HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 05-22-00CITY OF CARMEL, CLAY TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MAY 22, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM on May
22, 2000 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana.
Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak; and Pat Rice.
Note: In the absence of President Charles Weinkauf, Vice President, Pat Rice, chaired
the meeting.
Steve Engelking, Director, Laurence Lillig and Terry Jones were present representing the
Department of Community Services.
The minutes for the April meeting will be available for vote at the next meeting.
F. Communications, Bills, Expenditures and Legal Counsel Report
John Molitor requested that the Board call an Executive Session to discuss the
current status of pending litigation. The Executive Session was then set for June
26 at 6:30 PM prior to the regularly scheduled meeting.
G. Reports, Announcements and Staff Concerns
Laurence Lillig announced that Emerald Crest at Hazel Dell Summit Amenity
Area, SU 13 -00, and the Robinson Barber Shop, UV- 61 -99, are TABLED until
the June meeting.
H. Public Hearing:
lh. Kingsborough Remainder (V- 17 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
5.4.6: Minimum Lot Width in order to reduce the permissible width from 120 feet
to 100 feet on 0.869 acre. The site is located at West 141" Street. The site is
zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by John B. Urbahns of Kingsborough LLC.
Jeffrey ?with offices at 3905 Vincennes Road, Indianapolis, appeared before the
Board representing John Urbahns, applicant. The applicant is requesting a variance from
Section 5.4.6 Minimum Lot Width from 120 feet to 100 feet for land on the north side of
141 Street. The lot in question is 100 feet wide by 378 feet deep, which is point eight
tenths of an acre. It is a sizeable lot, but does not meet the minimum lot width.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition; no one appeared.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\2000may
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; the following
appeared.
Bob Fritsche, homeowner in Ponds West, referred to a letter distributed to the Board, and
authored by him as well as a letter written by P. Thomas Murray, Jr., of Eads Murray,
P.C., Attorneys at Law, representing the Ponds West Homeowners Association, Inc. Mr.
Fritsche stated that he had examined the public file for a Finding of Fact and did not
discover a Finding in existence. In addition, there are concerns such as public safety due
to the property's location just before the rise to a small hill that is considered to be a sight
danger. Also, by reason of loss of trees on the lot, waterway disruption and potential
flooding, and loss of wildlife habitat. Mr. Fritsche states his primary concern as being
property value and the biggest impact. It was Mr. Fritsche's understanding that the lot in
question was always a "fall -out" lot in the Kingsborough Subdivision and should have
been addressed at that time. It was known at the time Kingsborough was built that this
lot is un- buildable and it could have easily been incorporated into someone's lot at that
time. It is Mr. Fritsche's belief that the 120 foot frontage requirement is meant for
exactly this purpose -to not allow a house to be built in this area on a 100 foot wide lot
that would reduce the property values and potentially cause a safety issue on 141 Street.
Rebuttal: Jeffrey Reasner stated that this piece of land is eight tenths of an acre that is
about twice the size of the lots in the adjacent neighborhoods of Ponds West and
Kingsborough. The S -1 zoning dictates the guidelines and setbacks so that the home
could not be any closer than those in the adjacent neighborhoods. The site is heavily
wooded, but the amount of trees to be cleared will be minimal, only the area for the
building pad. At the front portion of the site, there is a drainage ditch or creek, but the
back portion has a depth of 378 feet and sits rather high and would be a nice spot for a
home. When Kingsborough was platted as a subdivision, this site was left out on
purpose- -with its 100 foot width, there was no way to incorporate it within the
subdivision. It was not left out because it was not buildable -it is a buildable site, it just
didn't fit in the plat from the layout of the subdivision. As far as impact to the entrance of
Ponds West, this site is about 170 feet away from the entrance to Ponds West. There is
also a wooded area at the Ponds West entrance before the first home. There will be
woods left in the Ponds West Common Area at the entrance before you get to this lot
moving west.
In regard to the creek, some type of bridge or culvert structure would have to be placed
over the creek for a driveway to be installed to the residence. But this is certainly a
buildable area.
Laurence Lillig reported that there was no Finding of Fact in the File; however, they were
distributed to the Board. As far as Development Standards are concerned, the size of lot
is well in excess of the minimum requirement for this area north of 141 Street and West
Spring Mill Road. The minimum lot width in this area is roughly .77 acres. Drainage is
one of the concerns that would be addressed when this piece of property is platted as
required under the definition of subdivision in effect prior to January first of 2000. This
parcel is more than the 5 th tract subdivided off the original parent tract, and in order for
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 2
anything to be built on this lot it would necessitate going through the platting process and
would require Technical Advisory Committee review and Plan Commission approval.
The Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition at this time.
The public hearing was then closed.
Questions and Comments from Board members.
In view of the unavailability of the Finding in Fact in the public file, Leo Dierckman
recommended that this Docket be continued to the next meeting.
Leo Dierckman moved to Table Docket No. B- 17 -00, Kingsborough remainder until
the June 26 meeting. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed.
2h. Northwood Hills, Section 1, Lot 6 (SU- 19 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use to establish a commercial kennel. The
site is located at 6320 Northwood Drive. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Bruce Boje for Gerald Evelyn J. Easton
Bruce Boje, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Easton, appeared before the Board requesting
approval to establish a commercial kennel. Over a period of years, the Eastons have
taken in a number of pets who have been abandoned, injured, and in need of special care.
Mrs. Easton at one time worked for Home for Friendless Animals and the driveway and
front yard of their residence became a designated drop -off place for these types of
animals.
The Eastons currently care for 12 dogs with special needs. Two of the dogs are over 14
years of age, four or more are over I I years of age, and the additional 6 dogs are all over
5 years of age. The Eastons have a fenced back yard for the dogs; they are all neutered,
and all dogs have their shots.
Since the current controversy, it was brought to the Eastons attention by the Department
that due to the number of dogs, they were considered a commercial kennel under the
Ordinance. The Eastons were advised that they would have to either seek a Variance or a
Special Use to continue to keep the dogs.
The Eastons have attempted to limit the amount of time the dogs are outside. With
respect to the designation of "commercial kennel" it is not commercial in the sense that
it is done for income or for profit these are domestic pets for their own personal use
and enjoyment. The Eastons are not paid for keeping the pets; they do not receive any
income for keeping the pets. In fact, keeping the pets has been a very expensive
proposition. The pets are part of the Easton's family. Mr. Boje circulated pictures of the
Easton's property among the Board. The pictures were labeled and showed the
surrounding area.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 3
The Eastons were surprised when they received notification by the Department of
Community Services that they were considered a commercial kennel under the Ordinance
and would need separate zoning approval. The Eastons had their dogs licensed through
the Township Trustee's office and received a minor kennel license from Dixie Packard in
the Township Assessor's office. The Eastons thought they had complied with the law.
Mr. Boje stated that the Eastons do not want to open this for commercial use. If they are
allowed to continue to keep the dogs, the Eastons request that approval only be for them
and their use, and only for their situation, and that it not attach to the land and any
property rights. The Eastons are willing to commit that no more animals will be added
than currently housed by them. In addition to their dogs, they have two cats. Mr. Boje
offered to submit pictures of the animals.
In addition, through attrition, the Eastons will be able to bring the number of animals into
compliance with the Ordinance. It is felt that the petitioner's request meets the Special
Use requirements. Nothing is being changed about the residential use of the lot or the
character of the area. No structures are being added; nothing is being done to alter the
construction of the home. The dogs are not penned outside, the dogs do not generate
traffic or income, and the dogs are not kept for commercial use.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; the following
appeared:
Robert Bauxal, 6330 Northwood Drive, a resident at this address for 30 years, stated that
he and his wife, Peggy, are immediate neighbors of the Eastons to the east. Mr. Bauxal
stated that the Eastons are fine neighbors and good people, and they admire what they are
doing. The dogs have never been a disturbance to them during the day and especially at
night. It is critical for the Board to understand that this is not a commercial endeavor on
the part of the Eastons but rather a humane endeavor. Mr. Bauxal stated that it had never
occurred to him that the dogs would, in any way, diminish the value of his property until
it was suggested by some people who are opposed to the Eastons. Mr. Bauxal stated he
still does not believe the dogs devalue his property and he is in support of their petition
and would like the Board to grant their request.
Lisa Smith, 11966 River Road, a neighbor three homes away from the Eastons, stated
that she was not aware of the dogs barking. The only time the dogs barked for any length
of time, Ms. Smith thought there was a medical problem at the Easton home. It was
discovered that the dogs were barking because a man had come to clean out the gutters,
without an appointment. It would be very unusual for the dogs to bark for any length of
time. The Eastons are definitely not a commercial kennel but do rescue dogs from a
humane aspect. The neighbors have dumped dogs over the fence into the Eastons yard at
night, assuming that the Eastons would take care of the animals. Most all of the dogs at
the Eastons have come from people in the neighborhood. The problem is not the dogs
but rather a problem between the Eastons and one neighbor next door. Mr. Easton
thought he was obeying the law all these years in paying for and obtaining a license for a
minor kennel. There was no communication between the zoning board and the licensing
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 4
agency. Ms. Smith felt that the whole situation was unfair and brought on by one angry
neighbor.
Donald Woods, 12012 Pebblebeook Lane, Northwood Hills, also owner of six acres of
property immediately east of the Eastons home, addressed the Board. Mr. Woods stated
he had received a letter from the Eastons explaining their position as to the dogs. The
letter reflected a great deal of love and compassion for the animals. Mr. Woods stated
that he did not believe the Variance would detract from the value of his home or the
property in the area. If the request for the Variance is not granted, the dogs would have
no recourse but to be put to death and this would be most unkind and unfair. Mr. Woods
was in support of the Variance for the Eastons.
Jill Jensen, 11966 River Road, addressed the Board. Ms. Jensen stated that her home is
in close proximity to both the Eastons and to the Miller household. Ms. Jensen stated that
she had attended her first Northwood Hills Neighborhood Association meeting, prompted
by a letter attached to the Northwood Hills newsletter. At that time, it was thought that
the request was initiated by the Association, but later found that it was initiated by Mr.
Miller personally; Mr. Miller is also president of the Association. A discussion was
begun about the dogs, but it was deemed to be more of a personal nature and was left to
be determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. There were two concerns that were
addressed -the setting of a precedent, and devaluation of properties. Ms. Jensen stated
that she and Ms. Smith had put in a lot of hours and money restoring a 1911 farm house
and they would have a lot to lose if properties were to be devalued. Ms. Jensen believes
that the dogs do not devalue her property and that the approval would not set a precedent.
Ms. Jensen also stated that the situation stems from a personal nature between the
Eastons and the Millers rather than the matter of the dogs. Ms. Jensen stated support for
the Variance and requested that no new dogs be added and that the current dogs would be
allowed to live out their natural lives.
Stacy Easton, 7609 Home Drive, Fishers, son of the Eastons, addressed the Board on
beahalf of his two brothers and sister, also in attendance this evening. Mr. Easton agreed
with all previous speakers. Mr. Easton stated that he and his siblings had resided at 6320
Northwood Drive for many years. The amount of affection and love given to the animals
by Jerry and Evelyn Easton is overwhelming -it is an amazing sight to see and it would
be beneficial if the Board could view the situation firsthand. Stacy Easton sated that he
works at the Plum Creek golf course and at no time have the dogs barked, distracted, or
disrupted the golfers. Stacy Easton was in full support of the request for the Variance.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following
appeared:
Doug Evelo, 6035 Shieling Court, Northwood Hills, distributed handouts to the Board
with letters of opposition and a petition signed by 35 individuals who are also opposed to
the Variance. Mr. Evelo objected by reason of legal, technical and functional issues. Mr.
Evelo stated that the zoning variance had been on the books since January, 1980 and is
not new. Mr. Evelo referred to letters of opposition previously submitted. Mr. Evelo
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 5
gave a brief history of the Northwood Hills Civic Association. Mr. Evelo referred to a
previous case in 1995 that was before the Board for Mr. Mrs. Dodd who had requested
a variance for a commercial kennel and it was not approved. Mr. Evelo objected for the
specific reasons of property values, noise factor, and general nuisance. Mr. Evelo stated
that the Eastons do not meet number 3 and number 4 of the application for the special
use, and the current use affects the adjacent property values.
Mary Grillea, resident of Northwood Hills for 32 years, states that she walks every day.
There are no sidewalks within the subdivision and Ms. Grillea walks in the street. Ms.
Grillea feels threatened by the Easton dogs and states that she was threatened by the
leader of the pack and only managed to escape because the lead dog's attention was
diverted. Ms. Grillea stated that she no longer feels free to walk in her subdivision on
public right -of -way, knowing that people have been killed by a pack of dogs.
Ann Davis, Northwood Drive, across the street from the Eastons, questioned the number
of cats. There are definitely more than 2 cats and they roam Ms. Davis' yard. The dogs
may be old, but they are virile and can run very fast. If the dogs are so sick and so old, it
is not understood how they can escape and run in a pack. Ms. Davis stated that she also
loves animals and has a puppy, but it is tethered in the back yard while the Eastons' cats
roam. The use of the Easton property certainly does have an effect on the value of homes
in the subdivision.
Kathy Kessler, 6220 Northwood Drive, stated that she does not work outside the home
and is home all day. Ms. Kessler did not wish to attack the Eastons but did want to
address the problem. This is a zoning violation, not a neighborhood feud. According to
Ms. Kessler, the dogs bark all the time, and the Kesslers cannot open their windows and
enjoy their back yard in the summer months. Ms. Kessler has counted 11 cats. Ms.
Kessler states that she also likes animals, but her quality of life is being jeopardized. The
current use of the Easton property devalues property. The location for a commercial
kennel is wrong. Ms. Kessler stated that she is opposed to the Variance by reason of the
noise of barking dogs, health issue whether or not the animals have had their shots,
devaluation of property, and the establishment of a precedent if this request is granted.
Jake Darling 11761 Prairie Place, Northwood Hills, addressed the Board and commented
that 16 to 20 animals, living indoors, is not a healthy situation for either the resident or
the animals. Public health is certainly an issue. Mr. Darling also stated concern about
establishing a precedent. Mr. Darling was not in favor of the variance, and asked that 6
months be given to the Eastons to allow them to come into compliance with the Ordinane
of 3 dogs, and that this would be in the best interest of the area.
Roy Oliphant, 11932 Westwood Dive, Northwood Hills, addressed the Board. Mr.
Oliphant stated that he too had attended the homeowners meeting and there was a great
deal of feeling expressed on both sides of the issue. Mr. Oliphant is opposed to a
commercial kennel but was hopeful of finding some compromise to the situation so that
there are not a lot of ill feelings within the Homeowners organization. Mr. Oliphant
stated that he is also an animal lover, and a lot of the people that spoke professed to be
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 6
animal lovers. Mr. Oliphant's solution: Those people that love animals could each take
one animal into their own home and help relieve the anxiety of the Eastons and provide
the animals with shelter.
Ralph Zimmerman, 11921 Forest Lane, Northwood Hills, addressed the Board as a 30
year resident of Northwood Hills and spoke of the solitude and the abundance of trees.
Northwood Hills has been a quiet subdivision, but sitting outside now and having a
backyard bar -b -cue involves listening to the barking dogs. Mr. Zimmerman stated that
since living in Northwood Hills, he has had a number of cats, dogs, and horses, but NOT
all at the same time. Mr. Zimmerman thought that what the Eastons are doing is
commendable, but not in a residential neighborhood. There are building restrictions and
covenants so that people can enjoy their property and not suffer because of what their
neighbors are doing. This is a residential neighborhood, not an area for a commercial
kennel.
Joe Brown, 6020 Sheiling Court, Northwood Hills, stated that he lives at the farthest
boundary of Northwood Hills. Mr. Brown stated concern that the petition is for a
commercial kennel license and the setting of a precedent. Northwood Hills is a tranquil
neighborhood full of trees, and the tranquility has been disrupted. There is no way that
the number of animals stated can live within a residence and not be of some type of
nuisance to the adjacent property owners.
Douglas P. Miller, 6310 Northwood Drive, Northwood Hills, addressed the Board as a
neighbor, not a member of Northwood Hills Homeowners Association. Mr. Miller stated
definite opposition to the Variance. Mr. Miller stated that his family was formerly good
friends with the Eastons and even fed the dogs for them when they were on short trips or
vacation. Originally, the Eastons stated that they would take in sickly strays, nurse them
back to health and find homes for them. However, the animals have grown in number
since 1995. There were numerous confrontations with the Eastons. Mr. Miller stated that
his children could not play in the backyard due to the barking dogs next door. Mr. Miller
stated that he has contacted the Hamilton County Sheriff, the prosecutor's office, Carmel
Department of Community Services, Township Trustee's office, and the Northwood Hills
Civic Association. In 1998, the Eastons were served with a citation and since then, their
attorney has contacted Mr. Miller in an attempt to resolve the matter. The Eastons have
offered to construct a privacy fence and have also offered to put the dogs on a schedule
for time outside. This proposal is not acceptable to Mr. Miller or his family, in that it
would work in the reverse for the Millers and put them on a scheduled as to when they
could enjoy their back yard. Mr. Miller stated definite opposition to granting the variance
for a commercial kennel.
Rebuttal, Bruce Boje. The request for a commercial kennel was made at the direction of
the Department because the ordinance really does not allow the request to fit in any other
classification. Mr. Boje stated that he is not aware of complaints being brought to the
Department of Community Services prior to 1998.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 7
Jerry Easton, 6320 Northwood Drive, addressed the Board and stated that he has a fenced
yard, approximately one -half acre, and that is where the dogs are. The dogs are not let
loose to run in the neighborhood, and when they are in the fenced yard, someone is out
with them. Mr. Easton stated that he has had no complaints from the Plum Creek golf
course, and the I l tee is 10 to 20 feet beyond his fence. If the dogs were barking, the
golfers would certainly complain, and to date, there have been no complaints. Mr. Easton
stated that they have had the dogs for 9 years, and all of a sudden, there is a problem.
Mr. Easton stated that he followed the law and obtained the license. Dixie Packard told
Mr. Easton that the receipt for the license is misleading, and it is possible that the
homeowner would not be aware of the 3 dog restriction.
Steve Engelking, Director of the Department of Community Services, rendered the staff
report. The issue before the Board is whether or not to grant a Special Use which is
allowed in a residential area for a commercial kennel. This has been an issue that the
Department has been involved in for approximately two years, and it is an emotional one.
Mr. Boje has correctly stated the situation that several complaint letters were received by
the Eastons, and inspectors from the Department have visited the Eastons on a number of
occasions to discuss the situation. Certified letters have been sent to the Eastons and at
least one letter from the Department of Law of the City of Carmel. The contacts were
over a period of two years, and predicated on the fact that there were initial conversations
that seemed to have some fruitful ending in sight, only to find that that was not the case.
At one point, the Eastons had offered to sell the property, and it was listed. At that point,
the complaints seemed to subside. The property did not sell, and the Department re-
visited the issue. The Ordinance is a quandry, but a commercial kennel is classified as
anything greater than three pets. The characterization by Mr. Boje is somewhat
misleading; there was confusion between the Township Trustee's office and the City of
Carmel with regard to the Ordinance, in that the Township Trustee's office does issue pet
licenses. However, they do not issue licenses for any commercial operation or kennel
operation, only dog licenses or cat licenses. The Township was unaware of this
Ordinance for a number of years, and they have since been advised in writing. The
Department report is somewhat analagous to what Mr. Boje has offered for some sort of
mediation. If the Board chooses to approve the Special Use, they could condition it for a
period of time perhaps consistent with the attrition of the pets down to a legal number
allowed within a residential zone.
The public hearing was then closed.
Questions and Comments from the Board:
Leo Dierckman asked to see a copy of the Minor Kennel Permit issued by the Township.
Pat Rice asked for clarification of the Minor Kennel License which is for less than 15
dogs.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 8
Terry Jones stated that the Minor Kennel License is a form that the Township Trustee's
office uses. The Township does issue dog tags and specifies certain numbers for major
and minor kennels. The result of discussion with the previous Trustee is that they are
required to issue the license or a tag seeking the license and not necessarily bound by the
zoning ordinances of the City. However, it does not relieve the individual of obtaining
the licenses. The Township does notice the individual, but they do issue the license.
Pat Rice stated that there is certainly reason for the confusion.
John Molitor commented that the State Statute explicitly gives the power to the Trustee to
issue the license outside the City limits. There is a Joinder Agreement in Carmel and
Clay Township with regard to the zoning. The Trustee does not directly regulate the
zoning, but does have the power to issue the permits or dog licenses. In a perfect world,
there would be better communication and an ordinance would have been passed stating
that the licenses should not be issued unless there is a certification that the zoning was in
place -but this has not occurred yet.
Leo Dierckman questioned the petitioner as to the actual number of pets in his ownership.
Jerry Easton stated that he has 2 cats only. There are neighborhood cats that come
around as well as raccoons and opossum. There are four dogs that are 11 years old, one
is 13 years old, two are 14 years of age and need medication and special care.
Ms. Rice asked again about the dogs and whether or not they run the neighborhood. Mr.
Easton responded that his dogs are in the fenced back yard and do not run the
neighborhood unless they escape by chance.
Pat Rice commented that if the Variance is granted, the Board would need to set some
conditions -dogs cannot be left outside all day to bark. Mr. Easton responded that the
dogs are not out barking all day.
Pat Rice asked if there were any recourse available to the neighbors if the variance were
granted and the dogs continued to bark.
John Molitor stated that if commitments were made regarding the maintenance or custody
of the dogs to hold down the amount of barking, and a violation of that commitment
occurred, the City could charge the landowner with a violation, or the Special Use could
be considered void because of failure to honor the commitment.
Earlene Plavchak asked about the number of pets considered to be adoptable; Mr. Easton
stated that there are 5, which are adoptable, including 3 puppies left on the front porch in
a basket.
Ms. Rice asked if the Eastons were extremely attached to the animals; Mr. Easton
responded that it was like their children.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 9
Leo Dierckman proposed the following commitments: 1) no food accessible outside
home and available to any stray animals, including the garage, in perpetuity. 2) no more
than 3 dogs outside at any one time and owner to be present in home when dogs are out.
3) Down to 7 dogs and two cats in 6 months. In other words, find homes for 5 dogs
presently on the property. There would be a total of 30 months for the term of the permit
and for the homeowner to come into total compliance.
Michael Mohr agreed that this is an extremely difficult decision. Mr. Mohr was
concerned with the length of term and that the neighborhood would be policing the
situation and it may create chaos. There needs to be some resolution to the problems.
Earlene Plavchak commented that in spirit, Mr. Dierckman's proposal is good, but in
reality it would be difficult to enforce. The Eastons should be able to find a suitable
home for the 5 dogs that are considered adoptable. The 7 feeble dogs would be difficult
to place and would need different consideration -but to set a date for their demise is a
little hard hearted. As the dogs naturally expire, they should not be allowed to be
replaced and the Eastons will eventually be in compliance.
Pat Rice, no food outside is an absolutely essential idea and that one of the owners be
present when dogs are outside is great, also, the natural attrition is good. Any volation in
terms of dogs running in the neighborhood needs to be met with some consequence.
There is certainly a discrepancy between the Township and the Ordinance. To take away
the five dogs the Eastons have become attached to is a difficult decision. Ms. Rice stated
she would be inclined to set limits with no outside food, the owner must be present when
the dogs are out.
Michael Mohr asked if there were an alternative to granting a commercial kennel license,
and if there were any way to work out a compromise.
Terry Jones responded that one of the problems is the number of animals -if they are over
that number, by definition, it qualifies as a commercial kennel.
Leo Dierckman commented that there needs to be some time constraints for a permit to
expire within normal parameters.
John Molitor asked that the Board consider the option to grant a special use with some
commitments for a period of time, and when the commitment expires, the Eastons would
come back to the Board with a report on the situation and possible renewal.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. SU- 19 -00, Northwood Hills,
Section 1, Lot 6, with the following commitments: 1) No open food outside, animals are
to be fed indoors (garage); 2) No more than 3 dogs are to be outside at any one time and
one owner must be on the premises during that time; 3) These commitments will expire
in 18 months and the homeowner must return to the Board for a review of the situation.
Through attrition, the petitioner will be down to 3 dogs and in compliance with the
Ordinance. APPROVED 3 in favor, one opposed. (Michael Mohr)
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 10
NOTE: Earlene Plavchak exited the meeting at this point and did not return. Ms. Rice
stated that any definitive action by the Board would require three votes.
3h. Cheswick Place, Section 2, Lot 85 (V- 20 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
5.3.1(8) in order to enable a swimming pool to encroach into a platted easement.
The site is located at 13678 Frenchman's Creek. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Marjorie A. Mikels of Pools of Fun for Robert W. Barbara A. Mackay.
Bruce Holmes, 3891 Clark's Creek Road, Plainfield, appeared before the Board
representing Barbara and Robert MacKay. This was presented to the County Surveyor's
Office and approved for the encroachment of the drainage and utility easement. The
project also received approval by the Homeowners Association. There is no buildable
property to the rear of the proposed pool, and because of the way the lot is situated, this is
the best location for the pool.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared.
Laurence Lillig confirmed Mr. Holmes' report as to the County Drainage Board's
approval of the encroachment into the easement. The Department sees no reason to
oppose this and is recommending favorable consideration at this time.
The public hearing was then closed.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Docket No. V- 20 -00, Cheswick Place,
Section 2, Lot 85. APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
NOTE: Those items related to the UAG Honda Dealership were heard as a combined
package.
4h. Bauer Commercial Park UAG Honda (SU- 21 -00)
Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval to alter the exiting approval for
an automobile dealership. The site is located at 4140 East 96 Street. The site is
zoned B -3 /Business.
Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for UAG Young, Inc.
5h -10h. Bauer Commercial Park UAG Honda (V- 22 -00; V- 23 -00; V- 24 -00; V -25-
00; V- 26 -00; V- 27 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02 -7(b):
Number Type to increase from one sign to eleven; and 25.7.02 -7(c): Maximum
Sign Area to allow the following:
V -23 -00 one 55.42 square foot "Honda" sign
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 11
V -24 -00 one 80 square foot Honda logo
V- 25 -00; V -26 -00 two 655.625 square foot "Service Center" signs
V -27 -00 one 69.75 square foot "Dan Young" sign
The site is located at 4140 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B -3 /Business.
Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for UAG Young, Inc.
Charlie Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger, appeared before the
Board representing the applicant. The petitioner is requesting sign variances as specified
and for a revision to an already approved Special Use in order to permit Dan Young to
operate an Oldsmobile dealership and a Honda dealership in two buildings which are now
occupied by Dellen Oldsmobile and Dellen Lincoln Mercury.
Also present on behalf of the United Auto Group were: Al Young and architect Randy
Remenschneider.
Mr. Frankenberger briefly described the history of the request as follows: The Special
Use permitting the use of the two buildings for automobile sales and service has already
been approved as of March 23, 1987, Docket No. 5- 14 -87. As a result of the prior
approval, Dellen was permitted to operate a Lincoln Mercury in one building and an
Oldsmobile dealership in another building.
Under the current request, the use will remain exactly the same automobile sales and
service. The request for sign variances is presented because the frontage of the buildings
has changed to reflect a new proprietor
The subject real estate was shown on an aerial photograph together with the buildings in
place. The real estate is bordered on the west by Keystone Avenue and Lakeshore Drive,
on the east by Bauer Drive, on the south by the 96 Street commercial corridor. Similar
uses in the area include Dan Young Chevrolet, Tom Wood on both the north and south
sides of 96 Street, World Wide Motors, Palmer Dodge, Martin- Marietta and various
asphalt plants farther east.
There is an open drainage ditch that crosses the property in a northeasterly manner. The
proposed plan is to cover and pipe but not eliminate the drainage ditch. Eventually, these
plans will have to be approved by the City Engineer and any approval is asked to be
contingent upon subsequent approval by the City Engineer.
Elevations and renderings of the Honda dealership were shown as well as photo
renderings and elevations of the Oldsmobile store. The Honda building remains
substantially the same as the existing except for the front. The exterior will be white,
textured material and the trim will be blue. Originally, 11 sign variances were requested;
one for the number of signs, 10 for the size of signs. After conferring with the
Department, 6 of the bubble signs have been eliminated below the two service center
signs. Also, per the Department's request, the Dan Young sign and the Honda sign have
been consolidated. Therefore, the number of signs now being requested is four in total
rather than eleven.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 12
The first sign is the Honda logo, 10 feet by 8 feet, internally illuminated, silver in color,
and constructed of fiberglass material. There are two "Service Center" signs shown on
the drawings. Each of these signs is 26 feet, 3 inches by 2 feet 6 inches, and consists of
individually mounted, internally illuminated letters, blue in color, and constructed of
plastic acrylic material.
The Dan Young sign is 23 feet, 3 inches by 3 feet and consists of individually mounted,
internally illuminated letters, blue in color, and again, constructed of plastic acrylic
material. All of the signs are shown on the photographic rendering. The building is a
white, textured material with blue trim and again, remains substantially the same except
for the change in the front of the building.
It is the petitioner's belief that the signs for the Honda building are not overdone and are
appropriate for the 96 Street commercial corridor. The signage enables the petitioner to
compete with its neighbors to the south in Marion County and provides the public with
needed information by identifying the logo, the vehicle make, the identity of the dealer,
and the availability of service.
Mr. Frankenberger stated that the following reasons for disagreement with the
Department's recommendation: The recommendation is in two parts. First, the
Department expresses its preference for the style of the existing building fronts, and
therefore recommends the denial of the Special Use and the attendant sign package.
In the alternative, the Department is recommending approval of the sign package if the
Board approves the Special Use.
Mr. Frankenberger stated the following points of disagreement. Per the zoning
ordinance, it is the petitioner's understanding that Special Uses are generally to be
considered favorably, excepting those cases where Special Uses are obviously
inappropriate. The petitioner feels that there is nothing in this matter that is
inappropriate -it is consistent with everything around it. The primary use of the real
estate for automobile sales and service was already approved in 1987; the only thing that
has changed is the front of the building, everything else remains substantially the same.
There is no Overlay Zone applicable to the 96 Street corridor and there are no
architectural standards. If architectural standards are to be applied, they should be
applied in a predictable, objective way by either establishing an Overlay Zone or
including the standards in an ordinance.
The revised frontages have evolved over time as part of the manufacturers image
program- -they were not arbitrarily chosen. There are those who prefer the architectural
style as revised and they can be characterized as newer, brighter, and fresher.
Finally, the petitioner does not believe that architectural standards should be imposed on
a case by case basis based upon subjective preferences. If architectural standards are to
exist, they should be uniformly and objectively applied so that they can provide
predictability.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 13
The petitioner is requesting approval at this time of the Special Use for the Honda store
and approval of the attendant sign package.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared.
Laurence Lillig explained the Department report. The recommendation of maintaining
the present facade is based upon the minutes of the original Special Use in 1987 and the
Board's approval of the Special Use, specifically the buildings, based on the architecture
presented. It is the Department's belief that the architecture should be maintained.
The recommendation on the sign package simply reflects the fact that this Board may
disagree with the 1987 Board. If, in fact, it is the current Board's decision to approve the
amendment to the architectural package that was approved in 1987, the current sign
package would seem to be appropriate to the style being proposed this evening.
Otherwise, the sign package may not be appropriate to the architecture should the Board
deny the amendment to the Special Use and require that the facades be maintained in
their present state. In that case, the Department would recommend that the sign package
would then be revised to better reflect the current architecture rather than the proposed.
The public hearing was then closed on SU- 21 -00.
Michael Moore moved for the approval of Special Use Amendment 21 -00, conditioned
upon a commitment from the petitioner that the end result will look exactly as the
proposal submitted.
Randy Remenschneider, architect, stated that a banner will be added to the building,
another column will be added for structural purposes, and a covered bay will be added
and cars parked underneath; Otherwise, it will look exactly as the photograph.
The vote on Michael Mohr's motion to approve SU- 21 -00, with conditions, was a NO
DECISION VOTE of 2 in favor, 1 opposed (Pat Rice.) The petitioner will return to
the June meeting and placed under Old Business on the Agenda.
At this point, the Board tabled the following items until the June meeting: V- 22 -00;
V- 23 -00; V- 24 -00; V- 25 -00; V- 26 -00; and V- 27 -00.
Note: Items l lh. and 12h -15h. were heard simultaneously.
I lh. Bauer Commercial Park UAG Oldsmobile (SU- 28 -00)
Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval to alter the existing approval
for an automobile dealership. The site is located at 4100 East 96 Street. The site
is zoned B -3 /Business.
Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for UAG Young, Inc.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 14
12h -15h. Bauer Commercial Park UAG Oldsmobile (V- 29 -00; V- 30 -00; V -31-
00; V- 32 -00)
Petitioner seeks Developmenal Sandards Variances of Sections 25.7.02 -7(b):
Number Type to increase from one sign to ten; and 25.7.02 -7(c): Maximum
Sign Area to allow the following:
V- 30 -00; V -31 -00 two 55.33 square foot "Service Center" signs
V -32 -00 one 99.66 square foot "Dan Young Oldsmobile" sign
Charlie Frankenberger, attorney with Nelson Frankenberger appeared before the Board
representing the applicant. Charlie Frankenberger stated that his comments previously
rendered on the Honda signs and why they are appropriate will apply with equal force to
the Oldsmobile signage and those comments will not be repeated. The reasons for
disagreeing with the Department's recommendation are also identical and the Board will
be spared repetition of those comments.
The elevations of the buildings were shown on the overhead. The building remains
substantially the same with the exception of the front of the building that will be white
with red trim. The sign variances being requested are shown on the elevations. There are
four variances, three for the size of signs, and one for the number of signs. The petitioner
conferred with the Department regarding the number of signs and as a result, reduced the
number of logos from 7 originally shown to four, and the four logos show on the
elevations. The variance for the number of signs has reduced accordingly.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition; no one appeared.
Laurence Lillig rendered the Department report -a repeat of the report for the Honda
Docket.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of UAG Oldsmobile, SU- 28 -00. The vote was a
NO DECISION, two in favor, Pat Rice opposed. TABLED to the June meeting.
Items 12h -15h, V- 29 -00; V- 30 -00; V- 31 -00; V -32 -00 were also TABLED to the June
meeting.
16h. Hamilton Crossing West, Building 1 J.D. Byrider (V- 33 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
25.7.02 -7(c) Maximum Sign Area in order to establish a sign for J.D. Byrider.
The petitioner also seeks approval to amend the recorded Commitments for this
project. The site is located northwest of East 126 Street and U. S. 31. The site is
zoned B -5 /Business
Filed by Philip A. Nicely of Bose McKinney Evans for Duke -Weeks Realty.
John Smeltzer, attorney with Bose McKinney Evans, 8888 Keystone Crossing,
Indianapolis, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. The petitioner is
requesting approval for the modification of the approved signage in Building 1 at
Hamilton Crossing. The request is for a Developmental Standards Variance of the Sign
Ordinance to allow an addition to the identification signs on the real estate: one
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 15
illuminated business identification wall sign on phase I of the project, and one
illuminated business wall sign on phase II of the building.
The informational packets contain a view of the Hamilton Crossing expansion. When the
project was developed in 1989, it was anticipated that the users of this space would be
small business. In the past, businesses were 3,000 to 5,000 square feet. Additionally, it
was anticipated that this would be flex space office space in the front, warehouse space
to the rear. With the buildout of phase II, there will be 105,000 square feet. The Use
Variance obtained in 1989 is not being utilized to any great extent. Of the 105,000
square feet, only 900 square feet are presently being used for warehouse space. The
space has turned into a larger user, very few tenants, and J.D. Byrider has elected to make
this their corporate headquarters. J.D. Byrider will have 125 employees at their corporate
headquarters, a total of 300 in the corporation, and is the largest used car dealer in the
nation with over 105 stores in 28 states.
In taking the 36,000 square feet at Hamilton Crossing, J.D. Byrider would like to have
their corporate identity on the side of the building. Under the present ordinance, it would
simply allow one identification sign for the entire building and it limits the maximum
sign area to 40 square feet.
In 1991, the petitioner obtained commitments that allowed identification signage either
by a ground sign or on the doors of the building. The proposed sign is 71.87 square feet
and under the existing signage chart, up to 90 square feet would be allowed. The
petitioner has elected to downsize the sign. It is a reverse -lit, neon channel, aluminum
letters with brushed satin, halo effect.
Mr. Smeltzer stated that approval of the variance would not be injurious to the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. The sign will be erected by professionals using
standard engineering plans and practices. The use and value of the area will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner, in that the sign proposed would be consistent
with the signage allowed for major tenants in the office buildings along the Meridian
corridor. The strict application of the zoning ordinance to the property may result in
practical difficulties in the use of the property because a multi- tenant building is being
limited to a single sign under the existing ordinance. The ordinance creates practical
difficulties in providing adequate identification for multiple tenants within the building
and more particularly, for this tenant which is taking 36,000 square feet.
Steve Granner was in attendance as well as the president of J.D. Byrider and a
representative of the sign company.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one
appeared.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending favorable consideration at
this time and asks that the revised commitments be prepared for recording.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 16
The public hearing was then closed.
Leo Dierckman moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure. APPROVED 3 in favor, none
opposed.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V- 33 -00, Hamilton Crosing West, Building
1 J.D.Byrider. APPROVED 3 in favor none opposed.
NOTE: The following items 17h., 18h., 19h., 20h -24h., and 25h -30h. were heard
together and voted on separately.
17h. West Carmel Center, Block D Target (SU- 34 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use to establish a Target Department Store.
The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road. The site is zone 13- 3 /13usienss
within the US 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Target, Inc.
18h. West Carmel Center, Block D Target (SU- 35 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Special Use to establish a bank tenant within a
Target Department Store. The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road. The
site is zoned 13-3 /13usiness within the US 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Target, Inc.
19h. West Carmel Center, Block D Target (V- 36 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of a Developmental Standards Variance of Section
14.4.1: Maximum Height in order to increase the restriction from 35 feet to 37
feet, 9 inches. The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road. The site is
zoned B -3 /Business within the US 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Target, Inc.
20h -24h. West Carmel Center, Block D Target V- 37 -00; V -38; V- 39 -00; V -40-
00; V- 41 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of Developmental Standards Variances of Sections
23C.8.2(B): Maximum Front Yard; 23C.9(F): Entrances; 23C.10.2.(1): Greenbelt;
23C.10./2(2): Foundation Plantings; and 23C.13: Access to Individual Tracts.
The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business
within the US 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Target, Inc.
25h -30h. West Carmel Center, Block D Target (V- 42 -00; V- 43 -00; V- 44 -00;
V- 45 -00; V- 46 -00; V- 47 -00)
Petitioner seeks approval of Development Standards Variance of Sections
25.7.02 -7(b) Number Type in order to increase the maximum number of signs
allowed from two to five and 25.7.02 -7(c): Maximum Sign Area to allow the
following:
V -43 -00 one 478 square foot "Super Target" sign with logo
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 17
V -44 -00 one 55.5 square foot "Pharmacy" sign
V -45 -00 one 113 square foot "Archer Farms Market" sign
V -46 -00 one 167 square foot "Expect More Pay Less" sign
V -47 -00 one 8 foot tall "Target" ground sign
The site is located at 10401 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B- 3 /Busienss within
the US 4221 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners for Target, Inc.
Kevin McKasson of Glendale Partners appeared before the Board representing the
applicant. Also in attendance were: Jamie Poczekay and Carrie Buckley with American
Consulting Engineers, Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineers, Forest Russell with Target
Stores, and April Hensley of Leach, Hensley Architects.
The proposed site is zoned B -3 and is to be developed under the provisions of the US 421
Overlay Zone. The Target site is part of a 70 acre development and will hopefully be a
"keystone" of development in the corridor. The proposed Target will be an upscale store
located adjacent to the Marsh Supermarket and will set the tone for future development in
the Overlay.
Glendale Partners has previously developed two projects, the Weston Shops and the West
Carmel Shops. The outlot buildings have been shown in conceptual form and the
petitioner will be re- appearing before the Plan Commission for specific approval at a later
date. The buildings will not be constructed with Plan Commission approval, however,
the petitioner is willing to commit to completing the 30 foot landscape buffer that is
between the right -of -way and the buildings of the outlot.
Target itself does not have direct frontage on US 421 due to the outparcel building, but it
is believed that an important part of the Overlay was to provide a Streetscape to avoid
viewing a sea of parking. The buildings will be placed on the street within the 120 foot
maximum setback area; however, due to the configuration of the ground, the petitioner is
not fully able to screen the parking lot with buildings alone.
The petitioner is willing to further commit to screening the parking lot with not only
landscaping but landscaped berm. There is 30 feet of greenspace and 6 foot tall,
undulating landscape berms will be constructed. The actual landscape area will extend
beyond the 30 foot required landscape area into an approximate 125 feet to be used for
landscaping. The areas not screened by buildings will also have 6 foot berms. The final
landscape plan has not yet been approved by the Department, but it does meet the
specifications of the Overlay Zone.
Mr. McKasson stated that additional landscaping has been agreed in the form of a 30 foot
buffer on the east side of Commerce Drive. Currently, Commerce Drive terminates at
Carwinion Drive. The petitioner is also committing to a 30 foot landscape area on the
south side of 102 Street. The petitioner has also agreed with the neighborhood groups
to create a cul -de -sac of Carwinion Drive, subject to meetings and approvals necessary
from the County.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 18
The Target building has been designed to be compatible with the buildings completed in
the Weston Shops and West Carmel Center. This is not a standard Target store -it was
specifically designed for this area to meet the Federalist and Georgian architectural style
required. The front of the building is a brick material, and the side and back are "Qwik
Brick," a masonry material scored to look like brick.
April Hensley, 7765 East 126 Street, Fishers, of Leach, Hensely Architects, appeared
before the Board and stated that the design was created to emulate or be in the spirit of
the Federal or Georgian style building. The scale is important and proportionality has
been considered in the design to meet that requirement. Some detail has been added to
the building to make it look more to scale. There are some additional brick details that
are not normally utilized in a lot of larger buildings, but it does break up the facade so
that it is not as monotonous.
Kevin McKasson commented that the B -3 /Business does anticipate retail uses but
requires Special Use Approval for specific users.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of items 17h and 18h; the following
appeared:
Michael Dugan, 3805 Carwinion Way, spoke as a representative of the Homeowner
Association of the Ashbrooke Subdivision. Mr. Dugan indicated that he spoke before the
Plan Commission on the 16 of May. The Homeowners Association has been in active
dialogue with Mr. McKasson and Glendale Partners. Agreements and understandings
have been reached regarding this development and the Homeowners Association of
Ashbrooke support the project as it is being formulated this evening.
Mr. Dugan stated that he would like to speak to specific issues at a later time.
Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition; no one appeared.
Laurence Lillig stated that the Department is recommending favorable consideration of
petition SU -34 -00 for the Target Store and SU -35 -00 for the bank tenant.
The public hearing was then closed.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of SU -34 -00 and SU- 35 -00, Target Store and
bank tenant. APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
Kevin McKasson explained that V -36 -00 is for the variance in height of the Target Store
from 35 feet to 37 feet, 9 inches in order to meet the architectural style. (the height
exceeds at the peaks)
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to V- 36 -00, Height
Variance; no one appeared.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 19
Laurence Lillig clarified that the 37 feet 9 inches is actually measured at the mid -point of
the gable, not the peak. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of this
petition.
The public hearing was then closed.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V- 36 -00, height variance for the Target
Store. APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
Kevin McKasson reported that the petitioner will be appearing at the Special Study
Committee in June and a lot of the details of the plan will be worked out.
Items 20h -24h V- 37 -00; V- 38 -00; V- 39 -00; V- 40 -00; V- 41 -00. Kevin McKasson
explained the need for the Variances requested. The Target does not technically have
frontage on Michigan Road and the streetscape and screening for the previous building
was to use the building as a screen for the parking lot. The buildings are conceptual at
this point, but the petitioner will return for full approval. Due to the configuration, the
buildings do not adequately screen the parking lot. Extensive landscaping has been
created with extensive landscape berms. A sight line study that was done illustrates what
would be seen by a motorist passing by the site. The petitioner will commit to creating
landscape berm areas.
In this project, there are four retail areas designed: West Carmel Shops, the corner
property; the second phase of West Carmel Shops, (conceptual); the Target parcel; and
another parcel to the south, possible the Home Depot store.
The petitioner has asked for three access points on Michigan Road for the entire project.
One access point was granted at West Carmel Shops on the south side of the property. A
second access point is in the middle of West Carmel Shops and is a right in/right out
only. The petitioner has agreed to construct a median from the intersection south through
the drive so that it truly is right in/right out. The other proposed entrance is between the
Target store and the second phase of West Carmel Shops, a full access. 102 Street is
the third access point and will be built to County specifications. Commerce Drive will
also be built to County specifications; both roads are classified as secondary arterial roads
and the petitioner has given 90 foot rights -of -way.
Steve Fehribach of A &F Engineering addressed the Board. Several years ago, this parcel
was studied on the south and east corners as well as the Marsh Supermarket and Weston
Shops. When these corners were looked at, A &F was in contact with the State of Indiana
to determine where the access points should be and the proposed plans approximately
locates those same access points. The magnitude of the development would faciltate a
traffic signal at the southern -most access point. The State of Indiana, Crawfordsville
District, has basically said, 'Bring us a report." The Target Store alone would warrant
the traffic signal and with the other developments, a traffic signal is more than warranted
and this is realized by the State -the numbers and a start date will be provided to the
State.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 20
Kevin McKasson pointed out that at present, there are more curb cuts put in place by the
owner of the ground, and the petitioner will be eliminating some of those cuts. The three
access points mentioned are the only ones for all four retail parcels as well as three office
zoned parcels. The Overlay requires that there be foundation plantings around the
buildings.
Members of the public were invited to speak to any one or all of items 20h through 24h;
the following appeared:
Michael Dugan, 3805 Carwinion Way, Carmel, had specific comments regarding traffic
in this particular development. As adjacent neighbors, there is concern about the amount
of impact this scale of development would have. The main focus has been on the
Commerce Drive issue and the neighbors have worked closely with Kevin McKasson.
This is not looked at as a major issue, since Commerce Drive is not seen as a major
traffic artery to deliver people to this development. Someday it may connect to 96
Street, but that is most improbable; it will also never be a major artery for carrying traffic
north/south. The major artery serving the County U.S. 421 and it needs to be designed,
planned, and improved in order to serve that function. The curb cuts need to be allowed
in order to keep the traffic on U.S. 421.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending favorable consideration of
these petitions, with the understanding that approval does not inhibit the ability of the
Plan Commission to address these issues in the DP /ADLS process currently under review
by the Plan Commission.
The public hearing was then closed.
There were no comments or questions from the Board members.
Michael Mohr moved for the approval of V- 37 -00; V- 38 -00; V- 39 -00; V- 40 -00; and V-
41-00. ALL WERE APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
Kevin McKasson addressed the Board in regard to the Developmental Standards
Variances in regard to the maximum number of signs allowed, and the maximum sign
area allowed.
Signage being requested is the "Super Target" sign with logo; the "Pharmacy" sign; the
"Archer Farms Market" sign; "Expect More Pay Less" sign; and a "Target" ground sign.
Members of the public were invited to speak to any one or all of items 25h through 30h;
the following appeared:
Forrest Russell, senior site development manager with Target, spoke of the Super Target
being presented along with a new tax base and 300 jobs into the community. Target is
presented both as a general merchandiser and a grocery -a new concept for Target. The
market portion is a total upscale shopping experience rather than a warehouse food
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 21
concept. There are currently two super Target stores under construction in the
Indianapolis area. Consistency is being sought in the message and presentation by
Target, and the only way this can be communicated as far as separating a general
merchandise Target from the new Super Target is by way of signage on the exterior of
the building. There are two entrances to the building, one clearly identifies the grocery
component as "Archer Farms Market." The general merchandise portion of the building
is signed over the door with "Expect More Pay Less" identification. The sum of the two
is the large sign in the center identifying this as "Super Target." Again, this is a new
concept and the signage is felt to be in scale with the mass of the building and the size of
the walls. It is hopeful that the entire picture will be taken into consideration.
The public hearing was then closed.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending that the petition for the
number of signs, V- 42 -00, be given favorable consideration. The Department further
recommends that the petitions for the size of the "Super Target," V- 43 -00, and "Expect
More Pay Less," V- 46 -00, be limited to the maximum square footage allowed for such
signs under Sign Chart V, Freeway, of the Carmel/Clay Sign Ordinance. The ground
sign, V- 47 -00, is recommended to be limited to 6 feet in height. The Department again
makes the caveat that approval of these petitions will not inhibit the ability of the Plan
Commission to address signage issues in their DP /ADLS deliberations.
Questions and comments from Board Members:
Leo Dierckman questioned the sizes of the signs and the size charts referred to by the
Department. Pat Rice also questioned the frontage and the freeway chart. Laurence
Lillig explained the Signage Ordinance as it pertains to the Variances requested and the
freeway table and signage chart.
There was further discussion regarding the size of the requested signs and what is
allowed under the Ordinance.
Kevin McKasson then proposed an amendment to the square footage of the signs. The
discussion will continue at Special Study; however, the representative from Target has
asked to reduce the "Expect More Pay Less" sign to 113 square feet from 167 square feet.
and to reduce the "Super Target" logo sign to a total maximum of 300 square feet.
Kevin McKasson commented that the ground sign is proposed on a brick base to match
the building. The proposed, total height of the ground sign is 8 feet tall and 6 feet wide.
After further discussion, Kevin McKasson committed to make the base of the ground sign
brick to match the building, and the logos will be the same, individual channel letters that
are on the building. The petition will be modified to limit the height to six feet and 5 feet
wide. The location/placement of the sign will be talked about in Special Study
Committee. Safety is the overriding consideration.
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 22
John Molitor clarified V- 47- 00 -if the petitioner amends his petition to 6 feet in height, it
would meet the Ordinance and no Variance would be required.
Kevin McKasson then formally WITHDREW V- 47 -00.
Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V- 43 -00, one "Super Target" sign with logo,
300 square feet as specified; Approval of V- 44 -00, as requested; V- 45 -00, as
requested; and V- 46 -00, one "Expect More Pay Less Sign," 113 square feet.
APPROVED 3 in favor, none opposed.
Note of Clarification: The inference in Mr. Dierckman's motion is that V -42 -00 is
also approved confirmed by Mr. Dierckman.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:10 PM.
Pat Rice, Vice President
Ramona Hancock, Secretary
Meeting adjourned 11:06 PM.,
s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \2000may 23