Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 03-24-08 u City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, March 24,2008 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday, March 24, 2008, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The Ineeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members in attendance were Kent Broach, Leo Dierckman, 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. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve the minutes of the February 25,2008 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. u Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. Items 6-7h, United States Tennis Association, Items 13-14h, Northview Christian Life Church, Items l5-27H Shideler Dermatology, and Items 19-20h Prairie Trace Softball Complex have requested to be Tabled to the April 28, 2008 meeting. Items 1-2h, North Meridian Medical Pavilion, is requesting a waiver for Public Notice. The notice to the adjacent property owners was sent in the proper time frame, however, the sign was posted 4 days late and the notice in the Indianapolis Star was one day late. They did meet the 10-day State requirement for all their public notices. Mr. Dierckman moved to waive the 25-day public notice for Items 1-2h, North Meridian Medical Pavilion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. There is an outline of a tentative settlement agreement for the pending litigation with Martin Marietta. He was hopeful to schedule an Executive Session with the Board members who are involved in the case in order to discuss it in advance of the April 28 BZA meeting. Staff and representatives of Martin Marietta had tentatively agreed that the matter should be heard by the Board on April 28. As of yet, he had not received a definitive agreement to circulate to the Board members. When he receives that, he would like to schedule an Executive Session as soon as possible to review the settlement agreement and the status of the case before the April 28 meeting. Mr. Hawkins asked if Martin Marietta would be required to re-notice. Mr. Molitor confirmed they would need to re-notice the petition. U H. Public Hearing: I-2b. North Meridian Medical Pavilion - Signage The applicant se~ks the following development standards variance approval: Page 1 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24,2008 Docket No. 07080011 V SedloR 25.07.02 10 Number of sigHS faeing RO'" Bldg. .LA,.. Deeket Ne. 07080012 V SedleR 25.07.02 10 Numherof SigHS faeiBg RO'" Bldg. B. Docket No. 08020019 V Section 25.07.02-10 Sign height Docket No. 08020027 V Section 25.07.02-10 Number of signs The site is located at 12188 N. Meridian St., and is zoned B-6. Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for North Meridian Medical Pavilion. WITHDRAWN WITHDRAWN o Mr. Broach recused himself. Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Bose McKinney & Evans; Dave Campbell, Property Manager for Lauth Property Group; and Andy Klineman, Legal Counsel for Lauth. A site plan of the North Meridian Medical complex was shown. The second building is nearing completion. This parcel is between US 31 and Illinois Street. The first variance is to increase the height of the ground sign from the permitted 6 feet to 12 feet. The second is to allow additional tenant identification. In 2004, prior to the construction of Illinois Street, Lauth obtained a variance to allow two identification signs on the US 31 fac;ade of each building. However, with the construction of Illinois Street people are using Illinois Street to access the site. Therefore, because of the health care providers that will be located in the buildings, it is imperative to have adequate and appropriate signage. Originally they had proposed to have additional wall signs on the Illinois Street fac;ade. However, following extensive discussions with the Department and the residents of the neighborhood directly to the west, they amended their request to allow for one ground sign with tenant identification in lieu of the wall signs that would have faced directly to the west. The current wall signage was also shown. The 10catioi1 and orientation of the lJ new proposed ground sign were chosen to minimize the impact on the residential areas to the west as well as to maximize the readability for the patients and visitors. The sign will face north and south. The edge of the sign will face the residential areas to the west. Pictures of the location were shown along Illinois with the brick wall, berm and trees and the grade of the road. A rendering of the proposed sign was shown. The sign was designed to maximize readability of the tenant names. It is internally illuminated. They do not anticipate any light migration into the residential areas. The sign face area is 75 square feet. Although the sign structure is taller, the sign face is within the allowable 75 square feet. They felt the sign design was consistent with and complimentary to the buildings, as well as the other developments in the US 31 Overlay. They do not feel there will be any adverse affect on the surrounding area. An aerial photograph indicating the various property owners was shown. There is no residence closer than 640 feet to the sign. The parcel directly west of the sign is under construction. Mr. Small's residence has significant tree buffering and there is a tree buffer along the undeveloped parcel. The other residences primarily view to the southeast, so they would not be looking directly at the sign. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Unfavorable: Edward Leer, 12267 Creekwood Lane. He indicated his property on the aerial photograph. He is the farthest away from the sign area. Because the other homeowners could not attend, he was their UI' repres'entative. He represented Kevin (Pahud) and Tom (Spahn), as well as Greg Small. He had an email from Mr. Small. There has not been a lot of positive history for this project. The biggest thing the homeowners have asked for is privacy and security. They had initially asked for a fence and a higher berm with a lot more trees. The berm is much smaller now and the trees are very sparse in some areas. He can see the parking lot from his house. A lot of the trees are deciduous, so there is no blockage in the wintertime. When they signed off on it, it was to have a higher berm and more trees Page 2 of 18 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24,2008 and there was to be no signage on this side. They are now asking for signage. He felt if they wanted the signage they should increase the berm and the trees. Rebuttal: Mr. Reis hoped that powers of attorney had been filed for Mr. Leer to represent the other residents. Other than that, Mr. Leer was speaking for himself. He believed there was a letter submitted by Mr. Small for the record. With regard to the construction of the road, the berm and the trees, that was performed by the City of Carmel in connection with the Illinois Street project. Lauth does not own the property. They would need to go to the City for any changes to be made. They have never had control of that property. As far as the sign, it is very important for the healthcare providers within the buildings. The access to these buildings from a small frontage road is not ideal. Most of the people are now using Illinois Street to access the site. Therefore the tenants feel identification is critical. They also believe that the use of the ground sign is a much better way to provide the necessary identification. He did not believe the use of the ground sign would have any affect on the adjacent neighborhood. The buildings are there and visible, but that is a fact of the development along the US 31 Overlay Zone. Dave Campbell, Property Manager for the location. Given the demographics of the population coming to the existing building as well as the one to be finished shortly, it is really imperative that patients driving north or south be able to find the building. Since they are not able to put signage on the exterior, there is nothing that calls or directs their attention to the building. The current ground signage can be difficult to see because of the undulations of the road. From the pictures, he was surprised that Mr. Leer said he could see the sign. He had driven through Mr. Leer's subdivision as well as the subdivision to the south, Spring Lake Estates, for the purpose of looking at their views. He was not able to see because of the brick wall that had been installed along Spring Lake Estates. He felt the pictures showing the berm and trees were very representative of what would be seen from Mr. Small's lot as well as the lot to the south. He felt what Lauth Property was asking for was very important to getting patients to the property. This sign would be a very good compromise since they are not permitted wall signage. The Public Hearing was closed. Miss Boone gave the Department Report. The Department has worked very hard with the applicant for a compromise. The original request was for four (4) wall signs facing Illinois Street, two 115 square- foot signs on each building. This 12-foot ground sign which is less than 75 square feet is a considerable compromise. The Department supported the ground sign. However, they felt it was a little too tall. The Department had suggested 8 to 10 feet tall with the four tenant names, as originally requested, instead of the six tenants now requested. The variance for the number of signs is required because the applicant had previously requested a variance in 2004 to relocate the signage that would have been allowed for Illinois Street to face US 31 instead. The Department recommended positive consideration after all concerns have been addressed. Mr. Molitor thought the Findings of Fact included in the Department Report had the "not's" reversed. Number 1 should say "The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community..." Number 2 should say "The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse mallller..." Number 3 should say "The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will vesult in practical difficulties in the use of the property..." Page 3 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 Mr. Dierckrnan asked Mr. Reis about his comment regarding power of attorney for the neighbors. Mr. lJ.. Leer had talked with his neighbors that could not make it to the meeting and been asked to state their opinions. He did not think they had ever had power of attorney before for any neighbor that was trying to be a good neighbor. Mr. Reis stated Mr. Leer stated he was speaking as a representative of the neighborhood, but it is not an organized group and he is not the President of the homeowners association. From a legal standpoint, someone should have a piece of paper stating he was speaking on their behalf. He would defer to Mr. Molitor. It is one thing for one person to come in and say he is representing five or six people. But absent some type of authority he would think they were speaking for themselves, not necessarily anyone else. Mr. Dierckrnan asked if the letter the Board had received from Mr. Small should be read into the record. His moved to table this item until Mr. Small could attend. He was uncomfortable because Mr. Reis was trying to legalize the process when Mr. Leer was trying to be a good neighbor. Mr. Reis had no problem with Mr. Small's letter. Mr. Dierckman stated they had waived the rule for public notice to hear this item at this meeting. Now there is concern about the legality of one neighbor helping another neighbor. Waiving the rules might be hurting the public. Mrs. Torres asked if Mr. Leer had an email or something from Mr. Small. D Mr. Leer read the email from Greg Small dated Monday, March 24 at 12:23 pm to Kevin Pahud, Tom Spahn and Ed Leer. (Copy attached to minutes.) Excerpts: The most impact would be on Tom Spahn and Kevin Pahud. The argument could be the prior agreement did not allow for signage. This was not in the spirit that was represented to the neighbors. Lauth needed the neighbors' consent for the rezone from residential to commercial. The current berm is only six feet and without a solid screen along Illinois they will be able to see the sign from their back yards. He asked the sign height be reduced from twelve to eight feet or provide a solid screen along all of Illinois with a six-foot wood fence or two rows of spruce trees. The developer could come back with a landscape plan to be adopted into the minutes. Mr. Molitor stated the rules do not strictly require the renlonstrators enter an appearance on behalf of neighborhood groups. He felt the statements spoke for themselves. The remonstrators did not ask for a further continuance. It would be up to the Board to vote for a continuance when someone else mayor may not be able to attend. Mrs. Plavchak asked who was actually responsible for the berm. Miss Boone stated the City was responsible for the berm. It may have been changed with the construction of Illinois Street. lJ Mrs. Plavchak felt the impression has been that Lauth did not live up to their original commitment to provide adequate buffering and landscaping. However, they may have and it was taken down with the construction of Illinois Street. Can Lauth plant trees on property it does not own? Regarding the sign, realistically if!someone is driving north or south on Illinois and looking for their doctor's office, they Page 4 of 18 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 would see the big letters with the name of the building and probably the top two tenants. Realistically they would not be able to read tenants five and six. Hopefully if someone has an appointment with their doctor, they would be given the building number. Then they could look at the board on the inside of the building to find their doctor. Mr. Dierckman pointed out the applicant had obtained a variance in 2004 to relocate the signs allowed for Illinois Street to face US 31. Mr. Reis stated they could only have one sign on each building facing US 31 because they could only have signage on one public street. The variance in 2004 was to allow two tenant identification signs on each building along US 31. Mr. Dierckman still felt it should be tabled, but there was not a second to his motion. He felt the extra feet did create a visibility issue. He thought eight feet or less would be adequate for signage. Everybody knew when the 2004 variance came through that Illinois Street would be put in. So the variance would forego the right for Illinois Street signage. Now there is a variance to ask for more signage. He did not have a problem with the name of the development, but individual signage for each tenant was pushing the envelope. Anything larger than eight feet was damaging to the neighbors. There was no compelling reason for this variance after a variance was already granted to eliminate the signage on Illinois Street. Mr. Reis asked for clarification for the eight feet. Was the recommendation for eight feet overall or eight feet for the sign face? Mr. Dierckman felt the top with the name and address of the buildings was most compelling. Miss Boone believed the top with the name and address appeared to be about two feet. Mr. Hawkins agreed with Mr. Dierckman. He felt twelve feet exceeded his comfort level. As Mrs. Plavchak stated the name of the fifth tenant would be a challenge to read as people drove by and tried to absorb all of the sign. Andy Klineman with Lauth Property Group. On of the reasons they talked about the twelve feet was the dips in the road. He felt they could agree to ten feet. With the dip in the road, they lose the bottom part of the sign. The people who come to these buildings do not com'e on a regular basis for early morning surgery or to see a doctor. Therefore, they felt with the dip in the road the twelve feet sign was more appropriate. Mrs. Torres asked how this signage was consistent with the US 31 corridor. Miss Boone stated that signs located within fifty (50) feet of the right-of-way can be a maximum of six feet tall. In the US 31 overlay a larger sign is permitted if the building is further back from the right-of- way for the road. But for this location it cannot be taller than six feet. This is not a retail corridor with most tenants having signage, but an office corridor with one or two tenants per building. Mrs. Torres felt that six feet was high enough. At the St. Vincent campus on 86th Street, half of the buildings do not even have a sign. They just have a number for the building. These buildings on Illinois Street ,are pretty substantial and easy to find. Page 5 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 Mr. Hawkins asked if the Petitioner wanted to reconsider the sign height. If not, perhaps this should be lJ tabled and allow the neighbors proper notice to provide input. Mr. Reis stated they would agree to eight feet. The notice to the neighbors was sent within the required time by certified mail. When they were told at the February meeting to re-notice the meeting, the deadline for the Indianapolis Star had passed and they missed it by a day. They also had to order a public notice sign. In answer to Mrs. Plavchak, all the landscaping that Lauth was required to put in for the development has been installed. That was not affected by the road construction. The road was designed and put in by the City. They would have to go to the City to ask to work on the landscaping and berm. It would be an encroachment. Mr. Reis amended the variance Docket No. 08020019 V for maximum height of the ground sign from 12 feet to 8 feet and the number of tenants would be four. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket Nos. 08020019 V and 08020027 V, North Meridian Medical Pavilion - Signa.ge as amended. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and both were APPROVED 4-0. Mr. Broach rejoined the Board. 3h. Furry Family Veterinary Office - Use Variance The applicant seeks the following use variance approval: Docket No. 07120006 UV Appendix A: Use Table The site is located at 3309 East 146th Street and is zoned R-l. Filed by Mary Marcotte, owner. Office uses in residential district Present for the Petitioner: Dr. Mary Marcotte. She would like to operate a small veterinary office. In 2003 and 2004 her requests were denied when this was her primary residence. In 2004 she opened a veterinary clinic in Noblesville. Since 2003 there have been dramatic changes along 146th Street. A lot of commercial has been established along the corridor. To the west is the Clay Terrace multi-million dollar outdoor mall followed by a strip mall with Fresh Market, Cardinal Fitness and soon LA Fitness, a bank, multiple restaurants and several businesses. To the east are Salsbery Brothers Landscaping and the strip mall at 146th Street and Gray Road with Walgreen's and Huntington Bank on the north and Vine & Branch Tree Service on the south. Further east on the comer of 146th Street and Hazel Dell is Fifth Third Bank and Riverview Medical Pavilion on the south side (Carmel side) and across the street is Noble West with Kroger and a strip center. There is now an exit from 1-69 onto 146th Street to the east and an exit from Keystone Avenue to the west. All these changes have dramatically increased the traffic along 146th Street. According to the Highway Department the traffic has increased from 17,000 cars per day in 2004 to 30,000 cars per day in 2006. She could only estimate it would be greater than 30,000 cars per day in 2008. The property to the west is owned by a church with plans to build their sanctuary. Immediately across the street is over 40 acres that has been rezoned commercial with tentative plans for a gas station, strip mall and fast food restaurants. These changes to the surrounding properties have made this an impractical location for a single-family home. Currently the noise pollution from the dump trucks and cement trucks make the front bedroom and the living roonl virtually unusable. They cannot have a conversation or watch TV in either of these rooms. One of the most important factors when they decided to move was the issue of safety. Although it is zoned as a residence, theroce is no way to provide a safety barrier for pets due to the proximity of the County right- Page 6 of 18 u lJ u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 of-way. A photograph was shown indicating the right-of-way which comes to the edge of the house. They would be unable to install any type of barrier of fence or trees between the front door and a road with cars going 50 mph. They have looked into selling the house, but have been told the value has decreased about $50,000 due to the changes she described. They see only three options for the property: leave it empty as it is, rent it or continue to move forward with the Use Variance. She had discussed the proposal with her neighbors from Taylor Trace and they are all in agreement that this home is no longer appropriate for a family. They are supportive of this proposal and would rather see it utilized as a "cute little veterinary office" than to remain empty as it currently is. As a business they would be able to invest what is significantly needed to improve the exterior appearance. Her current clinic has been in operation going on four years and averages ten clients per day. By comparison to the traffic of 30,000 cars per day, this would be negligible. She promised her neighbors and put in writing in the covenants and restrictions adopted and recorded at the Recorder's office in Hamilton County that she would not kennel any animals for any other reason than illness. This insures that noise will not be an issue. Parking would be on the west side of the lot in the gravel area near the garage. It could accommodate up to ten cars. This will be out of sight, so the neighbors will not see the daily operation. She felt this would be a really positive use of the property. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Don Holley, Chair of the Building Committee for Carmel Hope Fellowship Church, immediately to the west of this property at 14535 Carey Road. He had reviewed the file in the City's office. He agreed with Dr. Marcotte's statements. As a member of the church board, he had presented the facts to the church and they voted to favorably recommend this change. They have talked with Dr. Marcotte and asked that she put some sort of barrier, landscape timbers, railroad ties, etc. to keep cars from driving onto the church property and over the buried water line. Rich Locke, 14530 Taylor Trace, Officer of the Taylor Trace Homeowners Association of which Dr. Marcotte is a member. The association has no opposition to the Use Variance. Their issue is the kenneling. They do have the agreement Dr. Marcotte referred to. He was not sure if a variance would have any impact on that agreement. Given the traffic, they agree an office makes sense at that location. It is not suitable for a residence. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. As stated by the applicant, the character of the area has changed significantly in the last few years. There has been a fair amount of commercial growth and the church to the southwest is contemplating building an additional sanctuary. The City has received confirmation from the Westfield Planning Department that the parcel to the north will be a commercial development. They did not have details at this time. In Dr. Marcotte's previous petitions the Department had recommended negative consideration. At that time the area was entirely residential. The Comprehensive Plan does recommend residential uses, but it also recognizes that areas along major thoroughfares change and also contemplates low-intensity cOlnmercial use at the site. The structure and site are not changing and no signs are contemplated. Any ground sign would require a variance. The overall appearance will be essentially residential. The impact of having this business instead of a house is not likely to be significantly more than a dwelling or other type of office. The request to place some sort of barrier between the two properties would not require any additional variance and more than likely no permits. That would just be part of the landscaping that would be done on the site. Regarding the kenneling, if the Board chooses to approve this request, they can Page 7 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24; 2008 include a commitment for kenneling only for animals that are ill or have had surgery. The Department lJ recommended positive consideration of the petition. . Mr. Diertkman asked about the recommendations on the prior two petitions. He thought they were positive as well. Mrs. Barton-Holmes believed the first one was negative and the second one was positive with a number of caveats and the final vote was negative. Mr. Dierckman asked what year Clay Terrace was approved and built. He thought it was in place in 2004 when the last request was made. Mrs. Barton-Holmes believed it was started in 2002 or 2003. Mr. Dierckman thought the development with Fifth Third at River Road was also in place when this was turned down. He did not believe anything had changed on the south side since the last timle this was turned down. Clearly on the north side a lot of things have changed and more things are going to change on the north side. The people on the north side do not seem to care about the impact it is having on 146th Street. That does not mean Carmel should not have concern about what impact any commercial is going to have on 146th Street, at least on the south side. That is what he continues to be concerned about. This location is so close to the intersection, it is extremely dangerous. There 'has already been one fatality just a block away pulling out of a neighborhood. The only way he would be u..- _ in support of this is ifit was agreed to be a right turn only out of the clinic. There is a curb cut at this location and it is a very dangerous situation for left turns. There are other single family residences in the same situation further down 146th Street and they will want variances for businesses along 146th Street on the south side if this is permitted. Nothing has really changed on the south side because Carmel has been trying to is Board has no control over what happens to the north. Mrs. Barton-Holmes shared the letter from the Hamilton County Highway Department which has jurisdiction over 146th Street. They are requiring the center median curb-cut be closed, so it will be right in and right out only. That was their condition/requirement for the property being used as a business. The curb-cut was for the residential use. Mr. Dierckman was not encouraged by the right out only, but at least it would be a big help and a step in the right direction. Mrs. Plavchak asked who had to pay to close the curb cut. Mrs. Barton-Holmes thought it would be done by the Highway Department. Mrs. Torres asked how that would work time-wise. When would it be done? Is it part of the Thoroughfare Plan? Mrs. Barton-Holmes' impression was that it would be done sooner rather than later. She imagined they were waiting to hear the outcome of this hearing. She thought it might be in the next few months, although she had not been given a firm timeline. lJ Page 8 of 18 [j u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 Mr. Dierckman asked if the taxpayers would have to pay for it because the Board granted a variance. He thought the property owner should have to pay for it. That did not make sense for the taxpayers to pay for it when it is specifically for a use by a private property. Dr. Marcotte did not know with certainty, but she assumed she would be the one paying to close the curb cut. Mrs. Barton-Holmes said the letter from the Highway Department does not actually clarify who is going to pay for it. It just says "the Highway Department will require the center median of 146th Street to be closed and the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners will have final approval of any access to 146th Street. They will require a commercial drive permit for access to the site." Mr. Dierckman felt it would be helpful in the future to know this information. He believed if this petition was granted there would be requests for more variances along 146th Street. Mrs. Torres felt that since Dr. Marcotte had been in operation, she knew her clientele and how many she can see in a day. If she says there are ten per day, then ten cars pulling in and out is not a huge impact on 146th Street. She asked if Dr. Marcotte was requesting any signage. Would she be allowed a three-foot sign on the wall of the house? Dr. Marcotte indicated the Department had asked her not to have signage. She had talked about just having her name and credentials on the mailbox. Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed she could have a three-foot name plate on the wall of the house. Mr. Hawkins asked if she was agreeable to the terms that only animals that are ill would be kenneled overnight. Dr. Marcotte confirmed she had promised that to her neighbors. Mr. Hawkins pointed out the Department Findings of Fact stated the site is not within a subdivision but she does have an agreement with the subdivision. Should "not" be stricken from the statement? Mrs. Barton-Hol1nes confirmed it was actually in the subdivision long before it was platted and it was included as a parcel within the subdivision. Mr. Broach asked about the barrier between her property and the church property. Was she planning for a landscape barrier? Dr. Marcotte stated there was nothing at this time that separated their properties. They had discussed that and were planning to install landscaping as a barrier and railroad ties for parking spots. Mr. Holley stated when the Carmel Hope Fellowship Church came before the Board in 2004 for a Special Use Variance; it included a berm when the church was built. They do not request anything further at this time. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve Docket No. 07120006UV, Furry Family Veterinary Office with the Conditions there will be no kenneling except for an ill animal and parking restraints will be Page 9 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 provided. Mrs. Torres pointed out the discrepancy in the docket number in the Department Report. LJ . Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed the correct number is 07120006 V. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-1, with Mr. Dierckman casting the negative vote. 4-5h. Granite City Food & Brewery Materials - Materials and Signage Variance The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08010002 V Ordinance Z-359 Use of stucco on building in PUD Docket No. 08020038 V Ordinance Z-359 Section 5.7 Number of permissible signs The site is located at the comer of 96th Street and US 31/Meridian Street and is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by SJA Architects and Dunham Capitol Management for Granite City Food & Brewery and Duke Construction LP. Present for the Petitioner: Wade Behm, Sioux Falls, SD. He needed to request a waiver for Docket No. 08020038. They did meet the State Statue for 10 days, but not the BZA 25-day requirement. Their notice was 17 days. Mr. Hawkins pointed out they were also on last month's agenda. Mr. Molitor did not have a recommendation. They did meet State Statute. It would be up to the Board to determine if this created a hardship for anyone who wanted to weigh in on the matter. Was anyone in the audience interested in this petition? u Mr. Hawkins asked if anyone in the audience intended to speak on this petition. No one responded. Mr. Hawkins moved to waive the 25~day notice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Behm pointed out the information printed in the materials for Docket No. 08020038 asked for two main signs instead of two logo signs. A rendering of the correct request was shown and distributed. Staff Report indicated a second main sign (location pointed out on the overhead) on the north elevation. It was actually a second smaller GC logo sign for the north elevation. It is a slight reduction in what Staff thought they were recommending. The rationale for the request for the sign was that it is an essential part of their image. A picture of one of their prototypical restaurants was shown with the GC logos. This would make a second sign on the east elevation. Its placement complements the approach side of the building off 96th Street and Meridian. This helps them maintain their brand image on their small restaurant chain. Staffhas given them favorable support and there are no adverse effects. There was a question about sign glare, but this will not be any additional sign glare toward a residential area. The other variance is for the use of stucco on the building in addition to the other durable materials previously approved by the PUD. Stucco is an integral part of their prototypical design used in all 25 of their current sites. They have selected its use due to durability and ease of maintenance. It is an economical material for them to install. Its use was not expressly included in the original PUD mainly because it was not the material used on the office buildings and/or the parking structure, It is a IJ very typical material used in restaurants. They are the first restaurant in the two restaurant outlots, but he was sure there would be a variance for the second restaurant in the future. Staffhas indicated ~.. favorable support. Page 10 of 18 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Hawkins pointed out the new handout that was distributed appeared to have five more logo signs that what was in their packet. He was not certain if the Department's response would be consistent with what the Board had just received. Mr. Hawkins indicated the three logos on the three awnings, a second GC logo on the main elevation and a GC logo on the awning of the main elevation for a total of five more logos. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the information Staff had received and worked with indicated two name signs, one on the west and one on the east elevations, and two logo signs, one on the south and one also on the east. This picture is showing theGC logo on the south, north and east elevations and the name sign also on the east elevation. The number of signs is consistent with the number of signs on the previously filed copy. One of the name signs has been changed to a logo sign and moved to another location. In terms of visual impact, it is probably about the same or less because the logo signs are smaller than the name signs. Mrs. Plavchak asked if the City considered an awning with a logo a sign. Mr. Molitor asked Miss Boone to speak for the record about the information she was sharing with the Board members. Miss Boone stated the original calculations for the wall signs included three awning signs on the south elevation and one awning sign on the east elevation. The GC logo on the tower of the south elevation was also included, as well as the GC logo on the north elevation on the tower above the dumpster enclosure. On the east elevation a GC logo on the tower, a GC logo on the awning, and a Granite City name sign on the wall were all calculated into their square footage. It meets the square footage allotments per the PUD. They will not be illuminated. They are all consistent with what was submitted. Mr. Hawkins stated there were some visual pictures within the Board's packets that were different. Miss Boone stated there were some pictures of other stores with other awning signs. She had asked them to submit this rendering tonight for the final signage. Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated it had been indicated to Staff the stucco was actual stucco and not EFIS or some other pre-cast, pre-fabricated panel. They are planning on using it on the upper areas of the building as additional trim which is what the Department prefers when stucco or some other material is used. It is easier to maintain if it is placed above where people can reach it. One of the intents with the list of permitted materials within Parkwood PUD was materials that are durable in appearance and easy to maintain. Stucco does meet the intent of the list, even though it is not on the list. The primary materials of the building are brick and cast stone. The Department recommended positive consideration of both variances. Mr. Dierckman asked how many additional signs would be granted with this variance. Miss Boone stated the variance was for the one GC logo on the east elevation. The signs per awning are included in the total calculations for square footage. Page 11 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24,2008 Mr. Hawkins asked if they had changed from the information in the packet. The picture in the packet lJ did not show the GC logo on the eastern elevation; it was left blank. . Mr. Behm stated the picture in the packet was photo shopped out to show what the restaurant would look like without the sign. Mrs. Torres asked about the little GC logos along the bottom edge of each awning in the photo. Mr. Behm stated the awnings for this site would be as shown in the latest rendering. The GC logo would only appear in the center of the awning. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08010002 V and 08020038 V, Granite City Food & Brewery Materials - Materials and Signage Variance with the Condition the GC logo would be centered on the window awnings only and not along the awning edges. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED: 08010002 V vote 5-0 and 08020038 V vote 4-1 with Mr. Hawkins casting the negative vote. 6-7b. United States Tennis Association - Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08020006 V Section 25.07.01-04 (i) Sign located in street right of way Docket No. 08020018 V Section 25.07.01-04 (I) Sign located off premise The site is located at 13 10 E. 96th 81. and is not zoned - the sign would be located in the right of way. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney and Evans. u Per the Petitioner's request, this item was Tabled to the April 28, 2008 meeting. 8-12h. Penn Medical Plaza - Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08020008 V Section 25.07 - Sign Chart C: Address Number Chart Address numbers exceed chart size Docket No. 08020009 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Number of signs Docket No. 08020010 V Section 25.07.02,..10 (b) Number of signs facing right-of-way Docket No. 08020011 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Signs not facing right...of..way Docket No. 08020012 V Section 25.07.02-10 (c) Exceeds allowable square footage The site is located at 11900 N. Pennsylvania St. and is zoned B-6. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson and Frankenberger. Present for the Petitioner: Jim Shinaver, Nelson and Frankenberger. Also present were Bob Whitacre, Managing Manager with Carmel Penn Physicians Plaza LLP and Cindy Hulen, Essential Architectural Signs, Inc. An aerial photograph of ~he location waS shown. This medical office building will accommodate multiple tenants affiliated with the medical care industry. The sign package seeks approval of some tenant wall signs, an address sign, a tenant directory sign, a ground sign and some IU~ - safety signage. A site plan showing the location of each sign was shown. The first signs were the tenant wall signs. A building of this type would be permitted a 75-square foot wall sign. They are asking for four individual wall signs that would be 20 square feet each for a total of 80 square feet. That would be an increase of 5 square feet. These tenant wall signs would be located at the each of the comers of the puilding near Pennsylvania Street. They were indicated on the site plan. These signs Page 12 of 18 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 would be individually mounted and internally illuminated, proportionate in size to the other signage in the area. Each wall sign will have the name of one of 4 different tenants. The address sign would be on the front (east) of the building above the first floor window. It will provide clear notice of the building address. The ground sign would be at the southern entrance to the site. This sign was presented with the original building plans. It will be constructed of brick and similar materials as the building. It will include the name Penn Medical Plaza and the address of the building. It will be landscaped as required by the Ordinance. The tenant directory sign will be on the western elevation of the building. The actual entrance to the building will be on the western elevation. The last two signs were referred to as safety signs. This is the canopy portion of the building. They will identify the clearance level of the canopy for larger vehicles. (Renderings of each sign were in the packets provided to the Board members.) They felt clear and adequate signage was needed for people coming to medical appointments. 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. They are asking for four tenant wall signs, breaking up the allowable 75 square feet into four signs and increasing the total by 5 square feet. Originally they had requested 25 square feet per sign for a total of 100 square feet. At the Department's request, they have significantly reduced that request. The ground sign is allowed and meets the size requirements of the ADLS. The Department supports the address sign. Three and a half inches may not be enough and sixteen inches is adequate to be seen from the street. The two safety clearance signs will be eight square feet. Three feet is allowed and considered incidental and would not need permits. The directory sign will be twenty square feet on the backside of the building, which is permitted. They are proposing eight signs versus the three they would be allowed. The number of signs facing the right-of-way would be three versus the permitted two. The signs not facing the right-of-way would be the two clearance signs. Two of the tenant signs are questionable as being necessary, but generally the Department is in support of the requests. Mr. Hawkins wanted clarification for Docket No. 08020012V. The four tenant signs would be twenty square feet each instead of the proposed twenty-five square feet. Miss Boone confirmed they would be twenty square feet each. Mrs. Torres appreciated them wanting more signs. She found that in setting up appointments for her family, the facility sent the paperwork with a map and phone number. She did not know if all the signage was actually to help people find the building. She felt it was more for the tenants to get their name out there. She did not feel there was a need for the four wall signs. She felt buildings tended to be known by their name, such as Penn Medical Plaza. They would not need to use the whole 75 square feet that was permitted. Mr. Shinaver stated they had discussed the permitted 75-square foot wall sign on the eastern elevation, which would be much larger than the individual tenant signs. While buildings are often identified by the building name, personally he was more focused on going to the provider. Instead of having the large wall sign adjacent to Pennsylvania elevation, they thought it may be more balanced to reduce that to four individual tenant signs placed on the comers of the building for the potential clients to identify. Page 13 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 Bob Whitacre, Cornerstone Companies, 3755 E. 82nd Street, Indianapolis. They currently have four or lJ five medical office buildings in Carmel. This area is obviously rapidly developing as a medical center. This is a major problem they have had in all of their buildings of trying to identify the tenants. He is generally reluctant to put groups on the side of the building, but in case he thought it would be much more effective to put four small tasteful signs. They have experienced this problem numerous times with buildings in Carmel. Mrs. Plavchak pointed out that traveling north on Pennsylvania, a motorist would not be able to see the tenant sign that was on the north elevation of the building. So what's the point? She did not buy the argument that they would help a person find their doctor. Mr. Whitacre stated they did consider putting all four signs on the east elevation, but he felt that looked like a billboard. He would rather take the risk of people having to drive by and come back to identify the location. It may not be ideal, but to him it made the building look better and was the most practical. Mr. Dierckman stated this is not in a residential area. There is a heliport across the street and Conseco's former headquarters. This building is only two stories, closer to the road and is less of a destination type building than the taller buildings. He didn't know if people driving by would be able to read the signs on the east elevation. This is a commercial area. Mr. Broach asked if the color was the off~white as indicated. He agreed with Mr. D ierckm an. .Rather than have it all together, he would rather have it broken up. It is tasteful. What works best is a question 0 of opinion, He liked the aesthetics of what was presented" Mr. Dierckman reminded everyone that this was the building that was approved a couple years ago that was put in front of another building. It is a little more awkward of a situation than a larger four-story building. He did not feel the Board would want an eight-foot ground sign like they had permitted for a previous petition, but it was a similar circumstance. Mr. Shinaver stated the ground sign would be permitted to be only six feet tall, not eight as indicated in the specs. Mr. Whitacre found that a ground sign was harder to read for those driving by. That was why they spread them out over the building rather than one 75-square foot location. They did not want to put any names on the ground sign, just the name and address of the complex. Mrs. Torres suggested the signs on the north and south elevations could be numbers instead of tenant names. The address sign on the east elevation could be eliminated and the other two signs could be tenant names. She felt if they were trying to serve the public with the signs, the tenant names on the north and south elevations were useless if someone was approaching from the other direction. Mr. Shinaver stated the ground/monument sign would have the n.ame and address of the building and the others would be for tenant identification. lJ Mr. Whitacre stated the address would be on the building, on both sides of the monument sign and on the sign on the other side of the building. They could easily put all four signs on one side of the building. He felt aesthetically it was better to do what they were doing. Some people might have to turn around if,they miss the tenant sign. The numerals are pretty well displayed. Page 14 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 L Mrs. Torres felt the tenants had already been promised a wall sign. Mr. Whitacre stated they do not make economic transactions for tenants to have signage. This is totally for identification purposes for the patients. It was based on their experience operating numerous medical office buildings. Mrs. Torres asked if Penn Medical Plaza was used anywhere else besides the monument sign. Mr. Whitacre stated it would be used on the other side of the building on the directory sign and inside the building on the directory sign. They will encourage the tenants to put the name on their stationery. That works in some cases. Mrs. Torres was not comfortable with the number of signs, but she did not know how a 75-square foot sign would look. Mr. Broach pointed out they were allocating the wall sign square footage in different places that serve the tenants and the public and is also aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Hawkins felt the four wall signs were better aesthetically than one 75-square foot wall sign. u Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket Nos. 08020008 V through 08020012 V, Penn Medical Plaza-signage with Conditions of maximum sign height of six feet for the ground sign and the four tenant signs are a maximum of twenty square feet each, not to"exceed eighty square feet total. The motion was seconded by Mr. Broach and APPROVED: 08020008 V 5-0, 08020009 V 4-1, 08020010 V 4-1, 08020011 V 5-0, 08020012 V 4-1, with Mrs. Torres casting the negative votes. 13 11h. Narthvie",y Christian Life Ckereh ExpaRsi8B Special Use }....mendment and VariaRee TABLED UNTIL APRIL 28 The applieant seeles the [ollo'.T.'ing special use amendment and variance approval: Daeket No. 08020926 SU}1 SeetioB 21.93 ~A,.memlment of Special Use for church expansion Dseket Ne. 08020032 V Sectis8 26.01.01 Height sf buHdiBg exeeeds maximum permitted. The site is located at 5535 East 131 st Street and is zoned S 1. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Northview Christian Life Church, Inc. 15-17h. Shideler Dermatology - Sign age The applicant seeks the [allowing development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08020029 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Number of signs per tenant Docket No. 08020035 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Sign not facing right of way Docket No. 08020036 V Section 25.07.02-10 (b) Number of signs facing right of way The site is located at 750 W. Carmel Dr. and is zoned M-3. Filed by Amy Rottman of Sign-A-Rama. U Per the Petitioner's request, this item was Tabled to the April 28, 2008 meeting. Page 15 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 18h. The Shoppes at Weston Pointe - Drive-through window The applicant seeks the following special use amendment approval: Docket No. 08020030 V Section 23C.l1.G Location and number of stacking spaces The site is located at 11145 North Michigan Road and is zoned B-2 within the Michigan RoadlUS 421 Overlay. Filed by David Gilman of the Williams Realty Group. Present for the Petitioner: David Gilman, Williams Realty Group, the retail developer of Weston Pointe. This property is mostly developed with three outlots along the Michigan Road frontage. Huntington Bank is on the southernmost outlot and the middle outlot is undeveloped. They are under construction on the northernmost outlot which abuts the Altam's Nursery property. They are asking for two variances. One variance is forthe drive-through pick-up window which is not permitted to be visible from US 421 per the US 421 Overlay Zone. Secondly any type of pick-up window would require ten stacking spaces. They have a tenant that is interested in a pick-up window on the northernmost tenant bay. That would be a pick-up window only. There would be no food ordering. The food would already be prepared. They would just come in and pick it up, in lieu of getting it delivered. Because of the type of service window they are proposing, they felt this would have a less visual impact and stacking spaces than a window with a full menu board for ordering. In order to mitigate the visibility on US 421, they have a bump out that is landscaped as well as extensive landscaping installed along US 421. A site plan was shown. They felt the visual impact would be minimal for this drive- through facility. In addition, there would already be cars parked for this tenant space and other tenant spaces along US 421 and the front of the building. They felt this was unique for this property as opposed to other drive-through windows with speaker boxes, menu boards and a full drive-through service facility. If they had ten stacking spaces, it would bring the stacking out to the entrance of their drive-through drive aisle which they felt would cause conflict. They asked to provide six stacking spaces. In the event more than six cars stacked at one time, they would encroach into the five parking spaces on the back of the building. Those cars could potentially be blocked if there were ten cars stacked at any given time. They have proposed the five spaces on the back of the building would be reserved for employee parking, making minimal inconvenience to the public. A rendering of the "Employee Parking" sign was shown. They would have one-way traffic around the building. On either side of the exit for the drive-through they would have two additional signs posted indicating "po Not Enter". That would help mitigate any traffic movement in conjunction with the drive-through. A rendering of the sign was shown. They were asking for the two variances with a condition the drive- through window act as a pick-up window only, there would be no service box or menu board for this end tenant, the landscaping would be subject to the Department's review and approval, the signs would be erected at the time of Improvement Location Permit and occupancy of the final tenant space and the site plan would be modified as shown at this meeting. They ask that their Findings of Fact that were submitted be incorporated into the file. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. lJ u Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. As stated by the Petitioner, this would be a pick-up lJ~r' . window only for previously ordered food. Because of that and because the applicant has agreed to I mitigate the view of the exiting cars through existing landscaping and a bump out in the parking lot, Staff felt it was an acceptable deviation from the requirements of the US 421 Overlay. There are a number of drive-through facilities in the overlay and a few of them have received similar variances, most recently !he Burger King further south on Michigan Road along the same side. The only place the Page 16 of 18 u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 cars would be clearly visible would be as they are exiting the site. That would be screened to a great extent by the landscaping. The number of stacking spaces needed is reduced because people would only be driving through to pick up previously ordered food. Having the "Employee Only" parking signs in front of the spaces that would potentially be blocked by cars waiting in line also mitigates any potential back up of the stacking spaces. The Department recommended positive consideration. Mr. Hawkins stated there is only one docket number for the two variances mentioned by the Petitioner. Did that cover both location and number of stacking spaces? Mrs. Barton-Holmes confirmed only one docket number was needed because they are in the same section of the Ordinance. Mr. Hawkins asked what type of tenant would occupy the space. He was trying to figure out how it would work ifhe was running late and was car #3 and the two in front of him were still waiting on their food to be cooked, what would happen? Mr. Gilman stated they had not signed a final lease, but it would be a pizzeria with pick-up service only. The pizzas would already be prepared. It would just be a matter of picking it up rather than having it delivered to your home. The convenience would be to drive through and pick it up at the window or park and go in for pick up. You could easily bypass out of the drive-through line, park and go in for your order. He assumed someone would go to one of the 20 parking spaces if their pizza was not ready. Mrs. Torres stated there is a pizza pick-up facility on 106th Street close to Michigan Road. She thought there might be only two cars stacking at that facility. She did not feel it had ever been a problem with traffic flow. Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 08020030 V, The Shoppes at Weston Pointe-Drive- through window. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5-0. 19 20b. Prairie Trace Softball Complex Development Standards VariaHces TABLED TO APRIL 28 The applicant seeks the follo'.'.'ing special use and development standards variance: Docket No. OS920033 SUA SeetioR 21.03 ExpaHsiolfD. of school Hses Docket No. 08020034 V Section 25.7.02 5 l~,.dditional institutional sign taller than f)ermitted. The site is located at 11200 North RiTler Road and is zoned S 1. Filed by 1Nilliam Payne of Fanning/Hov.ey }..ssoeiates, Inc. for Cannel Clay Sehools. I. Old Business Mr. Molitor reminded the Board an Executive Session would be scheduled to discuss the pending litigation and settlement agreement. Page 17 of 18 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adjournment Mrs. Torres moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM. S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2008/20080324.rtf Page 18 of 18 James R. Hawkins, President lJ o lJ