However, he eventually learned on his own in Spring 2007 that he needed approvals from the City of Carmel. Upon learning that formal approvals were required in order to continuing operating his business, he initially sought a rezone approval from the City Council. About that time was when Mr. Euler contacted him and he agreed to represent him because he felt it was very low-impact office use and an appropliate use in the area. At first he discussed the rezone that was on file with the Planning Staff and whether a use variance would be more appropriate. Both agreed that a rezone could permit more flexibility on the property than what may be considered appropriate. Consequently Mr. Euler chose not to seek the rezone, but to seek the more limited use variance. He is not attempting to be greedy ill seeking a very broad, open-ended rezone use. Ihstead he is seeking a very limited and reasonable limited use variance. Since no one ever objected to his use ofthe propel1y, he could have simply ignored the need for formal approval and continued to use the site for his office. But instead, he did the right thing by seeking the fonnal approvals. He indicated a zoning map for the area from the packet. To the west ofthe property and adjacent to RangeLine Road there are many properties that are currently zoned B-5 business. On the east side of the property 011 the other side of First Avenue NE there are many parcels that are zoned B-1 business. The zoning classifications that surround the property are business classifications. Also many of the properties arecums:ntly being utilized as small commercial businesses or other small office type uses out of the different homes along Range Line Road. He shared a map indicating a property just north of the property. It was the subject of a use variance request in 2005 for a commercial kitchen. It was his understanding the approval was granted and permitted a bakery use and professional office use. That property is separated from Mr. Euler's property by one other parcel. He felt that had been a more intense use variance that was granted. Photographs ofthe home on the property were shown. The property appears to be a home; it has no signage and nothing elSe that \vould indicate that itis being used for an office. That is how the property has been utilized since 2004. If this approval is granted, that is how he will continue to use the property. There is also a garage structure on the property. He believed that structure was one the previous owner had used for many years for the ice business and the oil business. There are three full-time employees at this site, including Mr. Euler. The fourth person is a part-time employee. The property has always been mCJ.intained and no complaints have been received from adjoining neighbors or any of the neighbors in the neighborhood. No complaints or violations have been received from the Department of Community Services. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In the course of a year, there are only a few client visits to the property. In the environmental consulting business, most of the work is site visits. Then the reports, recommendations, etc. are written at the office. A larger map ofthe general area surrounding the property was shown. The property was highlighted, as Page 2 of 10 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17,2007 was the bakery/office property. There is an alleyway at the rear of the property. The Staff Report mentioned one concern was the further encroachment to the east of office/commercial/business uses. In addition to the bakery/office that was approved to the north of the property, the Gingko Tree business, a few blocks to the south, was also approved. It was his understanding that the Gingko Tree business went through a rezone, not a use variance. He believed the Staff had supported that request. On the west, across the street from the Gingko Tree, is the Carmel Day School which is a small nursery school. The purpose of the exhibit was to show there are some other uses that have either been approved or are operating on the east side of the alleyway. Mr. Euler's use of his property would probably be the lowest impact of the other approved uses in the area. Mr. Molitor showed the map to the audience. Mr. Shinaver stated that if the approval was granted, Mr. Euler would agree that the approval only pertained to his use of the property for his business. If he sold the property, that third party would be required to come to the BZA or the Council for any use other than residential. They were not asking that the use variance run with the land into perpetuity. This would insure the property would continue to be used in this low-impact maimer. If there is a need for bicycle parking, they could easily park on the back of the property or in the garage and eliminate the required bicycle parking requirement. Mr. Euler is the only current employee who rides a bike to the office. If the Board felt it was imperative to have the bike rack, it could be installed by the back patio. But that may not be necessary with the avai I abl e parking in the back or in the garage. If a sidewalk were required to be installed, they would need to take down two very mature trees and maybe a third tree would be impacted. Photographs were shown. The detached garage foundation is very close to the curb. He did not know the exact feet, but it might not accommodate a full-width City sidewalk. Essentially they would be installing a sidewalk that does not connect anywhere, They understood the importance of sidewalks and connectivity, but this is a very short segment. Installing the sidewalk may have a more detrimental impact on the mature trees and the garage. They understood the Staff Report was not recommending positive consideration. However, based on his discussions with the Department, he believed the Staff generally agreed this is a very low-impact use. Possibly the Staff's cOrlcemis [Tom a larger policy perspective of creating a situation where they may be allowing additional office or commercial uses east of the alleyway. In response, as he stated previously, the bakery/office was approved in 2005 and Staff recommended positive consideration and it was approved. If a bakery were ultimately used on that site, it would definitely be a more intense use. If the bakery site is only used for office uses, Mr. Euler's property would be comparable. His confusion arose from the Staffreport, because when he reviewed the Staff report for the bakery/office proposal, the 'Staff recommended approval, but they had some concerns about this project. He believed the Gingko Tree business was also supported by Staff and that would be a more intense use than this professional office. If there was a concern about business expansion in this area, the commitment to limit the use to only this business should eliminate that concern. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Remonstrance: Wendy Logan, 320 1 sl Avenue NE. She came to see what the process is like. She moved into her home a couple of years ago and was looking to do some upgrades on her property which is a single-resident unit. She had seen the sign. She was surprised to find out about the request to rezone the area for business. As a resident, that was quite disappointing. This area has tremendous character and brings a lot to Old Town Cannel as a residential area. If she understood correctly, there was an Overlay that was established that protected the sub-character area. It would be disappointing to see that rezoned. Page 3 of 10 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17, 2007 Although the scope of this might be minor in comparison, it could set a precedent for other business opportunities in that area that would deteriorate from the character of tbe neighborhood. She was concerned about par~ing on the narrow streets with a lot of traffic from the high school. There is also a lot of pedestrian traffic in the area. She is a bicyclist and uses the Manon, but did not know what kind of traffic a bicycle rack would bring. She does not know anything about the Gingko Tree, but !mows the Carmel Preschool has operated there for more than 30 years. She just hoped the Board could keep in mind the character of the area and maintain it as a residential community. Favorable: Rosalie Lavelle, 621 1 5t Avenue NE. She was drawn to the meeting because of the sign in the front yard. She spoke with a neighbor who she believed lives at 423 1 SI Avenue NE. They have Jived in the home since 1987. They renovated an old home. She had asked them about the business. They had no problem with it. They said Mr. Euler was a good neighbor and they saw no need to attend this meeting. They gave their approval and their Immes are Bi Il and Patty Zaring. (431 1 Avenue NE) Rebuttal: Mr. Shinaver shared three letters of support that Mr. Euler received. Copies were distributed to the Board meinbers. It was his understanding that Mr. Euler knocked on the doors of most of the people who were to received the certified notice. He wanted to make slire there was no confusion. They are not seeking a rezone; they are seeking a use variance. The B-1 parcels are across the street from this property. That is zoning that currently exists and has existed for some time. It is his understanding that the City of Carmel bas filed rezone requests for these B-1 parcels asking the Council to change the zoning classification to a residential use. He. grew up here and he was never aware that side of the street was zoned B- I. He thought it was an oddity that occurred many years ago, When the Staff was re-evaluating Old Town area and realized that situation; they sought to correct it by seeking that rezone. To his knowledge there has never been a parking problem at tbissite. Areas exist on the site for cars to park. There are only three full-time employees and one part-time employee. They do not have very many client visits. They do not anticipate a parking problem in the future. The character of the house will not change. It has been this way since Mr. Euler has owned it. There is no signage and they will not seek signage. They ate trying to keep the status quo. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. She distributed copies of an email from Councilman Ron Carter who expressed some concerns about the petitions. The Staff has the primary concern with the bicycle parking and the sidewalk. With regards to the bicycle parking, the intent of providing a bicycle rack or racks on-site as part of the overaH parking requirement is to provide an easily accessible and visible place to park bicycles. Because the Monon does run through Old Town, it sees a fairly high amount of bicycle traffic relative to the rest of Carmel. They commend the Petitioner for using the garage for bicycle parking, but that does not serve tbe purposes of the Ordinance. With regards to the sidewalk, there is no sidewalk currently on 4th Street. There is one on Slh Street. The Alternative Transportation Plan envisions full sidewalk connectivity throughout all of Old Town, especially since it is a highly pedestrian area. They urge either the installation of the sidewalk or contribution of like funds to the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Fund which the City would use to build sidewalks at whatever time the connection becomes complete through 4111 Street. With regards to the use variance, they had a fairly lengthy discussion on this. From the Zoning Map, the current unimproved alleyway is a clear boundary line between the more commercialized uses on Range Line Road and the residential uses to the east. As the Petitioner stated, the City is looking at rezoning those Page 4 of 10 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17, 2007 parcels that are zoned B-1 back to a residential classification. Essentially, for the most part, the uses around the Petitioner are residential. The Comprehensive Plan does recommend a mix of uses within Old Town and it recognizes the conversion of houses to commercial uses. But it also recommends that take place primarily on Range Line Road and on Main Street. For the most part, it has occurred primarily on those two streets. It has occurred extensively to the west of Range Line Road, directly across the street from tius area and also around the townhouses that are going up. So the area around the Petitioner, commercial kitchen and spa not withstanding, is primarily residential. That being said, the use in question, when driving by no one would be aware it was not a house. In terms of intensity, it is similar to what would be permitted for a home-based business. However, the house is not being used as a home; it is being used entirely as a business. They do have a couple more employees than would be penllitted for a home-based business that was occupied as a home. The concern that Staffhas is with the continued commercialization of this area east of Range Line Road and east ofthis alleyway at a time when they are trying to maintain, and even enhance, the residential aspect of that area. The Department recommended negative consideration of all three variance requests. Mrs. Plavchak. asked where the employees currently park. Jim Euler, 12568 Sandstone Run. The current parking is in two concrete spots on the other side of the garage. The garage also bas one Spot. The area was indicated on the map. The alleyway is not really used as an alley. There is a big tree in it further down from his property. Mr. Broach asked the Department about the rezoning that was being considered for the B-1 area across the street. He wanted to know about the bicycle parking requirement. Is it a bicycle rack? If the sidewalk were not done now, the Petitioner would be requested to contribute funds. What is the cost of that? Mrs. Barton-Holmes believed it would be zoned R-3. The City requires a minimum of four bicycle spaces per 100 auto spaces. That is typically one ofthe "W" shaped racks. One ofthose can aCcoilll11odate up to four bicycles. She would need to check with the Alternative Transportation Coordinator to see what the fee would be. Something could be worked out with the Petitioner. She would need to see what the timeline was for that area of sidewalk. Mrs. Plavchak thought she was missing something with the bicycle rack. Is he supposed to have the rack on his property for any random person to use, whether they have business with him or not? Does that mean that anybody who lives in that area has to stick a bicycle rack on their private property? She also asked about the timeline to have sidewalks installed in that area. Mrs. Barton-Holmes said the bicycle parking goes along with his request to remain a commercial business. Bicycle parking applies only to businesses, offices and retail. The intent is ifsomeone were to bicycle in, a client or staff members, they would be able to ilmnediately see the available bicycle parking. It is nota requirement for individual private homeowners. The intent would be for his business. She did not know the final time line for the sidewalks, but the plan was to have a network of sidewalks to connect all of Old Town. Mrs. Plavchak thought the timc1ine for the sidewalks was an important piece ofinfonnation. lfthe sidewalks are ten years out, she would have a hard time requesting someone to build the sidewalk just for his half of a block or contribute funds to a sidewalk he might not receive benefit from. Page 5 of 10 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17, 2007 Mr. Shinaver asked if the City had existing right-of-way area for the sidewalks on these existing properties. These lots may go all the way to the right-of-way line, which may be the pavement. Sidewalk installation for other subdivisions has been a stepping stone as they are developed through their zoning approval requirements. This area is already developed. It seemed to him if the City does not have existing right-of-way for the sidewalks, the only way to get the sidewalks would be for each individual property to come up for some sort of redevelopment issue before the BZA or the Plan Commission. At that time they would be requested to install the sidewalks. Mrs. Barton-Holmes said that in looking at the aerial photos, there may be some right-of-way, but not quite enough to build sidewalks to the City standards. Discussion followed between Mr. Ripma and Mrs. Barton-Holmes. Mr. Ripma asked if changing the zoning on the B-1 was already in the works. Would the B-5 be changing? Are there any businesses in the B-1? The property looks like a house. If they put a bicycle rack, it would start to look more like a commercial property. He imagiIled they would rather have the trees than the sidewalk in an area that is already established. Is the City prepared to cut down lOO-year old trees to put a sidewalk in? Isn't the canopy one of the things that makes that area unique? Mrs. Barton-Holmes confumed it is already in the works. She did not believe the B-5 would be changing at this time. The B-1 is allresid'ential. It is a Catch-22. The Department would like the house to maintain its residential appearance and be maintained as a residence. Ifit is going to be a business, then they need to provide parking, the same as any other business. That would entail a bike rack which would make it look somewhat more commercial. The City has had to cut down mature trees in some other instances. It is something they prefer to not have to do. But at the same time, they prefer to see the sidewalk network developed. Mrs. Plavchak asked if the previous owner occupied the house as a residence and used the other building for his business or was the entire property for his business. Mr. Euler said the previous owner had m<ide ice in the garage and bags were still on the walls. The previous owners Lived there until they died. Mr. Shiilaver's understanqing \Vas that they lived in the home with a child or two. They operated this ice business for many years out ofthe garage area and ultimately some oil distribution business. He thought the product being created was in the .garage, but he would imagine he had a small office inside the home for his paperwork and phone calls. Mr. Euler agreed with thatinformation. The oil was not kept on the property. MT. Shinaver understood the concern if this was approved they were creating this precedent and opening the floodgates for things occurring in this area. It has been operating since 2004 and no one has known any difference. It wasn't because he was being dishonest Once he found out he needed approval, he came forward. 1-1is point was that it has never been objectionable. It is important to remember, based on the zoning in the area, if it is not zoned either B-5 or B-1, a use vari ance would be needed and this Board could review them on a case by case basis or they would need a rezone through the Council. He felt the granting of this variance would not open the floodgates because the BZA and Council can control that. He pointed out that he has had a hard time understanding the Staffreport for Page 6 of 10 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17,2007 the bakery use that also contained offices and the Staff report for this particular use. These two properties are separated by one small parcel. If the Staff Reports for the two properties were compared, someone would get the sense they are located on different sides of town. He did not know what had changed so dramatically in two years. Under the first Finding of Fact for the bakery property, the granting of this variance will not be contrary to public interest etc. because there are mixes of uses where many existing businesses were once houses. On this report, it is entirely residential. On the four remaimng Findings of Fact for the bakery it was detenhined that the residential character of the house would be maintained and the parking would be provided in the rear of the building. This situation was the same. The residential nature ofthe house will remain and probably be even less obvious than the bakery. There apparently has been a policy shift within the Staff. He has said many times that the granting of one variance does not create precedence for other variances before the Board. He didn't want to speak out of both sides ofhisni.buth. He was not trying to say becalise the bakery request was granted; this request had to be granted. He wanted to point out there appeared to be a drastic change in the policy. If this were a more busy or intense type of use that had signage, he could completely understand. But this use is Very low impact. He thought in the context of making the decision, it was helpful to look back to what was approved two years ago and theratiomi.le for that approval. Mr. Broach was sympathetic and was in favor of the use variance. It was the sidewalk that was an issue for him. He could not speak for the whole Board. He understood both positions; They needed to figure out some resolution. Mr. Ripma agreed. He hated to see the trees tom down. The money could be given to have for some point in time. Mrs. Plavchak asked what happens if the Petitioner provided money for a future building of sidewalks and then sells his property. Will the new owner have to pay money for sidewalks or does the money stay with the property? Mrs. Barton-Holmes said the money goes into the Non-Reverting Thoroughfare Funds which is used exclusively for sidewalks. They keep track of which properties have donated and it stays with the property whether he stays or not. Mr. Hawkins asked ifthere was any way the sidewalk could get around the garage. Mr. Euler did not think it was a full five feet. He plants along the garage each year. Mr. Hawkins assumed if the City did not have right-of-way, they could only build the sidewalk up to the building. Mr. Molitor stated the City may need to take down the garage for the sidewalk. They would acquire it by imminent domain. There would be compensation. Mr. Ripma wanted to confirm this would hot nm with the property, it would only stays with tlus situation. Mr. Molitor did not think it was in the Board's authority to grant a variance under those conditions. He appreciated the attempt by the Petitioner to offer that. According to Indiana case law, to limit the variance to just the current owner of the property would be an illegal restraint upon the free alienation Page 7 of 10 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17, 2007 of the real es(ate. An approved use variance is lawful for that real estate as long as the use is not changed. It can be restricted to this particular use, but it cannot be restricted to Mr. Euler. Mr. Ripma asked if the number of employees could be restricted. Mr. Molitor confirmed that could be restricted. Mr. Hollibaugh explained the shift in City policy. It was easy to understand this was a minimal encroachment on the neighborhood because it has existed and been used. He felt the Department would admit they had made a mistake with the positive recOlmnendation for the bakery. There is a difference between a residential neighborhood and maintaining the character. The fatt a business is a neighbor, whether iUs high-impact or low-impact, it is still a business. It is not a neighbor you greet and get to know their children. What the City is trying to do in the Old Town area is rebuild the residential character that has eroded over tline as rehts were down. The enforcement of the City Zoning in the area has been light from time to time as well. The City is trying to encourage and strengthen the residential nature ofthat area, so that it becomes more of a place people live and support the business that are beginning along Range Line Road and Main Street area. The City wants it to go from the character that looks residential to actually being residential. The change in the zoning along I st Avenue is intended to support that. Then the City will not have to fight the battles of someone wanting to start a business in that area. Mr. Molitor added if the Board were inclined they could allow for a phase-out, recognizing that this business has been there for a while. It cannot be limited to a particular owner, but could be limited to a term of years to help phase out business in the area. Mr. Hawkins asked the timeframe for changing the B- 1 zornng. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated it would begin in early 2008. Mr. Hawkins asked Mr. Euler ifthere was a time span with which he would be comfortable if the Board were to grant a variance for a limited time. Mr. Euler said that he knows the neighbors and had worked with the people around the area as much as anyone who has lived there a short time. Not getting the variance would hurt him. He needs a few more years, at least five years. He does not want to change the character of the neighborhood. He loves the neighborhood and the whole downtown. He rides his bike and also gets on his rollerblades at lunch. He has done a little remodeling on the interior, but he left the shower and the bathrooms. The kitchen was beautiful. He showers there before going back to worle He found it beneficial to have his own business. His wife works full-time, so he is the one picking up the kids all the time. This is extremely important to him. He could have a bicycle rack. The two big trees provide so much shade in the afternoon sun that he does not have to use so much electricity. He would take them out, ifit had to be done. He could contribute to a fund for the future. Maybe the sidewalk could go from 1 st A venue up to the side door entrance on 4th Street. That would help. He felt something could be worked out. Mr. Hawkins did not know how the Board members felt and he did not want to get into a negotiation. As Mr. Molitor stated the time limit was one idea he had thought of as well. He was thinking that at some point Me El.ller's business would grow to a degree he would decide to sell the property. That way it could gradually revert back to .residential. Page 8 of 10 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17, 2007 Mr. Euler stated it would be limited to how many people he could have. Tfhe grew to a point that needed 8 to 10 people, then there was no way it would work there. He did not lmow if he would ever sell it, but may-rent it in the future. Mr. Hawkins' preference was to put some fDim of time limit on it, and then Mr. Euler would have the ability to come back and ask to extend that with a variance in the future. It was not a matter that it would end and he would have to vacate. It would be a matter of preparing another petition to extend it beyond the time limit, if he was still there. He hoped that made it a little more palatable. Mr. Euler said that was better. He thought ifhe had to be out in two years. that would really hurt his business. Mr. Broach was thinking five years. This is a very unusual circumstance and low impact. Mr. Hawkins wanted to make it long enough that he would still maintain the house. If it were short tenn, Mr. Euler might not be inclined to continue to maintain the property. Mr. Euler said he had ripped out the ugly front bushes last year and would be replacing them. Mr. Hawkins asked if it would be fair and acceptable to limit the use to five years and limit the number of employees. Mr. Euler said that four full-time employees and one part-time could be the maximum. Mr. Molitor recommended that before this was considered, they should have written commitments so it would be on record and be enforceable against the next owner. AUse Variance does go with the property. The next owner could claim it was unlawful ifil was limited to Mr. Euler. He thought Mr. Shinaver would be willing to draft the commitments subject to approval of Staff and Mr. Molitor. Mr. Shinaver confirmed he would write and then record the commitments. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 07110013 UV, 07110014 V and 07110015 V, Deca Environmental under the Condition that no more than four full-time employees, one part-time employee for a period of five years with the recording of these commitments at the Recorder's Office. The motion Was seconded by Mr. Ripma. The vote was 07110013 UV APPROVED 4-0; 07110014 V (bike rack) DENIED 1-3 with Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Broach and Mrs. Plavchak casting the negative votes; 07110015 V (sidewalk) SPLIT 2-2 with Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Broach casting the negative votes. Mr. Molitor stated that according to the Rules that carries the Split item, Docket No. 07110015 V over to next month's agenda, unless they withdraw the docket. Mr. Shinaver thanked the Board for their time, consideration and reasonableness to provide Mr. Euler something. They will plan to come back next month for the sidewalk issue. Maybe between now and that time, they can have some more conversations to figure out the time fi'ame for any project and a contribution to the fund. They could have a backup proposal in the event the Board does not grant the variance. Their concern was tahng out the large trees and the garage. Page 9 of 10 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes December 17,2007 K. Old Business: 11. Westwood Estates Buffer Yard TABLED 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 SlISingle-family residential Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for Justus Home Builders, Inc. 2-31. North Meridian Medical Pavilion - Sign age TABLED 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 12188 N. Meridian St., and is zoned B-6. Filed by Doug Staley, Jr. of Staley Signs. J. New Business There waS no New Business. K. Adjournment Mrs. Plavchak moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 PM. ~/#k-- ! James R. Hawkins, President ~ Executive Session was held in the one-third Caucus Room immediately following the regular meeting. S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutcs\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2007\2007] 217.rtf Page 10 of 10 u u L