Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 07-25-11 c nr e t J i C ityo f C �`�NDIANp� MINUTES Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting July 25, 2011 6:00 PM Council Chambers, Carmel City Hall Present: James Hawkins, President Kent Broach Earlene Plavchak Ephraim Wilfong Connie Tingley, Recording Secretary Staff Members: Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Department of Community Services Rachel Boone, Planning Administrator Angie Conn, Planning Administrator Legal Counsel: John Molitor Previous Minutes: On a motion made by Earlene Plavchak and seconded by Kent Broach: The Minutes for the meeting dated June 27, 2011 were approved as circulated. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Department Report: Rachel Boone Item #1 Docket No. 11050006 UV, 3610 W. 96 St. Office has been tabled. Legal Report: John Molitor Lengthy Hearing Officer meeting regarding Lubavitch of Indiana Worship Center, Docket Nos. 11050019 SU Amend, 11060016 -17 V not concluded o Mr. Broach suggested various conditions Petitioner would need to meet receive final disposition o Mr. Broach recommended petitions be heard at full BZA Board meeting August 22 o Board needs to clarify if additional public notice will be needed o From Hearing Officer meeting attendance, Mr. Molitor felt adequate notice had been given Motion: On a motion made by Kent Broach and seconded by James Hawkins: The Board suspend notice and this item be moved to the full agenda for the full Board for the August 22, at 6:00 pm. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 Action: Mr. Molitor announced for all interested parties, the petitions for Lubavitch would be heard at the August 22, 2011, 6:00 PM Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Public Hearings 1. (UV) 3610 W 96`h St. Office TABLED The applicant seeks the following use variance approval for an office use on a residentially zoned property: Docket No. 11050006 UV ZO Ch. 5.01 Permitted Uses The site is located at 3610 W. 96` Street. It is zoned S -1 /Residence and lies within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by James Wheeler of Coots Henke Wheeler for Citizens Bank of Paris. 2 -7. (V) Circle K/Shell (Range Line Rd.) Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 11040014 V Ch. 25.07.02 -09 d): Ground sign height (9' proposed, 6' allowed) Docket No. 11040015 V Ch. 25.07.02 -09 b): Number of signs (4 proposed, 1 allowed) Docket No. 11040016 V Ch. 25.07.02 -09 b): Number of signs facing west ROW (4 proposed, 1 allowed) Docket No. 11040017 V- Ch. 25.07.02 -08 c): Total square footage (78.99 sq. ft. proposed, 30 sq. ft. allowed) Docket No. 11040018 V- Ch. 3 Definitions; Changeable Copy Digital pricing sign prohibited; must be changed non electronically. Docket No. 11040019 V- Ch. 3 Definition of Identification Sign 100% logo wall sign proposed; 25% logo allowed. The site is located at 545 S. Range Line Rd. It is zoned B- 1/Business within the Carmel Drive Range Line Road Overlay Zone. Filed by Auna Foote of Corporate ID Solutions on behalf of Circle K/Shell. 8 -14. (V) Circle K/Shell (College Ave.) Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 11040020 V Ch. 25.07.02 -09 d): Ground sign height (8' proposed, 6' allowed) Docket No. 11040021 V Ch. 25.07:02 -09 b): Number of signs (5 proposed, 2 allowed) Docket No. 11040022 V Ch. 25.07.02 -09 b): Number of signs facing north ROW (2 proposed, I allowed) Docket No. 11040023 V Ch. 25.07.02 -09 b): Number of signs facing east ROW (3 proposed, 1 allowed) Docket No. 11040024 V Ch. 25.07.02 -08 c): Total square footage (113.62 sq. ft. proposed, 65 sq. ft. allowed) Docket No. 11040025 V Ch. 3 Definitions; Changeable Copy: Digital pricing sign prohibited, must be changed non electronically. Docket No. 11040026 V Ch. 3 Definition of Identification Sign: 2 -100% logo wall signs proposed, 25% logo allowed. The site is located at 10598 College Ave. It is zoned B -1 /Business within the Home Place Business District. Filed by Auna Foote of Corporate ID Solutions on behalf of Circle K/Shell. Page 2 of 9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 Action: Items 2 -14 were heard together Present for the Petitioner: Ben DeHays, Corporate ID Solutions Projects are similar but different #2 -7 Range Line Road Located on major thoroughfare Red fascia on Range Line Road location Circle K emblem will be installed over entry door Incorporate red and white striping as Circle K branding, approved by Staff Circle K is convenience store operation; Shell supplies the fuel o Two well -known companies, each with own identification o Challenge with two major brands sharing same property Stacked configuration for free standing sign Both logos are square Trying to get price numbers off the ground o Five -feet width is constraining between sidewalk and pumps o Need to go taller to show both brands; higher off ground o Added height does not interfere with visibility Canopy will have logo on both sides for visibility from Range Line Road Tight configuration on property Confused why Carmel does not have LED lighting for price signs o LED are safer than humans mispricing gas; can be automated for all hours o No environmental issues; power consumption Proposing LED price sign #8 -14 College Avenue Located next to residential area; not commercial area Free standing sign barely visible diagonal to College and 106` Street Ground sign blocked by bushes; sign is too short; OK for square footage Proposing LED price sign Free- standing sign difficult for northbound College traffic to see Identification very important for gas stations Canopy signs provide more visibility Small square Circle K branding would wrap around two elevations Public Hearing closed Department Report: Rachel Boone Been working with both sites 6 months or more; trying to explain Carmel's regulations o Electronic pricing and signage on canopies not allowed o Even though allowed other places, not acceptable in Carmel o Through correspondence have tried to work with them to meet Carmel's specifications o Received no feedback to make any changes o Many design changes could have prevented need for variances o Carmel believes less is more Page 3 of 9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 Number of signs proposed for each site is far beyond what is allowed To reduce signage clutter, canopy signs are not allowed anywhere o Canopies are considered accessory structures Both existing gas stations; only brand name has changed Brand colors on canopy are considered signs o People will know it is a Shell station with the yellow and red along the canopy o Brand signage will be on gas pumps, wall and ground signage Carmel does not permit LED pricing signs o Prefer letters be changed manually o Consistent look throughout the City o Sign Ordinance does not allow LED signs Support 100% Circle K logo signs for the buildings o Recommend only one on the College Avenue location; north elevation All changes will need ADLS approval from the Plan Commission Special Studies Committee o Addition of red and white stripes for Circle K Convenience Store Opposed to 9 -feet tall sign at the Range Line location o Existing variance permits sign in right -of -way because of tight location o Other design options could meet the Sign Ordinance Current ground sign at College Avenue is not the best it could be o Install new landscaping instead of making the sign taller for better visibility Pricing sign at College Avenue seemed too small compared to other sign identifications o If pricing is most important, it should be higher on the sign for visibility Department Recommendation: The Department recommended negative consideration on all variances, except the 100% logo signs for each location and just one logo sign for the College Avenue location; Docket Nos. 11040019 V and 11040026 V. Point of Clarification: If variances receive negative approval, they cannot re -file sign variances for six months. Discussion: Petitioner could work with the Department for a better integrated plan o Place the two logos side -by -side on Range Line Road ground sign Not change green metal canopy roof to white at College Avenue o Green roof coordinates with Township building o Creates architectural foundation for the comer Petitioner could table items to August or September to work with Department, instead of waiting six months to re -file Proposed College Avenue sign would be six feet seven inches Ben DeHays Was not involved in developing signs for either location Did not know the Department had tried to work with the Petitioner for better signage Rationale to change College Avenue roof to white was to tie it in with all the signs along the brick portion; only green on the property Did not know history of LED price signs Page 4 of 9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 Best option to table variances to work with Department Action: Petitioner requested to table all Dockets to work with Department. Old Business 1. (A) Appeal to building permit #11010015, Carport for Thornhurst, Lot 4. The applicant seeks to appeal the issuance of an improvement location permit: Docket No. 11060001 A Appeal to permit 11010015, Carport for Thornhurst Addition, Lot 4. The site is located at 37 N. Guilford Rd. It is zoned R -2 /Residence. Filed by Becky Feigh, neighbor. Present for Petitioner: Becky Feigh, 18 Thornhurst Drive Met July 7, 4:30 pm in City Hall with the property owner Stan Hunnicutt, Mike Hollibaugh, Jim Blanchard, Rick Feigh and three neighbors o Prior to meeting, property owner requested via email the current issues, comments, desires o List was supplied, including items mentioned at the June 27 BZA meeting o Several options were discussed o No new plans were brought to the meeting o Nothing was decided o Maximum weight capacity of the trailer was discussed Mike Hollibaugh and Jim Blanchard decided variance was needed because trailer weight did exceed maximum weight limit allowed under commercial vehicle section Nothing new to report; requested another meeting, but no response Mike Hollibaugh had not received any new information Still feel building is detriment to neighborhood Favorable to Appeal to deny permit Teresa Kane, 764 W. Main Street Proposed carport does not resemble any houses in the neighborhood Feel this will depreciate property values in neighborhood Feel it is a tight squeeze to make it fit with the 10 -feet setback Not much space for landscaping Appearance of carport is substandard and embarrassing Delayed installation of pool because of view of carport Will set a precedent for neighborhood; no similar carports in Home Place Not extension of existing garage; cheap carport does not blend with neighborhood Even carports at lake properties blend in with housing Carport is for working trailer for a home business o Working trailer is too large for City standards Are chemicals in the trailer and their disposal regulated? o His website alludes to hazardous waste being managed by his company o Is it safe for her children? Looks like free standing carport that will be attached to the house Worry strong winds will blow it over onto neighbors' properties Page 5 of 9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 Mr. Hunnicutt was unwilling to meet for a neighborly discussion on neighbor's patio o Would only meet at City Hall before 4:30 pm o Everyone in the neighborhood works, so very inconvenient Carport does not enhance the neighborhood His business does not contribute to the Carmel community Chemical business in residential neighborhood is scary o Who is responsible for overseeing of such chemicals? His rights seem to be more protected then theirs o He obtained building permit o They have to present their case o Maybe City had limited or incorrect information when he obtained permit o Hate to have a misinformed wrong continue Questions legitimacy of business She is active in the green community and is scared about disposal of chemicals She thought a business could not be run from an outside structure; carport and trailer Jeff Everett, 231 N. Guildford In favor of the Appeal for all the reasons stated tonight and documented by Ms. Feigh Unfavorable to Appeal Stan Hunnicutt, 37 N. Guilford His business cleans up chemical spills o Sent letter to the neighbors o No chemicals are stored in the trailer at his facility o He has another place to store them when he goes to site o He picks up what he needs o Generally he uses water as his chemical No business is done at his house o Just storage of the trailer Four topics discussed at meeting o Appearance of carport Seems neighbors want a complete re -design of the structure to be a third garage Third car garage prohibited by neighborhood covenants The color matches It will look like an extension of house 11 is big to enclose the trailer That side of the house is entirely siding It will not change the view from that side in any extensive manner It does not match the historical neighborhood of Thornhurst His house and the others along Guilford are not included in the historical because all of them have siding o Structural integrity of carport Permit contains stamped engineer construction plans designating structure will withstand up to 70 mph winds (F Zero tornado) He could make concrete posts stronger or bigger, if desired o Property values Understands fear Page 6 of 9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 Clay Township Assessor stated his property value will increase $2,000 to $3,000 o Size of trailer They are defining the trailer as the gross vehicle weight minus the net weight of the vehicle As built by the manufacturer, that trailer can pull more than three quarter ton After he purchased it, it was rebuilt to function more or less as an RV Interior picture shows cabinetry all attached permanently to the structure It was bought as a sturdy trailer to transport his electronic equipment needed when he is on -sight He asked Appeal be denied He ask the ruling include this specific trailer be allowed; he would provide VIN o Any significant reconstruction of the trailer to allow it to carry capacity would exclude it from being able to be parked at his location Rebuttal: Becky Feigh Assessed value does not present true market value o His assessed value would go up because he has another structure on his property They were not asking for a third car garage o They were asking for a door o They were asking for a shingle roof to match the architectural style of the pitch o He did not provide any further information Nothing has been addressed for landscaping For structural integrity o Aware of stamped engineering plans o Structure will be built on and strapped to a retaining wall which he is backfilling o Questioning proper footers for retaining wall to hold elevated structure The size of the trailer exceeds maximum three quarter ton capacity as the Ordinance states Department Report: Mike HolIibaugh Both sides summarized well The meeting did occur and discussion was civil and effective o Initially Thornhurst neighbors addressed issue of the size of the trailer o He tried to steer the discussion to the aesthetics for construction to fit in better o Neighbors were very effective in raising issue of weight of trailer o Department does not completely understand whether it meets Code o Brief conversation with Mr. Hunnicutt after the meeting Code Enforcement Staff has tried to reach out to Mr. Hunnicutt without a lot of success o If they could clarify the capacity of the trailer tonight, he thinks it exceeds what the Ordinance allows If so, it would require a variance Or would not be allowed The carport was being constructed to screen this trailer Potential improvements to help the pre fabricated aluminum structure blend in with the neighborhood o Any real alterations (shingles instead) to engineer plans could have an affect on the engineer approved status of the plans Page 7 of 9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 New plans would need to be submitted Discussion: Real issue at this meeting is to approve or deny the Appeal Board could be reluctant to deny the Appeal if they feel the property is not being used in conformity with the Ordinance There are allegations of Ordinance violations The Board could conduct further investigation to see if the Department is satisfied there are no other Ordinance violations Approving or denying the Appeal may not make the entire controversy go away, if there are other problems regarding the use of the property Requirements were met and building permit was granted o Structure met setback requirements per the Zoning Ordinance o There was discussion and concern regarding general appearance, Ordinance does not give any guidance o Mr. Hunnicutt included proposal to cover the structure with a like siding to blend with his home o Department ask site plan be modified so location met the Zoning Ordinance and setback requirements per the neighborhood covenants and restrictions o He was advised the neighborhood setbacks could be an issue Parcel may be part of a platted neighborhood, but it faces Guilford and does not feel part of the neighborhood Other houses and structures immediately adjacent to the parcel have siding When purchased, trailer exceeded three- quarter, but modifications have eliminated that possibility Department recommended negative consideration o Negative vote would be a No vote to Appeal Docket 11060001, affirming issuance of Building Permit #11010015 o Positive vote would be a Yes vote to Appeal Docket 11060001; revoking Building Permit #11010015 Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Docket No. 11060001 A, Appeal to permit #11010015, Carport for Thornhurst Addition, Lot 4, be approved. TIE VOTE: 2 -2 (Hawkins and Plavchak positive; Broach and Wilfong negative) Action: Docket No. 11060001 A, Appeal to permit #11010005 will need to be heard at next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on August 22, 2011, 6:00 PM if five members are present. Adjournment Motion: On a motion made by Earlene Plavchak and seconded by James Hawkins: The Meeting be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 8 of 9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2011 The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM. 111 Ap proved this 2 day of (4-f 20 1 P 111/114A6 a 2 c 4e Pres James R. Hawkins Secretary Co /e Ti hey 1 Filename:S /BZA/Minutes/Minutes BZA 07- 25- 11.doc Page 9 of 9