Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 07-28-99CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 28, 1999 The regularly scheduled meeting of July 26, 1999 of the Carmel/ Clay Board of Zoning Appeals reconvened on Wednesday, July 28, 1999. The meeting was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at approximately 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. Members present were: Earlene Plavchak; Jim Quinn; Pat Rice; Charles Weinkauf; and Tom Yedlick. John Molitor reported that the meeting did not require additional public notice, inasmuch as the meeting was reconvened to this evening and there were no changes in the Agenda. Terry Jones reported that items lh., 2h., 3h., 4., and 5h., were tabled to the August BZA meeting; 9h. and 10h. were requested to be tabled by the petitioner. Items 12h., 13h., 14h., Max Erma's, was tabled to August. Item 15h., Merrill Lynch sign at Parkwood Building No. 5, has been withdrawn by the Department. 8h. Lakes at Hazeldell Clubhouse (SU- 37 -99) James Quinn moved to TABLE this item for an indefinite period of time. APPROVED 4 in favor, Pat Rice opposed. Pat Rice moved to lift this item from the table. The motion died for lack of a second and the item remains tabled. There was discussion regarding cell towers listed on the Agenda, including those originally tabled to the August meeting, with the exception of the two Ameritech Towers. By unanimous consent of the Board, the following items were Tabled for a minimum period of 60 days: Items 6h. and 7h., (Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower SE -35 -99 and V- 36 -99), Items 3h. 4h. and 5h, (Omnipoint Telecommunications Tower SE- 32 -99, V -33 -99 and V- 34 -99;) and Items 9h. and 10h., Sprint Tower (SE -39 -99 and V- 40 -99), originally tabled for the August meeting. Steve Engelking, Director of the Department of Community Services, publicly assured the applicants and all telecommunications providers that while the Department will move forward, the providers and public will also be kept in the loop and included in deliberations. Charles Weinkauf commented that a logical approach seemed to be forming a study committee to look at the issue of cell towers and possible site locations. s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 1 Andy Crook, 2288 West 136 Street, commented that he did not have a solution to the placement of the towers, but some thought should be given to how to assess the land valuation. John Shea, 13886 Golden Saddle Court, asked if the process of becoming better informed would rely on information from the providers or from an independent source. Note: Chuck Weinkauf commented that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner. Neither the Board nor the Department has the resources available for independent evaluation. Muriel Stanton, Saddlecreek Subdivision, asked for a concrete definition of a "hardship." Tim Haley, site acquisition and zoning manger for Omnipoint in the State of Indiana, commented that Omnipoint has worked closely with BZA Boards and citizens to resolve issues connected with the Cell Towers and answer questions from the public. H. Public Hearing: 11h. Inlow Pond (SU- 41 -99) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to relocate and make improvements to the channel of Clay Creek and to provide a small retention pond on a 15.8 acre residential property. The site is located southwest of the intersection of 116 Street and Ditch Road. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Richard Smikle Doug Church, attorney with Church, Church, Hittle Antrim, 938 Connor Street, Noblesville, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also present was Scott Bordenet, project engineer. The Agenda incorrectly recites the location of the proposed pond; the site is located on the southeast of the intersection of 116 Street and Ditch Road. The petitioner is proposing to relocate and make improvements to the channel of Clay Creek and also provide a small retention pond on the 15.8 acre tract. The new channel length will be approximately 1100 feet. Four, wooden deck foot bridges will be constructed across the creek Clearing of trees will be kept at an absolute minimum and all disturbed areas will be seeded following construction. The proposed relocation and improvements to the channel will help control on -site erosion and alleviate downstream flooding. The existing channel of Clay Creek currently undercuts 116 Street on the north side of the property. The water flow often backs up near Ditch Road during heavy rain. The proposed improvements will improve stream conveyance properties and provide on -site detention/retention. The re- channeled Creek will reduce flooding and eliminate erosion along 116 Street. The improvements are not expected to impact adjacent property owners. All construction will remain on -site. s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 2 Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed development; no one appeared. Terry Jones reported for the Department that there were some concerns expressed at the Technical Advisory Committee by John South of the County Soil and Water Conservation. There is consideration for increasing the velocity of the flow at the completion of the channel improvements. At this point, John South's concerns have been addressed and the only open items are approvals from IDEM and DNR. The Department is recommending approval subject to the approvals from IDEM and DNR. The public hearing on Docket No. SU- 41 -99, Inlow Pond, was then closed. Pat Rice moved for the approval of Docket No. SU- 41 -99, subject to approvals from IDEM and DNR. Jim Quinn asked for clarification on the pond -if it was detention or retention. Scott Bordenet, 215 Stepin Court, Hamilton County, responded that the pond is designed to hold water at a low level and during storm events, the elevation will increase and water will be stored and released at a slower rate to improve channel conveyance. Jim Quinn also asked if the petitioner would be willing to commit to return the site to its original condition if construction of the channel should result in extensive, downstream erosion problems. Mr. Church responded that if the channel works as intended, there is no potential harm downstream because the outfall will be controlled within the detention/ retention pond; downstream, the creek does not change. Over time, the creek through this area has cut different channels. Placing the new channel will solidify a channel that will carry the volume of water that normally flows through the area. The petitioner is not prepared to offer a covenant that the channel will work but is relying upon engineers that have made certain assertions. Scott Bordenet confirmed that the pond will store water and release at a slower rate; the water level will be at a two year flood event. Pat Rice amended her motion for approval, subject to IDEM and DNR approvals, to additionally provide that the proposed construction of the channel will not increase the velocity or the volume of the downstream flow; if it should, the petitioner will correct. APPROVED 5 -0. 12h. Max and Erma's (V- 42 -99) Tabled to the August meeting 13h. Max and Erma's (V- 43 -99) Tabled to the August meeting s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 3 14h. Max and Erma's (V- 44 -99) Tabled to the August meeting 15h. Merrill Lynch Sign, Parkwood Building 5 (V- 45 -99) Withdrawn by the Department of Community Services 16h. Telamon Sign (V- 46 -99) Tabled to the August meeting due to petitioner's failure to appear NOTE: Items 17h and 18h were heard together 17h. Bennett Technology Park Sign (V- 47 -99) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.01 -4(1) of the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow for a Bennett Farms Apartment identification sign within the proposed integrated monument sign for Bennett Technology Park. The site is located at 11200 Michigan Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is located within the U.S. Highway 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Zeff Weiss of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. 18h. Bennett Technology Park Sign (V- 48 -99) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.02- 11(c,d,h) of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance to allow the maximum sign area to be 70 square feet total where only 30 square feet is allowed; to allow the sign height to be nine feet where six feet is allowed; and to allow external soft tube illumination where only internal or completely shielded illumination is allowed. The site is located at 11200 Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/Business and within the U.S. Highway 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Zeff Weiss of Ice Miller Donadio Ryan. Tim Oachs, attorney with Ice Miller Donadio Ryan appeared before the Board representing the applicant, Michigan Road Partners LLC, contract purchaser. The petitioner has received approval for the construction of an apartment community from Boone County. The reason for the appearance before the Carmel Plan Commission is that the sign is located within the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. The petitioner feels that the sign is necessary for competitive purposes and for safety purposes to pinpoint the location. The specific sign is an integrated sign that incorporates the apartment community and the technology park. The dimensions of the sign are 7 1/2 feet at its highest point; the Bennett Farms Apartments sign is approximately 8 1/2 feet wide and the Technology Park sign is approximately 5 feet wide. The sign will be consistent with the architectural style of the apartment community as approved by the Town of Zionsville. The development fronts on Michigan Road and is adjacent to a commercial use across the s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 4 street that is an approved, industrial park for the Town of Zionsville. It is believed that the use and value of the adjacent area will not be impacted. The strict application in the terms of the zoning ordinance result in practical difficulties because of the setback from Michigan Road. The petitioner needs the visibility on Michigan Road and signage is vital to the success of the development. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed signage; no one appeared. Terry Jones reported for the Department that a variance for the off premise sign would be needed. If the sign can fit within the confines of the ordinance, the signage for the apartments could be located in conjunction with the Technology Park as an off premise sign. Possibly, the increase in size and height is the result of an additional sign in the same location. The Department would be in favor of one sign, serving two purposes, in one location. There was much discussion regarding one off premise sign containing two identification signs, one for Bennett Technology Park and one for Bennett Farms Apartments. Earlene Plavchak asked if an off premise sign was strictly prohibited under the Carmel Sign Ordinance Terry Jones responded in the positive; however, the petitioner is allowed to seek a variance under the Statute. Tom Yedlick moved for the approval of V- 47 -99. The public hearing was then closed. Mr. Quinn took exception to Variance V -47 -99 because he felt it was a speech issue. There was further discussion prompted by Mr. Quinn's comments. Earlene Plavchak withdrew her second; Tom Yedlick wiithdrew his motion for approval of V- 47 -99. Tom Yedlick then moved to approve a variance from section 25.7.01 -4(1) to allow an off premise sign for Bennett Farms Apartments, V- 47 -99. APPROVED by a show of hands 4 in favor, Jim Quinn opposed. There was much discussion as to the request for Variance 48 -99. Tim Oachs explained that the request for the Bennett Technolgy Park Sign variance of Section 25.7.02- 11(c,d,h) is to allow a total increase in the maximum sign area to 63 square feet where only 30 square feet is allowed, and to allow the sign height to be 7.5 feet where six feet is allowed. The external soft tube illumination is permitted, provided that soft tube illumination is shielded. s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 5 Terry Jones interjected that during the Department's review of the petitioner's request, the sign was viewed by the Department as an integrated sign, i.e. one sign that had two messages. One message had something to do with something other than the property in which it was being located; the second issue was the size, height and illumination of the complete, single sign, not two signs as considered by the previous motion. NOTE: At this point, the Board took a 5 minute recess at Mr. Molitor's request. Mr. Oach's reiterated the petitioner's request for a variance to increase the maximum size of the sign from 30 square feet to 63 square feet, allowing the two signs to be integrated, and signage height is requested to be 7.5 feet where six feet is allowed. The petitioner is willing to commit that these signs be integrated and restricted in dimension to that which was submitted, and further, that Bennett Technology Park and Bennett Farms Apartments would be the only users advertised on the sign. Mr. Weinkauf asked that the petitioner commit to not exceeding the allowable square footage or height of the sign. Mr. Molitor stated that since written Findings of Fact had not yet been adopted, the dimensions of the allowed sign are agreed to be no larger than the sign presented by the petitioner. Earlene Plavchak asked for clarification of the request for external soft tube illumination; Mr. Jones responded that this was a review under the US 421 Overlay Ordinance. The petitioner committed to landscaping around the light fixture so that it is not clearly visible. The petition also goes before the Plan Commission for ADLS review and the illumination will be looked at again, however, the petitioner was willing to commit to a point one foot candle. Jim Quinn suggested that the phrase regarding the shielding of light be stricken from the petitioner's request. The petitioner stated his willingness to withdraw this part of the request. Pat Rice moved for the approval of the Bennett Technology Park Sign, (V- 48 -99) as amended to provide that the 63 square foot total previously approved shall include the square footage of the apartment sign already granted; the 7.5 foot height variance would pertain only to the Technology Park portion of the sign. APPROVED 4 in favor, Jim Quinn opposed. 19h. West Carmel Center (SU- 49 -99) Petitioner seeks a Special Use approval to construct a retail shopping and service center including a jewelry store. The site is located at the southwest corner of West 106 Street and U.S. Highway 421. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is within the U.S. Highway 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Jamie Poczekay of American Consulting Engineers. s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 6 Kevin McKasson, 9864 Summerlakes Drive, of Glendale Partners appeared before the Board along with April Hensley of Leach, Hensley Architects Jamie Poczekay is on vacation this week. The petitioner has appeared before the Special Study Committee of the Plan Commission and received ADLS approval for the first phase of a retail project at 106 Street and Michigan Road. The project will consist of three retail buildings. The petitioner is requesting that this site be approved for retail uses as provided in the Ordinance, including a jewelry store. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed development; no one appeared. Terry Jones reported that the Department has no issues with this petition, and approval is recommended. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of West Carmel Center, SU- 49 -99. APPROVED 5 -0. 20h. West Carmel Center (V- 50 -99) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 23C.9 of the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance which sates that buildings with a continuous facade of 90 feet or greater width be designed with offsets not less than eight feet deep. Petitioner requests that these building offsets not be required. The site is located at the southwest corner of West 106 Street and U.S. Highway 421. The site is zoned B -3 /Business and is within the U.S. Highway 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Jamie Poczekay of American Consulting Engineers. Kevin McKasson of Glendale Partners appeared before the Board requesting a variance in the 421 Overlay requirements requiring building facade setbacks of 8 feet. The Carmel Plan Commission spent many months fine tuning the Ordinance to protect the Michigan Road corridor and to provide for enhanced development procedures. The petitioner meets all requirements with the exception of the 8 foot setbacks required in a facade. It is believed that the intention of the provision was to prohibit a long, square building without any character. The proposed building provides several architectural features that break up the front of the building. The building is all brick with a stucco sign front and a simulated, asbestos roof that will look like slate. All sides of the building are of the brick material; all utility units are screened from the public. It is the petitioner's belief that all requirements of the Ordinance have been met with the submitted design. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed development; no one appeared. s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 7 Terry Jones concurred with Mr. McKasson's representation of the 421 Overlay Zone Requirements. Pat Rice was on the Plan Commission committee that drafted the amendments to the 421 Overlay requirements. There was a good deal of discussion at that time, and several members of the Committee expressed that the outcome of the amendment was not what the Committee intended. The Committee would like to revisit this and make another amendment. The Department is recommending approval at this time. Pat Rice moved for the approval of West Carmel Center V- 50 -99. Jim Quinn noted that the Overlay Requirements do not describe the offsets -they could be vertical. Mr. Quinn urged the Board to write a letter to the City Council to change the Overlay Requirements. The public hearing was then closed. West Carmel Center (V- 50 -99) was APPROVED 5 -0. 21h. Perkins Variance (V- 51 -99) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance to reduce the 60 foot building line setback. The site is located southeast of the intersection of Woodlawn Drive and Orchard Park Drive. Filed by Paul Shea of Paul Shea Builders Inc. Paul Shea of Paul Shea Builders, 1015 Oswego Road, Carmel, appeared before the Board requesting a reduction in the 60 foot building line setback to 44 feet. Virgil and Katheryn Perkins were also in attendance. Mr. Shea stated that he will be acting as contractor for Mr. and Mrs. Perkins. The petitioner is requesting a reduction in the building setback line in order to add a two -car garage to the front of his home. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed addition; no one appeared. Terry Jones of the Department pointed out that the underlying zoning is S -2 and has a setback requirement of 35 feet. At the time it was platted, the developers platted this particular residence with a setback of 60 feet. Another section of the zoning ordinance requires that a setback in excess of the required, shall be the setback requirement. The proposed construction encroaches only into the "extra" setback set forth by the development. The public hearing was then closed. James Quinn moved for the approval of the Perkins Variance (V- 51 -99). Mr. Shea stated that he had spoken with the neighbors and adjacent property owners. There was no opposition to the proposed construction. s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 8 Jim Quinn asked if the Board had any say in the Subdivision covenants and whether or not the proposed construction was in violation of the Subdivision covenants. John Molitor responded that whatever the covenants require in the way of setbacks are binding upon the owners unless they get all property owner's consent. It should not be a concern to the Board. The Board does not have the right to infringe upon contracts entered into by private parties. The other owners in the Subdivision may still have rights under the homeowners covenants and restrictions, no matter what the Board does. Mr. Quinn suggested that the petitioner check in the homeowners covenants to see if the encroachment in the setback is permitted. Mr. Quinn's motion for approval was APPROVED 4 in favor, Tom Yedlick opposed. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM. Ramona Hancock, Secretary I Charles W. Weinkauf, President s:minutes\BZA \bza 1999ju 128 9