Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 09-25-00CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak; and Pat Rice. Director Steve Engelking; Terry Jones and Laurence Lillig were present representing the Department of Community Services. In the absence of the President, Vice President Pat Rice conducted this evening's meeting. The minutes of the August 28 meeting were approved as submitted. F. Legal Counsel Report John Molitor suggested that an Executive Session be scheduled for October 23 at 6:15 PM prior to the regularly scheduled meeting to discuss pending litigation. G. Steve Engelking reported on Agenda items Tabled for this evening's business: Town Village, UV -84 -00 and V- 85 -00; Orrin Jessup Land Company's First Addition, Lot 126 127 (part) SUA -89 -00 and SUA- 90 -00; Vertical Real Estate Telecommunications Tower, 107 -00; Lattice Communications Telecommunications Tower, SE- 114 -00; items 36h through 60h, all pertaining to the Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1. Brooks Landing at Prairie View, Section 1, Lot 3, V -56 -00 under Old Business; Mayflower Park, Block 6, Lot 2, V- 77 -00, V- 78 -00, V- 79 -00, V- 80 -00; and Mayflower Park, Block 6, Lot 2 V -81- 00 and V- 82 -00. It is anticipated that these items will be placed on the October 23 Agenda. H. Public Hearing: lh -3h. Cherry Tree Elementary (V- 62 -00, V- 63 -00, V- 64 -00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02 -5(b): Number Type to increase from one sign to two; 25.7.02 -5(c): Maximum Sign Area; and 25.7.02 -5(d): Maximum Height of Ground Sign to allow the following: V -62 -00 one additional Institutional identification sign V -63 -00 one 24- square -foot Changeable Copy sign V -64 -00 one 64" tall Institutional sign The site is located at 13989 Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S- 1 /Residence. Filed by Sarah Stites Fanzini of Johnson Smith for Carmel Clay Schools. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals\Minutes\bza2000Sept Sarah Stites Fanzini of Johnson Smith Pence, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board requesting an additional identification sign in the form of a ground sign with changeable copy; the proposed ground sign would be 6'4" tall. The ground sign exceeds the maximum allowable square footage of 16 feet -24 square feet is being requested. Also, the ground sign exceeds the maximum allowable height of 5 feet; the proposed sign is 6 feet 4 inches, with a base portion of one foot six inches. Ron Farrand, Director of Transportation for Carmel Schools, addressed the Board regarding the proposed signage. Other signs within the school system are currently being reviewed and will be brought into compliance. In the future, the signs will be controlled through the central office and all signs will follow the appropriate procedure. The current sign at the Cherry Tree location is difficult to see given its location, size, and proximity to Hazel Dell Parkway; there is also a retention pond to the front of the school. The sign is solely on school property- -there are no other drives in the vicinity. The current landscaping plan will be continued around the base of the sign to be consistent with the overall school facility. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; no one appeared. Department Report: Steve Engelking confirmed that the petitioner has worked with the Department on this particular project. There are a number of signs within the school system that do not totally conform to the Ordinance and the petitioner has committed to assist the Department in bringing all school related signs into compliance, either by seeking variances or through the permitting process. Further, the school district commits to cause future sign applications to come through the proper application/variance process, as appropriate. The Department is recommending that if the Board grants approval, it should be conditioned upon a commitment from the petitioner that the school will complete the process within 24 months. The public hearing was then closed. Comments from the Board: Michael Mohr asked the reasoning for the 24 month period. Steve Engelking explained that originally, the Department had suggested that this particular petition be held until the entire situation was cleaned up however, it would not serve a purpose for the School that would be of good use this year. Because the school system is now changing their procedure -it has been the PTO groups in each of the schools to fund and adopt the signage -Mr. Farrand's office and the school superintendent will be resolving the situation and the 24 month period was felt to be a workable time frame. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 2 Michael Mohr moved for the approval of V- 62 -00, V- 63 -00, and V- 64 -00, Cherry Tree Elementary, conditioned upon the 24 month time commitment from the school to review all school related signs and that total compliance will occur, either by variance or by permit, seconded by Earlene Plavchak. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed. 4h. Merchants' Pointe (V- 83 -00) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 23A.2: Minimum Front Yard to reduce the SR 431 setback from 120 feet to 55 feet. The site is located on the southwest corner of East 116 Street and Keystone Avenue. The site is zoned B -8 /business. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for The Linder Group. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, attorney, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also in attendance was Gary Linder, president of The Linder Company. The petitioner is seeking a reduction in the State Road 431, Keystone Avenue setback from 120 feet to 55 feet for the 14 acre tract of real estate located at the southwest corner of East 116 Street and Keystone Avenue. The 14 acre parcel is being purchased by The Linder Company, developer of Merchants Square, from Woodland Country Club. The subject real estate was re -zoned to B -8 /Business district in June, 2000. The B -8 classification and the commitments made at the time of rezone provide for the use of the real estate to be known as Merchants Pointe and to consist of a mixed -use development containing a blend of office, restaurant, retail and service uses allocated among 7 individual buildings. Only the land nearest the corner would be utilized for a mixed use development; the remainder of the Woodland real estate would be retained for golf course use and a long -term commitment was made to that effect. During the rezone process, a site plan was approved that divides the real estate into 7 building sites. The development plan contains several attributes of public interest: One, Merchants Pointe is dedicating along the north property line, sufficient right -of -way for the 116 Street project. Adjacent to Keystone Avenue, the B -8 /Business district classification provides for a landscape or tree preservation buffer of not less than 30 feet. The petitioner's landscape buffer is 30 feet nearest 116 Street; however, proceeding southward along Keystone Avenue, it widens to approximately 80 feet. The petitioner is also providing for a perimeter buffer along the west and the south property lines between the real estate and what will be Woodland's new golf course. The variance being requested is from the 431 Overlay Zone -that the 120 foot setback line be reduced to 55 feet. The practical difficulty is that the development plan providing for 7 buildings could not be completed in the form presented. The two buildings located nearest Keystone Avenue would be precluded as a result of the 120 foot setback line. The practical difficulty is brought about by site conditions, both planned and required. From the beginning, the petitioner was challenged to keep the parcel of real estate as small as possible, retaining as much of the Woodland land as possible for the golf course. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 3 Also, the building area has been greatly reduced by the perimeter buffer, the tree preservation easement and the right -of -way. Lastly, it is impossible with the required 7 buildings to move two building farther westward and yet still maintain the separation that is desirable among all 7 buildings. Jim Nelson gave a brief history of the Overlay Zone and the review ability of the Plan Commission of the 120 feet on each side of the right -of -way of Keystone. Within the Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard or the distance between the right -of -way and any building is also 120 feet. The jurisdictional limit of the Plan Commission's ADLS review is 120 feet and the setback is also 120 feet. With a strict application, nothing is permitted to be built within the 120 feet, yet it is the Plan Commission that is charged with reviewing all things that are built within the 120 feet. On many occasions, this situation has been viewed as a mistake in the Ordinance and an oversight. As a result, many variances have been granted, permitting buildings to encroach within the 120 foot area. The planning concepts do change over time. Today, the trend seems to be to encourage buildings to be closer to the right -of -way and not farther away from the right -of -way. This is evident in the most recent revision to the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone where there are not only maximum setbacks but minimum setbacks. Based upon past application, the 120 foot setback is viewed as excessive and in this instance, simply not possible to accommodate the development plan that was presented and reviewed if a strict application of the 120 foot setback is required. A 55 foot setback would be more consistent with the setback of existing buildings along Keystone Avenue and more consistent with current planning principles. The petitioner is still able to provide the substantial buffer that is required along Keystone Avenue and not only meet the ordinance of 30 feet but to increase it to 80 feet nearer the south property line. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; the following appeared: Joe Donellen, 206 Woodland Lane, Carmel, asked if a hotel was planned on any of the lots. Rebuttal: Jim Nelson said the nearest building will be 55 feet from the right -of -way of Keystone Avenue. Department Report: Steve Engelking stated that the petitioner has discussed practical difficulties with the Department and the Department agrees that practical difficulties do exist, given the design of the site that was reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission. The Department is recommending favorable consideration. The public hearing was then closed. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 4 Pat Rice said she understood the need for the request; however, it was her recollection that when the plan was presented to the Plan Commission, the plan stated 5 to 7 buildings. Pat Rice asked for clarification of the plan. Jim Nelson stated that the petitioner has committed to seven (7) buildings. Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of V- 83 -00, Merchants' Pointe, seconded by Earlene Plavchak. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed. 7h. Lakes at Hazel Dell Subdivision, Section 1, Common Area 3 (SUA- 88 -00) Petitioner seeks to amend the lifeguarding commitment made as part of the Board's approval (Docket No. SU- 37 -99, approved August 23, 1999) of the amenity area. The site is located at 12474 Dellfield Boulevard West. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker Daniels for Zaring Homes of Indiana. Joseph Scimia, attorney, 600 East 96 Street, appeared before the Board representing Zaring Homes of Indiana. The petitioner is requesting a Special Use Amendment to delete the commitment requiring a lifeguard to be present at all times that the pool at the Lakes at Hazel Dell Clubhouse is open, pursuant to conditions that were imposed as part of SU -37 -99 that approved the actual swimming pool as a special use. The Lakes at Hazel Dell development is located south of 126 Street on the east and west side of Hazel Dell Drive. This particular subdivision consists of 280 homes within four communities of its boundaries. There are currently between 45 and 50 homes that have been sold, under construction, or currently occupied. The Special Use previously obtained authorized a 75X25 foot swimming pool and is one of the common amenities provided to the homeowners in the Lakes at Hazel Dell. The petitioner's request is based on the cost associated with running a full time program for lifeguards at this point in the development of the community; at present it is cost prohibitive. The petitioner has also had difficulty in obtaining certified lifeguards to work at the pool. Mr. Scimia distributed copies of the State and Local Ordinances which regulate swimming pools under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Health and the County Department of Health. The swimming pools such as the size at the Lakes at Hazel Dell are exempt from the requirement under State and Local law to have a lifeguard present during their operating hours. In fact, the Ordinances adopted by the State and the County provide that local entities may provide stricter requirements by the adoption of an Ordinance requiring a lifeguard to be present at times when they would not otherwise be required. The petitioner is requesting that if a lifeguard is required during operating hours, it should be required by Ordinance applicable to all people and all subdivisions located within the City of Carmel. It would also be a legislative act taken by elected officials. The petitioner is requesting that the imposition of the requirement be applied equally to everyone. At present, Lakes at Hazel Dell is only one of two communities required to s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 5 have lifeguards for pools that would otherwise not be required to have lifeguards under State and County ordinances. The departments of the State as well as the County given authority to regulate these types of activities have already made the determination that pools of this size do not require lifeguards. In fact, there have been no mortalities associated with pools of this size in Carmel since 1985. There is an exception for pools with less than 2,000 square feet, and as previously stated, this pool is 1875 square feet and would therefore be exempt from regulation under State code. At this time, Mr. Scimia asked that materials presented and the proposed Findings of Fact be incorporated into the file. Mr. Scimia also asked that if the City desires to regulate this type of activity, it should be applicable to all subdivisions located within Carmel's jurisdiction. Mr. Scimia again requested that approval be granted to amend the Special Use approval to delete the requirement that a lifeguard be present at all times the swimming pool is open. Pat Rice asked John Molitor if additional time could be allotted to review the materials distributed this evening. John Molitor said there is certainly some case law that relates to this sort of argument. Mr. Scimia is suggesting that making a commitment of this nature is a quasi legislative act and should be reserved for the City Council. There is some case law to that effect, however, it is not directly on the swimming pool rule. However, it is an argument that would deserve some consideration. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to this petition; no one appeared. Department Report: Steve Engelking stated that the Department had not had an opportunity to review the materials submitted this evening. The Department recommended that this item be tabled until the materials can be reviewed. The public hearing was then closed. Michael Mohr requested back up material for the reasoning behind the previous decision made at the time of the Special Use approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Leo Dierckman asked that the efforts of the petitioner to secure a lifeguard be documented to the Board. Earlene Plavchak echoed Leo Dierckman's comments; there are a number of lifeguards in Ms. Plavchak's neighborhood. Secondly, the economic concerns of the petitioner are not the concern of this Board. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 6 Leo Dierckman moved to TABLE SUA- 88 -00, Lakes at Hazel Dell Subdivision, Section 1, to the October meeting, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed. I 1h -16h. Keystone Square Arby's (V- 108 -00; V- 109 -00; V- 110 -00; V- 111 -00; V- 112-00; V- 113 -00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02 -7(b): Number and Type of sign; 25.7.02 -7(c): Maximum Sign Area; and 25.7.05: Maximum size of Fast Food Drive Through Service Menu Sign. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for RTM Mid America Arby's. Dave Coots, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Mr. Bill Moorman of Arby's was also present. The petitioner is seeking to install 70 square feet of signage; less than allowable under ordinary circumstances but because it is a special use under a five acre site, it is restricted to 10 square feet of signage. The site of the new Arby's is at Carmel Drive and Range Line Road, previously the Long John Silver's Restaurant. Elevations were presented of the building. An Arby's sign will be above the windows toward the south edge of the building. The lettering is 3 feet high, 8 feet long, 24 square feet. The petitioner also seeks to install inside the atrium window the Arby's logo, the 10 gallon hat that has the "Arby's" wording across the hatband. The lettering will be maroon with black, encased letters; this signage will be duplicated on the south elevation, the Carmel Drive elevation. The petitioner is also requesting that the Board grant a size variance from the ordinance permitted menu board. The ordinance permits 17 square feet; the petitioner is requesting 19.22 square feet, with 7 foot square wings on either side of the menu board that angle toward the center. The menu board is located on the driveway at the north side of the building and faces the north parking area; the immediate neighbor to the north is Party Time Rental, and the board will not be visible from Range Line Road or from Carmel Drive. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. Department Report, Steve Engelking. Given the circumstances of this special use and that all signage over and above the minimum required must come through this process, the Department is recommending approval of two signs per frontage toward Carmel Drive and Range Line Road. However, with regard to the logo "hat," it is a neon sign and the Department is requesting that this sign be backlit similar to the sign on the outside of the building. This has previously been discussed with the petition. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 7 In regard to the menu board, the Department is recommending approval predicated on the fact that the menu sign is on the north exposure, generally not seen or visible to the public from the street except briefly in passing the store. Two square feet is not an unreasonable request, and the Department is recommending favorable consideration. The public hearing was then closed. Comments from the Board: Leo Dierckman asked about the size of the lettering on the building. Bill Moorman with RTM, Inc., Indianapolis responded that the sign is a standard sign. Michael Mohr was complimentary of the petitioner and the element cover provided for customers making their orders. Pat Rice asked what the standard lettering height is. Dave Coots responded that it was based on square footage and not controlled by height or width. Steve Engelking further explained the sign chart in the Sign Ordinance for non freeway; the only provision in height is the maximum height of a ground sign. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of Arby's V- 108 -00, V- 109 -00, V- 110 -00, V- 111, and V -112, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of Arby's V- 113 -00, conditioned upon the band of the hat signage being backlit -no neon, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed. 18h -19h St. Vincent's Carmel Hospital (V- 115 -00, V- 116 -00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 23B.12: Parking Requirements; and 23B16.1: to permit an Accessory Building. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson Frankenberger for St. Vincent Hospital Health Care Center, Inc. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Becky Feigh of BSA Design was also present. The 30 acre campus of the Carmel St. Vincent's Hospital lies south and west of the intersection of Old and New Meridian. In the summer of 2000, the Plan Commission approved the plans for expansion of the hospital, the surgery center, two adjacent professional office buildings, and the attendant site improvements that accompany this expansion, i.e. the addition or replacement of parking in the northeast corner and in the northwest corner of the site. Some of the parking spaces encroached slightly, namely 27 feet, into the 90 foot setback of the US 31 Overlay Zone. The parking spaces that encroach are adjacent and parallel to US 31. The petitioner is seeking a variance from this section to permit approximately 32 s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 8 spaces to encroach into the 90 foot setback as established by the most recent amendment of the US 31 Overlay Zone. The practical difficulty is that the primary parking area that is being partially re- designed was developed under the Old US 31 Ordinance that permitted parking within the right -of -way. In order to be consistent with the old, the new area also encroaches into the 90 foot setback. The petitioner has, however, provided the required perimeter buffer adjacent and parallel to US 31. In regard to the variance for an accessory building, the trash refuse building has been redesigned at the request of the Department so that the exterior building materials match that of the adjacent office buildings. The latest amendment to the Overlay Zone provides that trash refuse areas shall be under roof. If the trash area were under roof, it would mean that the trash area would have to be 13 feet high. As a result, it was requested that the height of the dumpster be limited to 6 and one -half feet and the exterior building materials be consistent with that of the office buildings. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to these petitions; no one appeared. Department Report, Steve Engelking. The Department is recommending that these petitions receive favorable consideration. The public hearing was then closed. Michael Mohr moved for the approval of St. Vincent's Carmel Hospital V- 115 -00 and V- 116 -00, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed. 20h -35h. Pearson Ford (V- 117 -00, V- 118 -00, V- 119 -00, V- 120 -00, V- 121 -00, V- 122-00, V- 123 -00, V- 124 -00, V- 125 -00, C- 126 -00, V- 127 -00, V- 128 -00, V -129- 00 V- 130 -00, V- 131 -00, and V- 132 -00. Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02 -7(b): Number Type of sign; 25.7.02 -7(c): Maximum Sign Area, 25.7.01(m); Suspended or Projecting Signs. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke Wheeler for Pearson Ford. Dave Coots, 255 East Carmel Drive, Carmel appeared before the Board representing the applicant. John Pearson also was in attendance. This case is another "special use" situation and the Department is assigning independent variance application numbers per sign and per variance that is sought for each sign. The petitioner is seeking to update an existing sign package on this facility with a new sign package that is a part of the Ford dealer improvement program to promote Ford products. The petitioner is replacing all existing signs on the building with new signs; some will be different lettering and say different things. For example, "Center" seems to be the operative word in the signage: "New Vehicles Center, Service Center, Collision Center, Pre -Owned Vehicles Center." s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 9 The petitioner is seeking a total of 324.40 square feet of signage. If this were a building in any other business owned classification except a B -3, the owner would be permitted a sign on the 106 Street elevation of Pearson Ford; a double frontage lot is permitted a sign fronting on each street that it fronts. There would be a sign on the east elevation, the 421 elevation, and one on the south elevation. The "Pearson Ford" sign is approximately 150 square feet. The second sign is the "New Vehicle Center" depicted on page 2. It is the petitioner's belief that it is appropriate and necessary for the benefit of incoming customers to identify and describe purpose and use on the segment of the building. The petitioner is also requesting a directional sign that will be in conformance with the Ordinance. The color is the blue "Ford" color as shown on each exhibit, internally lit. There are six signs in total on the 421 elevation; one sign on the 106 Street elevation. In addition, the petitioner is requesting suspending or projecting signs. In summary, all signs being replaced are signs that presently exist, with the exception of the sign on the south elevation that is permitted (except for size) by ordinance, having a dual frontage location. The square footage is approximately the same as presently exists in terms of height. However, the size of the signs have increased by reason of adding the word "Center" to new vehicle, pre- owned, service, and collision. The 324 square footage of signs does not include a calculation of the "Pearson Ford for a Lifetime" banners or hard surface signs that are being requested for installation along 421. The Ordinance permits a total of 210 square feet for this location. If each sign were for a separate business, the ordinance would allow 40 square feet per sign. Department Report, Steve Engelking: The sign package presented is in addition to an existing, non conforming pole sign on the property. Pole signs are not something that this community generally allows and it is the recommendation of the Department that if anything is to be approved at this location, the petitioner should agree to remove the non- conforming pole sign. The Department is recommending favorable consideration only if the pole sign is going to be removed. The Department is recommending unfavorable consideration on the suspending and projecting signs. Comments and Questions from the Board Members: Earlene Plavchak asked if the pole sign were one of the signs shown in the information packet or was the pole sign in addition. Steve Engelking responded that most businesses are asked to have a ground sign of certain height and size. On this particular property, there is a pole sign that dates some time back; it has been allowed to remain because there have been no changes. Leo Dierckman asked the petitioner's position on the pole sign. Dave Coots responded that the pole sign was not a part of the application process presented. The State of Indiana is doing work on 421 at this intersection and one of the reasons for re- locating the s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 10 directional sign is that the State is moving the entry way north of the existing entry way and it will align with the entry on the opposite side of the street to the Marsh center on the northeast corner of the intersection. At that time, it is believed that the State will either remove or re- locate the pole sign. The sign is not owned by Pearson Ford -it is Ford Motor Company that owns and maintains the pole sign. The petitioner is not in a position to commit to remove the pole sign or replace it with a ground monument sign. John Pearson, president of Pearson Ford, addressed the Board and stated that the pole sign is owned and maintained by Ford Motor Company Pearson Ford has no interest in the sign. The State of Indiana DOT has purchased a sliver of property from Pearson Ford due to the 421 expansion and the pole sign is located within the sliver of property belonging to the State. Mr. Pearson stated that he notified Ford Motor Company and they negotiated with the Indiana DOT -an agreement was reached of how much money it would take to re- locate the sign. Mr. Pearson said he was quite aware of the City of Carmel's position on pole signs and he had informed Ford Motor Company. Ford will be moving the pole sign and will address the Department at that time. Leo Dierckman asked if Pearson Ford had granted an easement to Ford Motor Company at the time Pearson owned the ground. Dave Coots explained that the sign is located on real estate owned by Pearson Ford and its existence is a portion of the dealer /service agreement that an individual signs with Ford Motor Company that they be permitted to place a sign on the dealer's property identifying Ford products. It was Mr. Coots' belief that in order for the sign to be moved, even though the State of Indiana has negotiated with Ford to do that, it is still within the jurisdiction of this entity and before any changes can happen to the sign, it either must be brought into compliance with the Ordinance or it will not be moved. Obviously, if the State is going to build a road, they cannot build it around an existing pole sign, so they will have to come before the body with a petition to re- locate and update, or to replace the pole sign with a monument sign. Leo Dierckman recommended that this item be TABLED until there is a better understanding of the status of the pole sign. Although the petitioner does not physically own the sign, the benefit of the sign runs to the petitioner. Mr. Pearson reiterated that he does not own the sign. However, Mr. Pearson agreed to talk to Ford and let them know that a monument sign is preferable in place of the existing pole sign. Since Mr. Pearson does not have ownership of the ground, he could not commit to removing the pole sign; however, Mr. Pearson committed to talk with Ford Motor Co. and encourage them to remove the pole sign in favor of a monument sign. Mr. Mohr asked if Mr. Pearson had an agreement or contract with Ford that gives Ford the legal right to have the pole sign. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 11 Mr. Pearson responded that part of the franchise agreement is that Pearson Ford will have signs representing the Ford brand. This particular pole sign has been in existence for approximately 30 years. Mr. Mohr concurred with Leo Dierckman regarding Mr. Pearson's obligation with Ford Motor Co. regarding the sign and was also in favor of Tabling this project. Leo Dierckman suggested a written commitment be provided from Ford suggesting that they will provide Mr. Pearson with the right to commit on their behalf. Clarification: Is the petitioner suggesting that the State will permit Ford to install another monument sign on the State's property or is Ford going to purchase a sign and erect the sign on Pearson's new property line? Mr. Pearson responded that Ford is asking their dealers, nationwide, to purchase and be the owner and maintain their sign as part of a cost transfer situation. In the past, Ford has maintained and had ownership of their sign. Going forward, Ford will want all dealers to re -badge their current signs or put up new signs that will be owned and operated /maintained by the dealer. There are currently 5,000 dealers and it will take a three -year period to accomplish the changeover. Mr. Pearson stated that he had been in touch with Ford who stated that there is a monument sign available for communities that prefer the monument sign rather than the pole sign. Once a new sign becomes available, Mr. Pearson stated that he would then have control and would be able to take the pole sign down and replace it with a monument sign. Mr. Coots wanted to be in a position to come back to the Board and report that at the time of change in ownership of the pole sign, the petitioner would eliminate the pole sign and replace it with a ground monument sign. This situation may occur six months from now or sooner -the timetable is questionable. However, the petitioner should be able to re- sign the building and be in a position to move forward. Mr. Dierckman opined that all the signage ultimately runs to the Ford Co.'s benefit. If Ford were told that Pearson could not get their building signage, Ford would be motivated to move forward on the status of the pole sign. Leo Dierckman moved to Table the Pearson Ford petitions to the October meeting, seconded by Michael Mohr. TABLED to October 23, 2000 by a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed, none abstaining. I. Old Business: 2i. Parkwood Crossing, Building 6 (V- 65 -00) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.02- 10(b): Number Type in order to establish two wall identification signs on the north facade facing I -465. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker Daniels s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 12 Joe Scimia of Baker Daniels, Hamilton County, Indiana appeared before the Board representing Baker Daniels. Subsequent to the approval of the sign, there was a question regarding publication of notice served to the community. Mr. Scimia explained that the petition involves a 7 acre parcel on which Parkwood Building 6 is located at the northwest corner of interstate 465 and College Avenue. The Board of Zoning Appeals' Rules of Procedure provide that notice must be given to any adjacent property owner to the affected area -the question becomes "affected area." The petitioner has no qualm or concern regarding who the adjacent property owner is. Mr. Scimia stated that Duke -Weeks had asked Baker Daniels to request signage approval for them. In the course of discussions, Duke -Weeks provided Baker Daniels with a legal description of the 7 acre parcel. According to Baker Daniels' interpretation of the rules, "affected property" meant the variance for the building upon which the sign was to be located and the surrounding parking lot. It actually turned out that Duke -Weeks owns the entire development from Pennsylvania Avenue all the way to the east, College Avenue, and from the interstate to 96 Street. If the entire tax parcel were included for building 6, it would include six other buildings and all adjacent parking lots. However, it was the Department's position that the "affected property" was not just the area upon which the building is located and the parking lot, but also the entire development, even though the other buildings are not impacted by this request at all. Based upon prior approval given to Baker Daniels, a lease was signed and the sign package was ready to be installed. At this time, Duke -Weeks was contacted and it was discovered that Duke -Weeks had informally agreed with the Department of Community Services that notice would be given to persons along 96 Street. Baker Daniels agreed to honor that commitment. Mr. Scimia referred to an area resident who was interested in this particular petition but whose property is not adjacent to the expanded notice area. Even though they did not receive notice the second time, they were not entitled to receive notice even under the expanded notice. Mr. Scimia felt that "affected area" was ambiguous and requested that it be more clear so that a similar problem would not arise in the future. To recap, the petitioner is requesting a variance of the sign ordinance to allow the re- location of a wall identification sign from the College Avenue or 96 Street facade to the I -465 facade; this would be consistent with other approvals within the office park. Approval is also being requested to move any other sign away from the neighborhoods on College and 96 Street to the interstate facade. The Sign Ordinance allows this, but requires the second sign to be a monument sign. Baker Daniels is requesting two wall signs and this necessitates the variance. Mr. Scimia submitted a rendering of the proposed sign. The petitioner is requesting that the Baker Daniels sign be installed on the east end of the building. Mr. Scimia asked that the Board incorporate the findings from the meeting of July 24, 2000, prior s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 13 testimony, and that the Board also ratify and confirm their prior action and acknowledge that notice has been properly given at this time. John Molitor recommended that the public hearing be re- opened on this item and determine if there is additional public input. Michael Mohr moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Earlene Plavchak. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition, the following appeared. Janet Cox, 9540 North Broadway, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board and had the following comments. Twelve years ago when Parkwood was first started, the adjoining neighbors agreed to one sign per building. Last April or May, Duke -Weeks requested another sign on building 5 and the area residents approved. Mr. Granner of Duke -Weeks had committed to notify Ms. Cox of any upcoming events such as requests for additional signage. Ms. Cox did not blame Mr. Scimia, and believed that Mr. Scimia was simply not given the information by Mr. Granner. Ms. Cox stated that Parkwood Building 5 is in the direct line of vision from her home and mailbox. Ms. Cox stated she was not aware of the proposed additional signage until she received a telephone call late this afternoon. It was a part of the minutes of a previous meeting that Duke -Weeks undertook to notify Ms. Cox of any change in signage and Duke -Weeks had not done so. Ms. Cox said she was not opposed to this particular sign, nor is anyone in the homeowners association, as long as the residents are notified of the proposal. Mr. Scimia responded that he was indeed caught in the middle. However, the petitioner is not requesting an additional sign, they are requesting permission to take an existing sign that would otherwise be located on the College Avenue facade or on the 96 Street facade and move it to the I -465 facade. No additional signage is being requested. The proposed sign, as configured, would be allowed to be constructed on the College Avenue side. The petitioner has not maximized the sign and is being consistent with the Duke Weeks sign. Mr. Scimia wanted to assure the neighbors that Baker Daniels is not seeking to add an additional sign. The petitioner is simply re- locating the sign around the corner for interstate visibility; another reason for re- locating the sign is so that the sign would not be visible from College Avenue or 96 Street because of the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Scimia was apologetic to the neighbors for not having given notice; however, they were not aware of the requirement. At this time, Mr. Scimia asked that the Board ratify and confirm their prior action and re- adopt the Findings of Fact that were adopted in July. Ms. Rice addressed Mr. Scimia that the image of the petitioner is important to the community and the apology to the neighbors was also important. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 14 The public hearing was then closed on Docket No. V- 65 -00. Department Report, Steve Engelking: The Counsel for the Board will work out the ambiguity in the notification requirement in the Rules of Procedure regarding the bordering 96 Street area or any other bordering area. The Department is recommending that the Board ratify its former action on this petition. No Findings of Fact is necessary. In response to Leo Dierckman's questions, Mr. Scimia stated that the petitioner is foregoing one of the three signs allowable on this building. Leo Dierckman cautioned the petitioner. Duke -Weeks should understand that once they make a commitment to the neighbors, it should be kept. Michael Mohr moved to ratify the Board's former action for approval of the signage on Parkwood Building 5 for Baker Daniels, V- 65 -00, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 4 in favor, none opposed, none abstaining. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. Pat Rice, Vice President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000Sept 15