Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 03-24-03gIVIV�'�' of CAq`� C i ty of arme Carmel /Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Monday, March 24, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting was held at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of Carmel City Hall on March 24, 2003. Those members in attendance: Michael Mohr, Earlene Plavchak, and Pat Rice, thereby establishing a quorum. Leo Dierckman and Charles Weinkauf were absent. Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Department Director Mike Hollibaugh, Planning Administrators Laurence Lillig and Jon Dobosiewicz. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present. Mr. Mohr reminded petitioners, since there were only three Board members present, it would take a unanimous vote to pass any petition. If a petitioner, prior to the petition being heard, would like to withdraw a petition, they may do that and wait until more Board members are present. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve the minutes from the February 24, 2003 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. Mr. Molitor reported that the Executive Session prior to this meeting was cancelled, due to lack of a quorum. A discussion could be held at the end of this meeting to reschedule the Executive Session. He noted a Special Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 27, 6:00 PM to handle any overflow. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. He noted the following items were tabled: Item 1 j. Carmel Science Technology Park Line Systems (V- 3 -03); Item 18j. Old Town Apartments, Robinson (V- 24 -03); Items 1 -13k. Carmel/Clay Schools (SUA- 194 -02; V- 195 -02 through V- 206 -02); and Item 1L. East 96 Street Office Park (UV- 176 -00c). In addition, the Department would like to request suspension of Rules for Notice on the following petitions: Items 2 -5j. Dixie Highway (V -4- 03 through V -7 -03) that was a 24 -day notice; Item 19 -23j. West Carmel Center Applebee's (V25- 03 through V- 29 -03) also a 24 -day notice; and 24 -38j. Oak Hill Mansion (V- 300 -03 through V -34- 03) that was a 10 -day notice. J. Public Hearing Mrs. Rice asked if the Carmel/Clay High School Freshman Center was tabled? Mr. Lillig stated it was tabled from tonight's agenda and moved to the Special Meeting on Thursday, March 27. Page 1 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 2 of 15 Ij. Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 12, Lot 5 Linc Systems (V -3 -03) Petitioner seeks a Development Standards Variance of Section 20D.04.06 in order to build an addition within sixty (60) feet of the west lot line. The site is located at 1402 Chase Court. The site is zoned M- 3/Manufacturing. Filed by Adam L. DeHart of Keeler -Webb Associates for Line Systems. This item was tabled. Mrs. Rice moved to suspend the Rules for Notice. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3 -0. 2 -5j. Dixie Highway Addition, Lot 8- 9(part) Glenwood, LLC (V -4 -03; V -5 -03; V -6 -03; V -7 -03) Petitioner seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V -4 -03 §23E.07(C)(2) forego parking lot curbing V -5 -03 §23E.08(G)(2) building materials V -6 -03 §23E.08(I) zero -foot (0)' north south bufferyards V -7 -03 §23E.07(A)(1)(a) zero -foot (0) parking planting strip The site is located at 10820 North College Avenue. The site is zoned B -I /Business within the Home Place Overlay Zone. Filed by Leonard Voigt of Glenwood, LLC. Present for Petitioner: Leonard Voigt. The house does not meet the requirements of the Home Place Overlay Zone. The house is 80+ years old. The gravel driveway has hardened over time and has a natural runoff. Curbing may cause an unnatural accumulation of water. Building materials are aluminum siding in good shape. Brick facing to meet requirements would be a waste of resources. Trees and an empty lot buffer the landscaping to the north and west. Trees and large shrubs buffer the street on the east side. The property to the south is unsightly from the handyman neighbor, with stuff stored in the yard. Any landscaping would be lost on that particular neighbor. If that property to the south were developed in accordance with the Overlay Zone, he would be happy to put in the landscaping. He does have a plan for the landscaping for the front of the property. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. The Plan Commission approved Docket 188 -02 DP /ADLS for this site. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of these variances consistent with the Commission's approval of Docket 188 -02 DP /ADLS and subject to satisfactory resolution of any outstanding TAC issues. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V -4 -03, Dixie Highway Addition, Lot 8- 9(part) Glenwood, LLC. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. Page 2 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 3 of 15 Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V -5 -03, Dixie Highway Addition, Lot 8- 9(part) Glenwood, LLC. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V -6 -03, Dixie Highway Addition, Lot 8- 9(part) Glenwood, LLC. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V -7 -03, Dixie Highway Addition, Lot 8- 9(part) Glenwood, LLC. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. 6j. West Carmel Center, Block B, Lot 4 Goddard School (UV -8 -03) The petitioner seeks approval of a Use Variance of Section 16.01 in order to establish a day care /preschool. The site is located at 10445 Commerce Drive. The site is zoned B -5 /Business, subject to the US 421/Michigan Road Overlay Zone by Commitment. Filed by Aaron Hurt of Civil Designs, LLP, for Aspengold, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: James Peck, Civil Designs, 2415 Directors Row, Suite E, Indianapolis, IN 46241 and Aaron Hurt, also from Civil Designs. They have appeared before the Plan Commission and Special Studies Committee and have come out with some very good findings. A site plan was presented. The building has been slid to the south a little bit and parking added, totaling 37 parking spaces (5 more than ordinance requires). One playground area stayed in the same location and the other one moved back a little bit. They have been working closely with Unique and the Ashbrooke Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association is in favor of the project and feels it is appropriate for their neighborhood. Remonstrance: Public in Favor: None Public in Opposition: Paul Reis, 5013 Buckeye Court, Carmel, IN, an attorney representing Unique The Specialty Group. They are the owner of the parcel of land just to the north of the Goddard School. Under B -5 zoning, it does not allow a day care center as a Permitted Use. The whole West Carmel/Clay Center does not allow for a day care center. So the use is an exception. His client was in touch with the Goddard school and had several concerns about this adjacent use in a business area, such as liability of children and transportation issues. All of this was worked out prior to the initial presentation to the Plan Commission. The location of the playground is the concern. The changes were a result of the Special Study Committee meeting which was not a Public Hearing. Therefore, they were not aware of the change of the playground being moved closer to the office building. Jenny Flora, 8770 Guion Road, Suite R, Indianapolis, IN. She was unaware of the changes until today. Unique is an executive search business with income levels from $150,000 to $750,000. They deal on a national and international basis with many out -of- town clients using their facility for interviews. They also make presentations and are very involved in the bio- technical and bio- medical areas. The Indiana Health Forum is the lead organization in attempting to draw bio technical and bio- medical businesses to the greater Indianapolis area. They track venture capital Page 3 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 4 of 15 and are forerunners in attempting to draw this kind of business to the area. It is a very sophisticated arena in which to deal. When they originally looked at this property, they did not wish to war with Goddard. They wanted everybody to be successful in business. Unique moved their initial building to the back of the property to get as far away from the playground as they could. When Unique and their clients are making presentations, they need to get the sound away as much as possible from their clients. This was a significant investment to buy this property, to build this building and subsequently the second building, which will be a conference center. Now the playground has moved closer and she is concerned about the noise. Mr. Reis stated that the Plan Commission has already approved the Development Plan. However, this Board has not approved this Use Variance. They are seeking that the Use Variance not be approved until a satisfactory site design can be coordinated with his client and the Department of Community Services. Ultimately, it would have to go back to the Plan Commission for a Development Plan Amendment in order to be mindful of the adjacent property owner. Rebuttal: Mr. Peck stated that the plan exceeded the required number of parking spaces. The thirty -seven spaces could be reduced to thirty -two and slide the playground equipment back to the previous location that was presented in the Public Hearing at the Plan Commission. The fence could be pulled back. All fences could be six feet and evergreens planted to be sensitive to their neighbor. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. This has been approved by the Plan Commission at the March 18, 2003 meeting, Dockets 01 -03 DP /ADLS and 04 -03 CA. The Department Report currently reads that the Department is recommending favorable consideration consistent with the Plan Commission's approval of Dockets 01 -03 DP /ADLS and 04 -03 CA and with the condition that all Technical Advisory Committee comments shall be satisfactorily addressed. He suggested that a condition be added that the question of this playground and the adjoining uses also be a condition of the approval. If it is agreeable, to have it worked out between the adjoining property owners and the Department. Mrs. Plavchak asked if it would be agreeable to the adjacent property owner? Mr. Reis responded that he thought it was agreeable with the assumption that the playground location could be moved. Mrs. Rice moved to approve UV -8 -03, West Carmel Center, Block B, Lot 4 Goddard School, with attached agreement and commitment. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3 -0. 7j. Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 1 The Overlook (V- 10 -03) The petitioner seeks approval of a Development Standards Variance of Section 14.06 in order to allow a parking lot to encroach ten (10) feet into a the greenbelt on the south side of the lot. The site is located at 5790 East 131 Street. The site is zoned B -3 /Business. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for GB Hazel Dell Property, LLC. Page 4 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 5 of 15 Present for the Petitioner: Charlie Frankenberger, 5212 Carrington Circle, Carmel, IN. This is 1.67 acres at the northwest corner of Hazel Dell Parkway and 131 Street, Lot 1 in Hazel Dell Commercial Park. It is zoned B -3. A site plan was shown. The Plan Commission approved the ADLS and DP. The site is heavily landscaped with stamped concrete crosswalks to match the corners at the intersection. It incorporates continuous screening along the southern, eastern, and northern boundaries through intermittent landscape massing and hedgerows. The site plan illustrates a Development Standards Variance along the south to permit a parking lot to encroach ten feet into the thirty -foot greenbelt buffer on the south side of the lot. The variance requested is identical to the expired variance previously granted to Osco for this site. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the Docket consistent with the Plan Commission's approval of Docket 10 -03 DP /ADLS. Discussion followed regarding the previous variance by Osco, picture of the building, and signage for the site. A rendering was shown. It has a limestone base, followed by red brick. Signage is backlit opaque letters in silhouette. Mr. Lillig stated that the B -3 district no longer needs Special Use approval. The Ordinance has been amended to require DP /ADLS. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V- 10 -03, Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 1 The Overlook. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. 8 -13j. Foster Addition, Lot 3 Windows Siding of Indianapolis (V -14 -03 through V -19- 03) Petitioner seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V -14 -03 §14.04.03(2) four -foot (4) south side yard V -15 -03 14.04.04(2) fourteen -foot (14) aggregate side yard V -16 -03 14.04.06(2) 52'6" lot width V -17 -03 14.06 zero -foot (0) east bufferyard V -18 -03 §25.07.02 -08(e) <5' sign setback V -19 -03 §26.04.05(c) four -foot (4) south side bufferyard The site is located at 431 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -1 /Business. Filed by David R. Barnes of Weihe Engineering for Windows Siding of Indianapolis. Present for the Petitioner: Dave Cremeans, 9830 Greentree Drive, Carmel, IN. He purchased the building and was trying to upgrade it and build an addition to help facilitate parking and warehouse storage. A map of the location was shown and the proposed addition. He had worked with the Department and had intended to build a freestanding building behind the current structure. Because of parking concerns, appearance and other concerns, he decided to build an addition onto the back of the current building. Parking will be behind the building and there is an area for the dumpster. It was a concrete block building built in 1945. They have put siding on the Page 5 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 6 of 15 front and sides and will use the same material on the new addition. Variances are needed to match new addition with old building, which has a four -foot side setback and does not meet the 14 -foot side aggregate. The zero -foot bufferyard is in the back so they can have as much parking area as possible. The less than five feet sign setback is to match others along Range Line Road. Remonstrance: Public in Favor: Mr. Cremeans shared copies of a letter. Public in Opposition: Judy Erner, 430 First Avenue SE, Carmel, IN, directly behind Mr. Cremeans' property. She has taken pictures of what has happened behind her home. Rocks have been dumped and her property has been torn up. She has moved her fence in on her property and they have come less than a foot from her fence. The trash removal trucks have been stuck behind her home. One was stuck at 3:30 AM, and the other one after 4:00 AM. She was told when she purchased her home in 1994 that it was not an access alley, but was for the utility companies to have access to their lines. Now there is mud and trash from the dump trucks. They will be using the alley behind her home to get access to their lot. It is not fair to make improvement and then ask for the variance. She has called and they should not come before 7:00 AM for trash, but they do. Improvement is from Range Line Road, but not from her side. She and her neighbors have worked hard and then this shows up. There will be traffic 6 or 7 days a week. She was told it was not a working alley and now it will be the only access to his property. Lillian Tickle, 420 First Avenue SE, Carmel, IN, adjacent to NatureWorks There has been a trailer in that back alley for a month and a red truck for several days. She has moved shrubs and trees to put along that fence line, so she will not have to look at that eyesore. Her son was wakened several mornings by the trash truck. She is concerned about vehicles parked in that alley. It has become an eyesore. Rebuttal: Mr. Cremeans understands and is working with the trash service. They were stuck in the snow. He had checked with the Street Department before purchasing the property and was told it is a public alley. The trailer is not his and belongs to a company three doors down, which has been there many years. Typically there are two people in the office everyday and four outside sales people in and out during the day. There are only one or two customers in per week. The business is out in the customers' homes. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. He stated that questions about the improvements to the alley came up at the TAC meeting. It was noted that the Engineer had not yet made recommendations. There was a recommendation to hold a meeting outside of TAC. He wanted outcome of that meeting. Mr. Cremeans stated that he had not talked to anyone in the Street Department about improving the alley. The gravel they placed was on their own. Mr. Lillig stated it was the Department of Engineering that he would need to meet with and it was incumbent upon Mr. Cremeans to schedule that meeting. Normally dumping gravel and Page 6 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 7 of 15 things in public alleys and rights -of -way is frowned upon by the City without previous approval by the City Engineer and approved plans. In addition, he shared a letter to the Board from Mr. King and photos that were taken of the property by the Code Enforcement Officer. Discussion of the pictures and dumpsters followed. Mr. Lillig reported that the Department is recommending favorable consideration of these petitions with the Plan Commission's approval of Docket 07 -03 ADLS with the condition that all TAC comments shall be satisfactorily addressed. The alley is an open TAC issue. Mrs. Rice asked Ms. Erner if she had addressed the Plan Commission on this issue or was she aware of it at that time? She also asked her about businesses along the alley. Ms. Erner replied that this was the first time that Windows Siding of Indianapolis had given her notice of a meeting. She had received a notice from NatureWorks but was unable to attend that meeting. She stated that the cash register business basically uses Range Line Road and the liquor store on the corner drives out on the side street. The only time that the alley was basically used was for the trash pick up for the liquor store and for the cash register store. The trash trucks had come early and she had called and they stopped. She had moved her fence back because when the parking lot was cleared of snow from the cash register business, they would push the snow up against her original fence causing it to cave in. Three years ago, when she installed her new box fence, she moved it back further in on her property to alleviate that and to make her fence stronger. Mr. Cremeans stated the alley was too small of an area to function with the trailer and it has caused some confusion. Basically the company uses box trucks that will pull into the back of the building via the alley. He stated that everyone uses the alley. The cash register company pulls in through the alley, backs into their parking places, and leaves via the alley, because it is hard to go south on Range Line Road. Mrs. Rice asked him about the semi -truck deliveries that Mr. King stated were made twice a day. Mr. Cremeans stated that they get one delivery truck every Thursday and another delivery from a different vendor two or three times per month. They pull in on Fifth Street and back down the alley. Mr. Lillig stated that utilizing the alley was permissible because it is a public way. The TAC discussion was about what improvements needed to be made to the alley for truck traffic. Another aspect was the loading and unloading from a vehicle that was parked in the alley. It was speculated at TAC that that was not permissible, but he did not know if that was resolved. Discussion continued on use of the alley. Mr. Cremeans stated that he was willing to work with the City Engineer and do whatever improvements are necessary to that alley. He did not feel tonight's project was impacted by the alley. They would do whatever TAC required. They would like to get the project started so that Page 7 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 8 of 15 they can make improvements to their property to allow parking and to improve the alley for all the neighbors up and down the alley. Mr. Lillig did not know if all the improvements to the alley would fall upon this petitioner, but the improvements do need to be made in order for it to be used. Mrs. Plavchak ask if this is a public alley, why isn't the City responsible for updating it through the Street Department, since it has been there a long time? Mr. Lillig stated than when development comes in, certain improvements are born by that developer, such as infrastructure, improvements and street widening. This falls along those lines. It doesn't seem it would be fair to ask Mr. Cremeans' business to improve the alley all the way out to the street. But he does need to talk to the City Engineer on what does need to happen and who would be responsible. Discussion followed regarding the size of the trucks making deliveries to the site. Mr. Cremeans stated that his crews use a 20 -foot box van. Large deliveries are made directly to the job site rather than to his site. Many deliveries for various companies are along Range Line Road. However, the Carmel Police Department does not like that because of the safety issue. He thought it was better to make deliveries in from the rear. Mr. Mohr led a discussion among the Board members regarding the direction they were taking with the petition. Did they want to move forward or were they looking for something for the neighbors who back up to the alley? Mrs. Rice was questioning whether it was even legal to use the alley for a semi and have it blocked and also the upgrading of the alley. She would like to see a commitment on the snow removal. The businesses may all have to go together. Mr. Cremeans stated if they are allowed to go ahead and complete this construction they will be cleaning up most of the mess that has been discussed tonight. Mr. Molitor added that it is the City's responsibility to maintain a public right -of -way, but the City's policy may be to only maintain it as gravel. The City could use something like the Barrett Law to assess landowners benefited by the project to pay their fair share of the cost. It would be up to the City Council to make the determination if parking or loading is allowed in that alley, the same as they do for other public rights -of -way. Mr. Cremeans may have to petition the City Council for a Loading Zone for that alley. Mr. Cremeans stated they would park on 5 Street and forklift items to his facility. Mrs. Plavchak asked if it would be better to put a condition on the variance or table it until the petitioner has met with the City Engineer? Mr. Molitor stated the Board could request the petitioner to make a written commitment to work with the City to make the necessary improvements. Page 8 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 9 of 15 Mr. Mohr asked if the neighbors could be involved because they could have some financial impact? Mr. Molitor stated that the Board could ask the Petitioner to make a commitment that if something was going before the Board of Public Works for approval or the City Council for a loading zone, they could notify the neighbors by letter. Judy Erner, 430 First Avenue SE, Carmel, IN. The deliveries for the liquor store are made on the side street. Since 1994 she has not seen a semi truck in the cash register lot and the employees do not use the alley. That alley has not been plowed open beyond the cash register store. There is no way a semi could back into the property it's not big enough. Right now the tracks are on her property. Her fence was moved in and now they are coming more and more onto her property. Mrs. Rice felt the right -of -way needed to be found for all the residents in that area. Discussion followed on how to word the conditions for the petition. Mrs. Rice moved to approve V- 14 -03, Foster Addition, Lot 3 Windows Siding of Indianapolis, with the condition that it will be effective with resolution of the alley issue in accordance with legal counsel and specifically that there would be a commitment that the Petitioner's business will not use the alley except in conformance with all City ordinances. Five minutes recess was taken to search City Code to make determination if parking or unloading is allowed in that alley. Mr. Molitor found a City ordinance that states that when any street, alley or sidewalk is obstructed so as to impede or interfere with the use thereof, the Chief of Police or his designee may remove such obstruction to some suitable place. It doesn't appear that someone could load and unload a semi in an alley, as that would obstruct the use of the alley. A loading zone could be designated, but none is listed for this alley at this time. The Petitioner could go to City Council to allow a loading zone in the alley. Otherwise, it will be subject to this general ordinance to not obstruct an alley. It is the City's responsibility to maintain the alley as a right of -way, but not necessarily to pave it. If it needs to be paved, that will probably need to be undertaken by the Petitioner or all the businesses that would benefit from that. Mr. Cremeans stated if they can't get stuff in, they cannot sell it. They are really not obstructing the alley. The deliveries take only 5 to 15 minutes. A big delivery goes to the job site, not to this location. He will do whatever is required. He still needs to get this addition built to function. He could rent warehouse space somewhere to unload semis and box truck items to this location. Mrs. Rice ADDED to the motion that the Petitioner makes the commitment to use the alley only in accordance with all City ordinances. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak. Mrs. Rice moved to suspend rules to vote on the ordinances as a group. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3 -0. Page 9 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 10 of 15 Mrs. Rice amended her motion to approve V- 14 -03, through V- 19 -03, Foster Addition, Lot 3 Windows Siding of Indianapolis, with the commitments previously stated. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak. The neighbors would be notified regarding the improvements to the alley. The Variances were APPROVED 3 -0. 14 -17j. East 96th Street Auto Park, Lot 1, 3 Tom Wood Volkswagen (V -20 -03 through V- 23-03) Petitioner seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V -20 -03 §25.07.01 -02 41.34- square -foot projecting sign V -21 -03 §25.07.02 -08(a) "Tom Wood" projecting sign V -22 -03 §25.07.02 -08(b) two (2) identification signs V -23 -03 §25.07.02 -08(b) two (2) identification signs oriented east The site is located at 4610 -b East 96 Street. The site is zoned 13-3 /13usiness. Filed by Thomas H. Engle of Barnes Thornburg for Wood Hyundai RE, LLC. Present for the Petitioner: Tom Engle, 11 S. Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN. A site plan was shown. The dealership is presently under construction. This dealership received Special Use approval in late 2001, but at that time the signage package was not resolved. Since then the Zoning Ordinance has been amended such that an automobile dealership is no longer a Special Use, but is a Permitted Use in B -3, subject to ADLS and Development Plan approval. This signage package was approved in February at Plan Commission for ADLS. The signage is part of a package put together by Volkswagen of America. The VW logo and the dealer name sign require the variances. The building faces to the east, not 96 Street. Pictures were shown. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. On February 18, 2003, the Plan Commission approved Docket 163 -02 ADLS for this site and the Department is recommending favorable consideration of these petitions consistent with the Plan Commission's approval. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V- 20 -03, V- 21 -03, V -22 -03 V- 23 -03, East 96th Street Auto Park, Lot 1, 3 Tom Wood Volkswagen. The motions were seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. Page 10 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 11 of 15 18j. Old Town Apartments, Robinson (V- 24 -03) Petitioner seeks a Development Standards Variance of Section 16.04.08 (B) in order to establish three multi family units each with less than eight hundred square feet of floor area. The site is located at 740 North Range Line Road. The site is zoned B -5 /Business within the Old Town Overlay Zone. Filed by William E. Wendling, Jr., of Campbell Kyle Proffitt for PAR Enterprises. This item was tabled. 19 -23j. West Carmel Center, Block D, Lot 3 Applebee's (V -25 -03 through V- 29 -03) Petitioner seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V -25 -03 §23C.09(D) 91'4" continuous facade V -26 -03 §23C.09(D) two -foot (2) offset V -27 -03 §25.07.02 -08(b) three (3) identification signs V -28 -03 §25.07.02 -08(b) one (1) identification sign oriented south V -29 -03 §25.07.02 -08(c) 84.19- square -foot west wall sign The site is located at 10325 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B -3 /Business within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Troy L. Terew of Lewis Engineering for Apple Indiana 1, LLC. Mrs. Rice moved to suspend the Rules for Public Notice. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 3 -0. Present for the Petitioner: Vaughn Martin, Nashville, IN. He presented a site layout with elevations and signs. The sign has been adjusted to 29 square feet. The last sign will be reduced to thirty square feet by removing "Neighborhood Grill Bar Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. On February 18, 2003, the Plan Commission approved Docket 185 -02a DP Amend for this site. On March 4, 2003, the Special Study Committee approved Docket 185 -02b ADLS for this site. The Department is recommending favorable consideration for Dockets V -25 -03 through V -28 -03 as submitted and consistent with the aforementioned Plan Commission approvals. The Department recommends negative consideration of Docket V -29 -03 as submitted for an 84.19 square foot wall sign. Many of the businesses along this corridor had to come in for sign variances when they were developed. At the time, B -3 was Special Use and they were limited to the size that would have been permitted under the sign charts in the Sign Ordinance. The Department is recommending that these signs be held to the same standards as those businesses. Discussion followed regarding the dimensions of the changed signs Mr. Lillig stated it looked like it was consistent with what would be allowed under the ordinance. He recommended favorable consideration of V -29 -03 as amended. Page 11 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 12 of 15 Mrs. Rice moved to approve V- 25 -03, V- 26 -03, V- 27 -03, V -28 -03 and V -29 -03 as amended, West Carmel Center, Block D, Lot 3 Applebee's. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and all variances were APPROVED 3 -0. 24 -28j. Oak Hill Mansion (V -30 -03 through V- 34 -03) Petitioner seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V -30 -03 §25.07.02 -06(b) two (2) changeable copy signs V -31 -03 §25.07.02 -06(c) 37.5- square -foot sign area (replacement) V -32 -03 §25.07.02 -06(d) eight -foot (8') sign height (replacement) V -33 -03 §25.07.02 -06(g) eighteen- square -foot changeable copy sign (new) V -34 -03 §25.07.02 -06(g) 12.5- square -foot changeable copy sign (replacement) The site is located at 5801 East 116 Street. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence Low Density. Filed by Robert D. Zehr of Events to Remember. Present for the Petitioner: Bob Zehr, 621 Timber Mill Lane, Indianapolis, IN. He purchased the business at this location and is changing the name to The Mansion at Oak Hill. He is applying for a change in the existing sign and to add a second sign on Hazel Dell Parkway. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. No one appeared. Mr. Lillig gave the Department Report. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of these petitions. Discussion followed regarding the changeable sign on Hazel Dell. The changeable signs are panel change, not letter change. They are non internally lit, but are ground lit signs. Mr. Lillig stated that Oak Hill Mansion is the only business of its type on Hazel Dell Parkway. The other businesses on Hazel Dell at Hazel Dell Corner are B -3. This is a Special Use in the S -1 District. These variances are under the recreational section of the Sign Ordinance. Discussion continued of changeable sign on Hazel Dell. Mr. Zehr stated the changeable sign would give the special event scheduled. Mr. Lillig stated advertisement is not allowable under the ordinance. The type of message the Board is concerned about is not permitted under the Sign Ordinance and would be sited by the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Zehr felt the changeable signs were an important way to let the public know the use of the building and to acknowledge special events Page 12 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 13 of 15 Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V- 30 -03, V- 31 -03, V- 32 -03, V- 33 -03, V- 34 -03, Oak Hill Mansion. Discussion followed regarding the changeable signs and Dockets. Mr. Lillig explained that Docket V -30 -03 covers the sign on Hazel Dell and the one on 116 Street, each would have a section of changeable copy. Docket V -31 -03 is for 37.5 square feet of sign area on the replacement sign for 116 Street. Mr. Zehr amended his petitions. Docket V -30 -03 was changed to one changeable copy sign for 116 Street and V -33 -03 was withdrawn. Mrs. Plavchak withdrew her previous motion. Mrs. Plavchak moved to approve V -30 -03 as amended, V- 31 -03, V- 32 -03, and V- 34 -03, Oak Hill Mansion. The motions were seconded by Mrs. Rice and all were APPROVED 3 -0. K. Old Business 1 -13k. Carmel/Clay Schools Carmel High School (SUA- 194 -02; V- 195 -02 through V -206- 02) Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to construct a 173,000- square -foot Freshman Center addition to the existing high school. Petitioner also seeks the following Development Standards Variances: V- 195 -02 §25.07.01 -2 12- square -foot traffic directional sign A V- 196 -02 §25.07.01 -2 5- square -foot traffic directional sign B V- 197 -02 §25.07.01 -2 6- square -foot traffic directional sign C V- 198 -02 §25.07.01 -2 19.5- square -foot traffic directional sign D V- 199 -02 §25.07.01 -2 four -foot (4') traffic directional sign D V- 200 -02 §25.07.02- 5(b)(i) eight (8) institutional signs V- 201 -02 §25.07.02- 5(b)(ii) two (2) changeable copy signs V- 202 -02 §25.07.02- 5(c)(i) 29.25- square -foot institutional wall sign V- 203 -02 §25.07.02- 5(c)(i) 24.5- square -foot institutional wall sign V- 204 -02 §25.07.02- 5(c)(ii) 24- square -foot changeable copy sign V- 205 -02 §25.07.02 -5(d) 6'2" institutional ground sign V- 206 -02 §8.04.01 57 -foot building height The site is located at 520 East Main Street. The site is zoned R -2 /Residence. Filed by William E. Payne of Fanning /Howey Associates for the Carmel/Clay School Corporation. This item was tabled. Page 13 Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals March 24, 2003 Page 14 of 15 L. New Business. 1L. East 96 Street Office Park Kirsch Kirsch (UV- 176 -00c) Petitioner seeks approval of revised Tenant Identification signage. The site is located at 2930 East 96 Street. The site is zoned S -2 /Residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Kirsch Kirsch. This item was tabled. M. Adiourn Mrs. Plavchak moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Rice and APPROVED 3 -0. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM. Michael Mohr, President Connie Tingley, Secretary Page 14