Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 08-27-12 C3,0,1k Mks, T < . . ity �sr f Carmel IOR MO ROW N\NOIMIN MINUTES Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals • Regular Meeting Monday, August 27, 2012. 6:00 PM Council Chambers, Carmel City Hall Present: James Hawkins,President Kent Broach Earlene Plavchak Alan Potasnik Ephraim Wilfong Connie Tingley, Recording Secretary Staff members in attendance: Alexia Donahue Wold,Planning Administrator Rachel Boone, Planning Administrator Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Department of Community Services Legal Counsel: John Molitor Previous Minutes: On a motion made by Ephraim Wilfong and seconded by James Hawkins: The Minutes for the meeting dated July 23,2012 were approved as circulated. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Department Report:Alexia Donahue Wold • Item 3, Greyhound Commons — Signage, Docket Nos. 12070014 V and 12070015 V Tabled Legal Report: John Molitor • Previously scheduled Executive Session not necessary o May need to schedule Executive Session prior to November 20`h Hearing before Judge Nation on pending motion for judgment on pleadings in Bowen litigation • Mike Hollibaugh will give brief report on Traditions on the Monon Mike Hollibaugh,Director Department of Community Services: • Findings of Fact completed.by Mr. Molitor and signed by Mr. Hawkins o Update originally scheduled for July meeting • Pulte continuing to work on improvements mandated by Board o Required installation of missing piece of irrigation system completed and as-built drawings submitted • City ready to release those bonds o Pavement improvements shown on aerial have been completed WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV Page 1 of 25 (317)571-2417 • Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o City Engineer's office has been out to inspect parking improvements area • Pavement around inlet area already starting to settle • Pulte in process of fixing that problem • Sealing needs to occur around edge of catch basins o After completion, Engineering Department will sign-off on pavement issues o Landscaping remains outstanding • Because of drought, Department had suggested holding off • Further complicated because neighborhood decided to overhaul irrigation system at height of drought • Landscaping brown in June, July and August • With additional rain and irrigation system work, landscape will be completed and update given at next meeting Department suggested re-ordering Agenda to hear Abbey Taphouse first to accommodate public in attendance. Action: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Alan Potasnik: Agenda would be re-ordered to move Abbey Taphouse to the first item on the agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Mr.Hawkins confirmed Mrs. Plavchak and Mr. Potasnik had listened to-last month's meeting and the Public Hearing was not closed. Old Business: 1. (V) Abbey Taphouse. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 12060013 V ZO Ch. 23D.03.C.1.b.i Building addition in front yard setback Docket No. 12060014 V ZO Ch. 23D.03.C.h.i Parking in the front yard The site is located at 32 1" Avenue NE. The site is zoned B-1/Business within the Old Town Overlay, Character Sub-Area. Filed by Bruce Berry, BAB Associates on behalf of Kevin Paul. Present for the Petitioner: Bruce Berry, BAB Associates and Kevin Paul, owner Bruce Berry • Invited Luci Snyder to speak on their behalf Luci Snyder, City Council • Recognized the Board listens to Petitioners • Two other Councilors spoke at last meeting • Reprise what has gone on o Petitioner is Carmel citizen • Lives in West Clay • Has software business on Meridian Street with $13 million annual payroll • Owns Brockway Pub • Not from an out-of-area restaurant chain • Wants to buy building to house his $100,000 worth of equipment Page 2 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 • Does not want to deal with lease and rent issues • Business does not fit in a strip center • This building with B-1 zoning was chosen o B-1 permits this purpose • Residents from the area have spoken with valid points • She has spoken with Councilors Rider (at large) and Seidensticker(this district) • Petitioner has appeared before Plan Commission and been assigned to Special Studies Committee before appearing at Board of Zoning Appeals • Two BZA members were absent, but listened to public hearing presented at last meeting • Special Studies wants decision from BZA before making their decision • Process is a meat grinder with Petitioner trying to make changes everyone wants o For use the zoning is right; purpose is mentioned o Many of the homes along 1st Avenue are zoned B-1/Business • Residents do not understand why homes are B-1 • She feels the City has dropped the ball when creating an Arts & Design District • Years ago people had businesses in their homes and lived above their stores • Then it began to be more residential, separate from the business • Along Main and Rangeline were viable businesses • Shops died as people began to shop in malls I • Then the City decided to bring it back; people liked the idea • There is a difference between ideas and realities • Parking issues with galleries and restaurants • City has spent millions on underground parking garages and parking lots because it is designed as a park and walk district • Not every business is supposed to have as much parking as they would in another area o Eleven parking spaces would be legal for this site o It's got the zoning and parking o Site plan shows curb cut for apparent alley • Deliveries and trash removal accomplished by pulling into neck of alley • Alley goes all the way to 2nd Street • The land belongs to the City, but the residents have encroached with yards and grass because they felt it was a residential area • They do not want to use the alley, but it is there o Is it residential or commercial?What should the City have done? • It is her contention the City did not anticipate what was going to happen and to be so successful • Some project, such as this one, showed it to them Page 3 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Across the street from Woody's Restaurant is a parcel of land that was the City Court, housing the City Symphony and Actor's Theater, which will be torn down for a parking lot • There will probably be enough parking to not park on the street for this project and Woody's Restaurant • She felt the City got very successful and did not plan ahead • City Council is sponsoring the rezoning of these homes from B-1 • Trying to create transition areas for something like this to occur • This project has been ping-ponged back and forth • Build a fence, raise the fence height, lower the fence height • Complaints on how they would pick up trash in alley that is not an alley anymore • Straighten the street, don't straighten the street • BZA is asked for two variances • Board has not'declined them before on a B zoning • Then it goes back to Plan Commission • She distributed two emails which had been distributed to BZA Board members; which she said is not permitted Discussion with Legal Counsel, Mr. Molitor, regarding effect of emails • Emails were sent to two members of BZA who are also members of Plan Commission, with respect to items that remain pending before the!Plan Commission o It did not appear they were communications regarding the BZA agenda o State law precludes members of the public or anyone but Staff from communicating with members of the BZA regarding a pending item before the public hearing • It does not require those members to automatically recuse themselves if they happen to get a stray communication from a member of the public • The criteria for recusal would be whether those members are able to remain objective and to render an unbiased'and neutral decision • If either member is unable to do that, they should recuse themselves • Fact that they may have seen a stray communication regarding an item that is related to something that is pending before the BZA does not disqualify them o The restriction applies to members of the public • "A member of the Board of Zoning Appeals is disqualified and may not participate in the hearing or decision of that Board concerning a zoning matter if the member is biased or • prejudiced or otherwise unable to be impartial or has a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the hearing or the decision." • That could apply to any petition that could come before the Board Action: Two members reviewed communications and stated they did not impact their decisions Mr. Hawkins stated the Board did not want.;to go through the whole presentation again. They wanted to see any revisions to the proposal. Bruce Berry: • Revised site plan shown • Agreeing with residents, they will do everything in their power to not change/square off the corner Page 4 of 25 W .. Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals ,,August 27,2012. o Will cost them 3 parking spaces o Will need to reconfigure sloped-ceiling, second floor area so that it is smaller to adhere to number of parking spaces o : Ordinance states one parking space per 100 square feet of floor space o Total floor space will be 1600 square feet o Old Town Overlay allows them to reduce parking requirement by 50 percent ▪ Would have eight spaces o Eliminated three-seasons structure for outdoor seating (canvas and/or permanent structure) o Residents felt structure would be used to increase number of people on site o Outdoor patio/seating with landscaping, mulch and fencing o Scaled back from original size o Fencing will contain patio-from herb/spice garden o Added sidewalk along front and rear edges of parking spaces o Will keep original City sidewalk intact to maintain street edge o Required 5.abike parking spaces along interior sidewalk o -Also opened area along 1st Avenue NE for 11 bike parking spaces o Trying to be pedestrian/bicycle friendly ®. .:Three mechanical units, beer storage,cooler and trash dumpster will be on north side of building o Enclosed service•yard with fencing o Proposed six feet allowed by Ordinance o Open to seeking variance approval for eight-foot fence requested by residents o -Trash dumpster accessible at alley neck ▪ Seeking side-acces truck;have not had response o Deliveries will be on west side of building at alley neck m Smaller, UPS-sized trucks that can negotiate the alley ' o Renderings shown o Patio consists of chairs around a fire pit o Like to maintain existing trees o Fence designed to not interfere with trees o Lowered capacity and height of grain bin m Some felt it was too tall and objectionable o Glass overhead doors to•'open inside to outside o Second sign is pulled back from corner out of right-of-way o Tried to accommodate everyone's desires o Site plan of existing conditions o :Proposed addition would replace open-air carport o Structure replacing structure o New pavement and parking in location of previous parking o Internal parking ate up.the site • Public limited to address revisions only Remonstrance: Kevin.Lavelle, 621 1st Avenue NE • Changes only reduce retail space o Remains a wholesale production facility; not permitted in B-1 zoning Page5of25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Inappropriate this close to residential area Peggy Baker, 121 1st Street NE • • Changed her mind this week after receiving letter from City proposing to change this B-1 parcel to B-5' o `B-1...lighter businesses may locate, protected from encroachment of other uses, with minimal requirements." o `B-5...limited Retail & Service Uses" o B-1 along 1st Avenue is proposed to be R-3/residential • Confusing that 22 lots will be rezoned to Residential 3 • Allowing this parcel to change from B-1 to B-5 • Redundant to keep coming back • Not a conducive environment for B-1 or B-5 • Residents want a lighter use • Great idea for Carmel, but not in this area • She does not want to look out her front door at a beer garden; already one in her backyard (Woody's) • Confusing to change 22 parcels to residential, but put this business on the corner Vicki McCarty, 120 1St Avenue NE • Lived next to this proposed business 25 years • Alley has gigantic electric pole o Felt it hard for even a small dump truck with overhead wires o Will hit her trees when emptying dumpster • Enjoy their trees and shade • Love their quiet backyard with koi pond and fountain o What will it be like with 100 people next door? o Outdoor seating will end up with outdoor speakers • Doesn't feel fence will help with noise • Parking will be an issue • Neighbor needs new storm sewers and sidewalks o How long will sidewalk last if cars are pulling in and out? • Glad they are not planning to change/square corner o Cars and school buses have difficult times o Carmel High School buses use this area • Do not want beer pub in neighborhood • Uses backyard for family get-togethers o Feel they will no longer be able to enjoy backyard • Alley has been closed for years with big pole in the middle o Nothing has been done to the alley in 25 years o Big trucks will not be able to get through to collect trash Darlena Wilkerson, 121 1St Avenue NE • Family atmosphere drew her to area • Put time and money into her home • Area enjoyed by people who attend parades and festivals Page 6 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Visitors admire neighborhood and look for homes for sale o Use does not fit and will take away from neighborhood o Old Town Carmel is about community and families • Worried about noise from outdoor area o Noise Ordinance is 10 p.m., will they close then? • During Arts & Design festivals, streets are packed with cars o Makes it difficult to get down street Ron Carter, City Council • Differences between this use and previous use (preschool) o Preschool had 4 parking spaces; more were not needed o Toddlers was not outside drinking beer at midnight o Daycare did not get daily deliveries by truck o Patrons will be listening to music until late at night ® Complaints about,noise late at night at Mr. Paul's other facility o Toddlers had daytime music/recorders; not nighttime activity o Detrimental for neighborhood as a whole • Look for buffers to lessen impact from incompatible uses to established properties o Unfortunately there is not a buffer for properties that will be negatively impacted • Other areas where this project should go that would not adversely affect surrounding properties • Attempting to get this quadrant of Old Town turned back into residential from commercial o Over 40 lots being built on in Old Town, selling for over $120,000 o Does not want to see momentum stopped by indiscriminately putting incompatible uses next to existing uses • Variances can point to the fact they are doing better than what was there prior to this, but it is not comparing apples to apples • This is not proper use for this particular piece of land Rosalie Lavelle, 621 1" Avenue NE • They are some of the people who started building boom in Old Town o Six years ago they built a home after looking in Old Town for two years o Before building, they checked rules and regulations with Department of Community Services ® They followed the rules and did not ask for variances o They were told there were properties on their street zoned B-1 ® But Department of Community Services had plans to revert them back to residential ® Felt safe investing their money into this neighborhood ® Felt like pioneers • Have been happy with ability to walk downtown, attend festivals • When cars are parked on both sides of street, a fire truck cannot get through • This has been traumatic for some of the neighbors o Feel it will ruin their chances of ever being able to sell their home Rebuttal: Bruce Berry • Will not be a wholesale production facility o Production will be extremely small Page 7 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Not insensitive to neighbor's opinions o It is a small brew pub that produces on-site o Not looking to distribute outside the Arts District • The Rezone letter from the City was an interesting development o Change from B-1 to B-5 o Started process 6 months ago o Rezone probably partially a result of what they are trying to do o Property is currently B-1 o Should be considered B-1 at this point • Not proposing to eliminate trees on north property line o Recognize trees are shared commodity o Plan to maintain their side o Lots of statements on what people think they are going to do; they are trying to be clear with the variances and to be a good neighbor • Will adhere to Zoning Ordinance • 10 a.m. deliveries two times per week • Do not feel they have more rights than someone else because Mr. Paul has two companies in Carmel o Not coming from outside area, proud to be in Carmel • As much as everyone thinks this project is wrong, they believe it is right o Committed to this project o Enjoy Arts & Design District; not trying to ruin it o On edge of residential district o Even with B-5 there is not enough transitional area • Property has been vacant at least two years • This is a committed viable use for the property Public Hearing closed Department Report: Alexia Donahue Wold • Brewery permitted use in B-1 zoning • ADLS portion still under review at Special Studies Committee • Variance for building addition in front yard setback: o Believe proposed addition will be enhancement for this mixed use area o Would present interesting and inviting streetscape • Building closer to street • Fit with other commercially zoned properties nearby • Generally additions in front yard are not permitted, because most of the area is residential • Property is zoned business on the edge of this sub-area, near existing commercial • Believe addition is minor and will not detract from Old Town character • Variance for parking in front yard setback o Will create superior site design • Allows interior of site to be used for attractive patio area, instead of pavement for parking o Layout limits interference with street and pedestrian flow o May be better for residential uses•to the north, rather than having a parking lot abutting north property line Page 8 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 Configuration similar to other developments in the area ® Department supports both variances o Use permitted in Overlay, requested.Petitioner to address concerns of adjacent property owners • Proposed 8 feet fence as additional buffer ® Requires another variance which Department supports • Reduced number of permitted occupants by reducing interior floor area • Agreed to designate off-site employee parking in public parking lot Department recommended positive consideration of both variances. Discussion: Earlene Plavchak o After viewing video from last meeting and listening tonight, seems vast majority of residents object to outdoor seating with noise and lights o No one objected to use as a restaurant/brew pub o Besides parking issues, complaints have been about noise and lights from outside seating o In interest of being a good neighbor, would they consider eliminating the outside seating? • It's not part of variance, but part of being a good neighbor Kevin Paul o Would take that under consideration o Have tried to manage all requests o Tried to understand business impacts for: o Neighborhood/residential o Engineering o City Planning and Zoning o Challenge has been to make appropriate accommodations for each request/item o Prioritize requests and still be commercially viable for any business at that location o Regret reference to beer garden for patio seating • Wanted something more landscape interesting than a cement patio • Creates ambiance with commercial aspect to neighborhood and pedestrians like businesses along Main Street o Maybe they could do an addition to building on that side to keep more enclosed o Not sure how that would affect parking o Tried three-seasons room for overflow pedestrians in enclosed transitional area o Could analyze and evaluate impact of eliminating outdoor seating area o Could explore reducing outdoor patio Alan Potasnik: o Agreed with Mrs. Plavchak o Now they were negotiating o Should have been in original presentation o They are not going to commit, yet the Board is supposed to vote o When did the Department and the public see the changes? IAlexia Donahue Wold o Received August 20 in a draft submittal to see if Department favored changes o She did not know if they were submitted to the public o They did not submit anything for the BZA packets for the Board members Page 9 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Revisions distributed at meeting Alan Potasnik: • Public could not be prepared to address changes unless they came into the Department to view the file/changes • Plans have changed so much, there could be confusion for the public o Changes and talk since original plans o Confusion goes with lack of distribution of changes for public to view and react • As Mrs. Plavchak pointed out, they both missed the last public meeting but watched the video prior to tonight's meeting o It was stated they intend to distribute beer in other parts of the Arts & Design District and Brockway Pub outside the Arts & Design District • So it is going to be distributed outside the Arts & Design District • Who knows how many other places outside the Arts & Design District it may eventually be distributed • Mr. Berry stated Old Town Overlay seems to have precedence over B-1 Zoning Ordinance requirements o One of first lines in Old Town Overlay says "the purpose of the Old Town District is to promote and protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare..." • Does not see where this project does such • Heard of safety hazards of trying to get emergency vehicles through area • Difficult during high school functions and festivals • This does not alleviate any such problems • It has been said that whenever there is a series of meetings, Petitioner has gone through a traumatic experience o Cannot imagine trauma homeowner goes through when they see their property and investment in jeopardy or dwindling o Certain trauma for the Board to make a decision that is going to affect people, not just dollars o He feels public has the most pull o Everything that was said at the public hearing is valid and takes precedence over everything else Earlene Plavchak: • Lot of confusion,plans have changed and not been available for all members of the public to see, digest and react o She proposed completely getting rid of outside seating and it was met positively • Once again, neighborhood does not have time to think about it • Could they live with a small brew pub without outside seating? • Other alternatives allowed on that parcel: o Shooting gallery o Storage o Warehouse distribution o A lot worse things could be there besides a small, totally enclosed tavern • Does not live there, but can understand o Would not want to live next door to an outdoor seating area that had people possibly drinking too much beer at midnight and making too much noise o Maybe it could be an enclosed restaurant/tavern • Was food proposed? II Would it be helpful if neighbors had a chance to consider an establishment like this, as long as it did not interfere with the outside enjoyment of their property? Page 10 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 • There are,other restaurants in the area • Could be tabled voluntarily by the Petitioner to come back with another plan without outside seating to co-exist with neighbors James Hawkins: • Had they met with the neighborhood? How many people showed up? Kevin Paul: • Met with Gary McCarty o Mr. McCarty had met with residents and had a comprehensive list of requests, input and thoughts from neighbors regarding design, flood lights, east side road, bicycle racks • Petitioner incorporated as much feedback as practical ▪ Petitioner wanted to be pedestrian-oriented • As Mr. Potasnik suggested, it has been an ongoing process o At one point maybe they should have said this is the most appropriate design and gone through variance requests • Want to be something the neighborhood, Carmel and the Arts District can be proud of • Will distribute to just a few pubs o Hopefully the neighbors will be proud of a craft beer from their district o Mass production and distribution are not possible o Restaurant will be crepes and Belgian style foods • Unique to north side • Available in Indianapolis and different areas of the country • Tried to communicate that to neighbors • Reason plans have changed several times • Department has been helpful with requirements of Engineering, streets and the process James Hawkins: • Idea of a brew pub in Old Town is a nice idea o Challenges with this location Bruce Berry: • Had worked up to deadline to finalize plans o So much information and changes to make for best design o Was not able to distribute in a more timely fashion • If the outdoor seating goes away, they may need a little more indoor seating o Would change parking numbers for indoor floor space Alan Potasnik: • Felt public and Petitioner wanted vote, so they know what is going to happen o Did not know if tabling another month would make any difference Ephraim Wilfong: • Issues like this are difficult to balance a decision with the future of the community versus the outcries of the neighbors • Last month hours of operation were stated as 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday Kevin Paul: • With location and demographic of neighborhood, posted hours Sunday through Thursday 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; later on weekends o Occasionally accommodate a rehearsal dinner, post-wedding reception event, planned corporate or neighborhood events may extend hours • Commercial liability plays into it Page 11 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 • Not a huge cry in Carmel for establishments to stay open after 11:00 p.m. or midnight Ephraim Wilfong: • Concerns about narrow streets because of on-street parking o Would any on-street parking on east or south side exist if this is developed? Kevin Paul: • Practically speaking, somebody will park on the street and walk • Parking on east or south side is not permitted Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Ephraim Wilfong: Docket Nos. 12060013 V through 12060014 V, Abbey Taphouse,be approved,for building addition in front yard setback and parking in the front yard. MOTION DENIED 1-4(Wilfong favorable) Action: Preparation of Findings of Fact delegated to Mr. Molitor. Public Hearing: 1. (UV) Bickford of Carmel—Senior Living The applicant seeks the following use variance approval for an assisted living facility on a residentially zoned property: Docket No. 12060015 UV ZO Ch. 5.01 Permitted Uses The site is located at 5829 E. 116th Street. It is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Richard Eby of Bickford Senior Living. Present for Petitioner: Richard Eby • 8.7 acre parcel, southeast corner Hazel Dell Parkway and 116th Street; adjacent to Oak Hill Mansion • 58 unit assisted living and memory care facility • Location map shown • South and east portion adjacent to North Beach Park • . Parcel in Community Vitality Node in Carmel's Long Range Plan o Community and neighborhood serving commercial development o Feel use is appropriate to that description • Use 3.5 acres for site plan o Rectangular building with open courtyard in center • Met with Arborist for tree preservation • Road on east side of property is City access road to wellhead property • Oak Hill Mansion to the west has Use Variance to allow catering and banquet services • North Beach Park is approximately 5.5 acres which also has Use Variance to allow park and recreation with catering • Property on south and east of North Beach Park is owned by the City of Carmel for water wells • Further east is St. Claire Creek, strongly wooded area with dike along east edge of property • Sent letters to all adjacent property owners describing use, operation and site plan o Neighborhood meeting held at Oak Hill Mansion • Only two attended, Mr. and Mrs. Steckley Page 12 of 2.5 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 ® Low-impact, desirable use o Serving as transition from commercial to residential o No loud noise/music o Lighting at minimum o Parking on west side adjacent to Oak Hill Mansion and in front parallel to 116th Street ▪ Downward deflecting parking lot lights will not spill into neighborhoods o Low traffic impact • Equivalent to approximately ten residential homes o For security, all staff must go through criminal background, drug screening and elder abuse checks • Security should not be an issue ® Architecturally looks like residential home o Rendering of proposed building shown o Circular columns instead of rectangular columns shown o Lots of stone and brick o Any siding is Hardie cement board o Closest two residences are on opposite side of 116`h Street O Concur with Staff Report o Commitment to provide bike parking • Included in amended site plan o Commitment to provide sidewalk • Will be installed between parking and 116`h Street sidewalk o Commitment for sign located on property • Redesigned to meet City's request o Committed to site plan as presented Public in favor: Jim Steckley, 15022 Corral Court, Carmel o Owns 11533 Hazel Dell Parkway, adjacent to Oak Hill Mansion o Former owner of Oak Hill Mansion and North Beach Park o Met with Mr. Eby at the Oak Hill Mansion o Explained what they do around the country with memory care and assisted living o Positive use for the area with very low impact Department Report: Alexia Donahue Wold o Requesting assisted living facility in S-1 Residential District o Comprehensive Plan shows this area as a Community Vitality Node o Fits with existing surrounding uses o Considered best fit when adjacent to a Community Vitality Node o Proposed architecture fits in with residential character o Required to meet all S-1 regulations; height, setbacks o Department is asking Petitioner to commit to architecture as proposed today o If approved, would be reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee for construction plans o Part of the building will be within the floodplain • Will work that out with Engineering Page 13 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 • Meet parking requirements • Believes Urban Forester is satisfied with Landscape Plan o Will be reviewed at Technical Advisory Committee o Might be some minor changes related to species • Have satisfied outstanding comments from Department Report o Reduced sign to permitted 6-foot height; redesigned sign o Added bike parking rack o Added sidewalk to connect to path along 116"' Street Department recommended positive consideration with Commitments to site plan and architectural drawings as presented. Discussion: Earlene Plavchak: • Positioning of building up to 116th Street o Had pictured long winding driveway with trees on 8 acres o Because of floodplain? Richard Eby: • This location has minimal impact on floodplain o Met with City Engineering Staff and County Engineer regarding floodplain issues o Will resolve before they proceed o 100 year floodplain cuts through small portion of south end of building Will elevate building 2.5 feet out of floodplain so it will be in 500 year floodplain for protection and to prevent expensive insurance Alan Potasnik: • Is the sign a part of this use or just something they committed to? Is the Board confirming their sign will come into compliance? Alexia Donahue Wold: • When Department looks at use, they look at architectural design and signage also o Submitted sign was too tall o Size will be confirmed with sign permit to conform to City standards o Department is in favor of sign design James Hawkins: • Confirmed Petitioner committed to architectural design as submitted Motion: On a motion made by Kent Broach and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Docket No. 12060015 UV, Bickford of Carmel—Senior Living, be approved, for permitted uses with Commitment to use the site plan and architectural drawing as submitted MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 2. (V) Olive Garden The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 12070007 V Ch. 23C.09 E. Roof material (Clay tile proposed) Docket No. 12070008 V Ch. 25.071.02-08b Total number of signs (5 proposed, 2,allowed) Docket No. 12070009 V Ch. 25.07.02-08b Signs not facing public ROW south (2 proposed, 0 allowed) Page 14 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals II August 27,2012 Docket No. 12070010 V Ch. 25.07.02-08b Number of signs facing ROW east (2 proposed, 1 allowed) Docket No. 12070011 V Ch. 25.07.02-08c Total square footage (185.10 sq. ft. proposed, 80 sq. ft. allowed) The site is located at 10206 N. Michigan Rd. It is zoned I-1. Signage variance filed by Shawn Smith of Site Enhancement Services on behalf of GMRI, Inc. Building variance filed by Janet Reid of GHA Architecture/Development on behalf of Jack DeGagne for GMRI, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Jack DeGagne, Darden Restaurants, and Shawn Smith, Site Enhancement Services Jack DeGagne, roof material: ® Has been working with Staff and Plan Commission for overall architectural look of restaurant o Will have Subdivision Committee meeting September 4 o From Findings of Fact, proposed clay roof tile will not be injurious to community o Clay roof material is an industry standard used throughout the United States by many architects and developments • Used to achieve a European,Mediterranean, or in this case, Italianate, style or character of architecture • Clay tile would meet all local, county and state code requirements to protect public safety of the community • Have used the material around the country without any issues; well-installed, top quality O From Findings of Fact, area adjacent to property would not be adversely affected by use of this material o Project will enhance area o Michigan Road Overlay District states: "One of the primary elements of the Overlay Zone is the architectural style requirement." • "All buildings built in the Overlay Zone must be consistent with or complimentary to one of the following styles: Georgian, Federal, Italianate or Greek Revival." • This building follows Italianate style of architecture as written in the Overlay • Email from Staff with mark ups for elevations and comments showed bracket design for Italianate o Talked about multi-roof structures and roof lines, predominately bracketed cornice; picture shown with clay tile roof o Many examples associated with Italianate architecture with clay tile roofs are very big part of that architectural style o From Findings of Fact, the strict application of terms of Zoning Ordinance/Overlay guidelines would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, o Tiles are Capistrano tiles by Eagle Roofing Company ▪ Integral part for overall Italianate appearance of Tuscan Farmhouse prototype • Part of Olive.Garden brand image throughout the country • Non-use of this specific design material would detract from their overall architectural look and brand image o This will provide.a very beautiful, architecturally rendered building for the community o The use of clay tile would add an extra touch o Guidelines state four choices: Georgian, Italianate, Federal or Greek Revival o They are going with Italianate and it is the first in the corridor o End result will be a beautiful building, complimenting Overlay District Page 15 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 Shawn Smith, signage: • For branding, are asking for wall signage on front elevation, side elevation, left elevation and free standing sign o Code allows two signs o Site plan shown • Building sets back approximately 125 feet from right-of-way • No direct access to North Michigan Road • Sign on right elevation would be for traffic traveling south • Turn lane may be installed in near future o Sign would give advance notification for accessing property o Retail Parkway will be continued/extended o Not sure if it will be public or private road • Northwest Drive is a private road with right only out onto Michigan Road • Proposing 57 square feet lineal letter set on right elevation for southbound traffic to access property • Intent of free-standing sign is typically to identify the property at ingress/egress points • No direct access to Michigan Road o Retention fields along property • Mid-property along Michigan Road is only location for sign • Will give exposure to motorists traveling the area o Meets the Ordinance with 40 square feet, 6 feet in overall height • Identifies site, but people will need to enter on Northwest Drive or Retail Parkway • Building signs will help give advance notification • Two wall signs on left elevation • 65 square feet wall sign O 8 square feet"To Go" blade sign o Will not be seen from Michigan Road o Will notify people within the area where to pick up their order • 56.83 square feet on right elevation, closer to front o Rendering shown of building on site • Little visibility for 45 square feet sign for northbound traffic on Michigan Road • Free-standing sign gives prominence • Trees will remain on right elevation • Ask to remove 65 square feet sign on left elevation which would be blocked by trees • Ask for "To Go" sign instead o Trees blocking the site are not on their property, but they do not encourage trees be removed • Wall sign on right elevation does add notification for southbound Michigan Road traffic o Gives advance warning to be able to move into right-hand lane to locate and access property • Free-standing sign is set back further on property; not at access point • Sign is 3.2 percent of facade o Material sample board for signage shown o LED, channel letters, stands off wall approximately four inches, internally illuminated Page 16 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Has depth and character; not cabinet or box sign o Free-standing sign is exactly the same o Only words "Olive" and "Garden" are internally illuminated on opaque face o "Italian Restaurant" and "grapes" are illuminated by gooseneck lighting, creating soft glow o Photos shown of similar signage in San Dimas, CA • Not a cabinet sign • Gives advance notification and warning for people to access property • Might be future commercial development beside their site (rendering shown) • Right elevation sign still visible • Site is unique because there is no direct access to Michigan Road • Free-standing sign is needed out front because of the building setback • Property is accessible from two private roads o One may be public in the near future • Signage will allow advance notification to access property and navigate area Jack DeGagne: • Brought four samples of roof tile o Slight variations of terra cotta(orange/reddish color) o Excellent product used around the country Public Hearing closed Department Report: Alexia Donahue Wold covered roof material • Respectful of Darden's wish to use their standard design palette o Petitioner has not satisfied Plan Commission or Department with proposed Olive Garden building and architecture o Do not believe it meets standards of Michigan Road Overlay • Architectural design not complimentary of Overlay standards or four permitted architectural themes • Roof material contrary to intent of Overlay • Further disconnect this building from permitted architectural styles • Department does not believe there is practical difficulty in use of this property • Development Plan and ADLS still at Plan Commission Committee level • Discussing whether architecture meets intent of Overlay • Still working on design of building • Department believes design will further separate this building from style, architecture and intent of the Overlay Department does not recommend favorable consideration of variance for roof material. Rachel Boone covered signage • 80 square feet allowed for site Page 17 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o 40 square feet toward Michigan Road (facing east) o 40 square feet toward new Retail Parkway which will become a public road (facing north) o Per Sign Ordinance, they have the right to move wall sign to face east and go along with the ground sign • Both can face same direction • They originally proposed five signs o Three wall, one ground, one projecting o Grateful they have removed sign from south side due to lack of visibility o Department feels additional sign on north is unnecessary • Southbound traffic on Michigan Road will have two opportunities to be prepared to turn right • One ground sign and the building itself • Building is branding as typical Olive Garden design • Nothing else on site to confuse traffic for turning • If there was confusion, they would have opportunity for 3 square feet directional signs • Not sure another building would fit on site • Still 58 square feet over permitted signage with removal of sign on south side • Department feels ground sign, wall sign facing east and architecture will be plenty of opportunity to identify and find building Discussion: James Hawkins: • Percentage of local guests compared to out-of-town guests from Interstate • Trying to determine signage needed after established in neighborhood Shawn Smith: • Ten to twenty percent of population in constant motion o Moving in, out or through o Signage important to these individuals • Guests can call ahead,but do not make reservations o Hopefully majority of customer base would be local o Good balance with people visiting and staying in area • Additional signage would help identify property, keep taxable dollars in area o Safe and functional branding provides optimal ability for the property to reach potential • Applebee's north of this location has two building signs and one free-standing sign o Similar situation, but in a plaza o Not a large percentage covering façade o Olive Garden is proposing 2.5 percent on front and 3 percent on right elevation o To Go sign identifies To Go parking location (8 square feet) • Not illuminated, casts light up James Hawkins: • Roofing materials proposed by Department in place of clay tile Alexia Donahue Wold: • Overlay names specific permitted roof materials o Wood shingles, slate, composition asphalt shingle or standing-seam metal panels Page 18 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Color restrictions: asphalt shingles to resemble gray slate; standing-seam panels may be either gray,black, dark blue, dark green or barn red James Hawkins: • For signage, was Department recommending positive consideration of 12070008 V. 12070009 V and 12070011 V and negative consideration of 12070010 V? Rachel Boone: • Department in support of three of the four signs o Parts of each variance o To Go, wall facing east and ground sign facing east(one wall, one ground, one projecting) o Could take away east wall sign in exchange for north wall sign James Hawkins: • Positive on each variance, but Department does not want a north elevation sign because of the monument sign Alan Potasnik: • Ask Petitioner to address Italianate architecture with regards to roof o Are low-pitch or flat roof generally features? o Felt example from Department was depicting low-pitch roof rather than tile o Maybe Department definition is different Jack DeGagne: • It is not a flat roof • There are various pitches for Italianate architecture (examples shown) • Feel they comply with many elements and designs of Italianate o Could always be a difference of opinions • Olive Garden brand is Tuscan farmhouse prototype o Northern Italian style of architecture o Part of the Italianate culture of architecture o Still working with Plan Commission on all the features ® Tower feature, multi-structured roofline, bracketed cornice, arch windows o Roof tile is just one of the main elements they use for Italian architecture design o Over 600 Olive Gardens throughout the country o Have been building this latest Tuscan farmhouse prototype for ten years ▪ Studied the architecture in Italy, inside and outside for this design o Design is recognizable to public Alan Potasnik: • Will there be designated "To Go" parking spaces reserved for carryout only? Shawn Smith: • Indicated "To Go"parking spaces • Projection"To Go" sign located by special door so customers do not need to go to front door o Helps with convenience, traffic and pedestrian flow • Handicap parking signs meet all ADA requirements and are standard size Alan Potasnik: • Just because Applebee's has those signs, does not make it a hardship for Olive Garden Shawn Smith: • Each application is judged on its own merits • Just pointing out it is consistent within the Overlay o Applebee's is closer to Michigan Road with closer access Page 19 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Olive Garden is set back 125 feet from Michigan Road without direct access • Property is accessed from rear to prevent stacking of traffic James Hawkins: • Realistic possibility of another building on the site? o Without another building, Olive Garden is very recognizable on the site • Will any landscaping mitigate the view? • Parcel is very small, maybe 4500 square feet • Are there realistic possibilities for another building? Shawn Smith: • Indicated trees in landscaping plan around retention area • Part of theme is to have ample landscaping • Hope trees do not get tall enough to block the signs • Blank area on parcel had come up on site plans as being developed o It is part of the Darden property; separate area for a building o Parking has dictated the size of Olive Garden building o It is not part of this submittal for site plan o A building has been shown in various preliminary sketches for small retail building o Regardless of what goes there, intent of north sign is to help identify and locate property ® Valuable and it not blocked ® Has useful information to convey Alexia Donahue Wold: • The Department has seen various preliminary sketches with a building on the blank section of the parcel o From site plan, it appears to be less than 50 feet wide o Would need to conform to all setbacks o. 15-foot landscape setback o Assume there would be bufferyard plantings o Would need parking to meet Code Ephraim Wilfong: • Regarding roof material, Department states "Petitioner has not satisfied Plan Commission or Department that the proposed Olive Garden building meets the standards of the Michigan Road Overlay as it pertains to the architectural design and as it is not designed to be complimentary with one of the four permitted architectural themes." o Concerned that a positive vote on the roof material would still leave concern on Plan Commission level with no action taken on the part of Olive Garden o Could Staff describe the concern? Alexia Donahue Wold: • Still at Committee and still being worked out for specific design or architecture o Not comfortable approving variance for roof material since rest of building design has not been approved. Kent Broach: • Felt it was a good reason to defer decision • Design questions are for Plan Commission James Hawkins: • Recommended to table Docket No. 12070007 V, in Petitioner's best interest Jack DeGagne: • Have been working with Staff and will meet with Committee on October 4 Page 20 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o Either way architecture goes for use of stone and stucco, roof request will remain the same o Is there a chance for approval for clay tile? James Hawkins: o Need to keep in mind, if there is a negative vote on clay tile roof, you could petition again in six months Jack DeGagne: o If they table and work out everything with Plan Commission, they would still need to come back to BZA for roof material o If they get everything worked out with design, they might be in a better position with the BZA James Hawkins: o Before going forward, the Board would like design process to go forward in Plan Commission and make sure Department is comfortable with total building aesthetics, not just the roof Jack DeGagne: o Requested to table Docket No. 12070007 V, roof material (clay tile proposed) to work out everything architecturally with Plan Commission Kent Broach: o If the Board votes against the objectionable north wall sign, they would vote No for all the variances o If the Board agrees with the Petitioner, they would vote Yes for all the variances Rachel Boone: o It would take a portion of each variance; sometimes divided into A and B o Department in favor of: o Total number of signs; three instead of four o Sign not facing public right-of-way south; one proposed (12070009 V) o Number of signs facing east right-of-way; two proposed one allowed (12070010 V) o Total square footage for three signs versus four signs o Docket Nos. 12070008 V and 12070011 V would need to be split according to the Department recommendation James Hawkins: o Would the Petitioner like to table 12070008 V and 12070011 V until everything is incorporated? Shawn Smith: o Signs probably won't change location or size when architecture is figured out o Would prefer a vote James Hawkins: o Findings of Fact sheets list all five variances, 12070007 V through 12070011 V Rachel Boone: o Clarification for variances, based on removing south elevation wall sign: o 12070008 V changed to 4 proposed, 2 allowed o 12070009 V changed to 1 proposed, 0 allowed o 12070010 V 2 proposed, 1 allowed, did not change o 12070011 V total square footage changed to about 140 square feet proposed, 80 allowed Motion: On a motion made by Kent Broach and seconded by Ephraim Wilfong: Docket Nos. 12070008 V through 12070011 V Olive Garden, be approved, for total number of signs I (4 proposed, 2 allowed); signs not facing public right-of-way south (1 proposed, 0 allowed); number of signs facing right-of-way east(2 proposed, 1 allowed); and total square footage (140 square feet proposed, 80 square feet allowed) Page 21 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 12070007 V TABLED 12070008 V DENIED 2-3 (Plavchak, Potasnik, Wilfong negative) 12070009 V APPROVED 4-1 (Potasnik negative) 12070010 V APPROVED 4-1 (Potasnik negative) 12070011 V DENIED 2-3 (Plavchak, Potasnik, Wilfong negative) Action: Preparation of Findings of Fact delegated to Mr. Molitor. 3. (V) Greyhound Commons—Signage TABLED The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 12070014 V Z-344, Section 11.3 (C) (1) Number of signs (2 additional proposed, 1 existing allowed) Docket No. 12070015 V Z-344, Section 11.3 (C) (3) Ground sign height(20 +/- proposed, 10' allowed) The site is located at 14480 Lowes Way. It is zoned PUD. Filed by Joy Skidmore of Kite Realty Group. 4. (SU) Montessori Preschool,West Carmel Center, Blk B, Lot 2. The applicant seeks the following special use approval: Docket No. 12070016 SU ZO Ch. 16.02 Special Uses,preschool in B-5/Business zone. The site is located at 396.5 W 106th Street. It is zonedB-5/Business. Filed by Sharon Emanuel IP. Present for the Petitioner: Sharon Emanuel Ip • Lived in Carmel seven years, Montessori teacher five years in Hamilton County o Founded own Montessori school three years ago in synagogue at 116`h and Towne Road • Special Use for one suite in a multi-tenant building o Aerial Photos shown of new location at 3965 W. 106th Street, Suite 140 o Four suites in building; photos shown o Tenant parking in back of building o Open floor plan • Small school with three children; maximum 10 to 12 children o Most graduated last year o Pictures shown of classrooms • Approximately 44 parking spaces, including tenant parking in back • Suite next door open only three days per week • Good fit with service businesses catering to young families; orthodontist, eye doctors Public Hearing closed. Department Report: Alexia Donahue Wold • Special Use generally looked upon favorably if integrated well within context and character of area • Existing building in existing professional office development with mix of surrounding uses (office, commercial and residential) • Existing parking will satisfy required number of spaces for preschool Page 22 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 o One space per employee; one space per six students Department recommended positive consideration of the Special Use. Motion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Alan Potasnik: Docket No. 12070016 SU, Montessori Preschool,West Carmel Center, Blk B, Lot 2, be approved, for Special Uses, preschool in B-5/Business zone. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5. (V) The Centre North Retail Building —Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 12070028 V Ch. 25.07.02-10 c) Square footage facing east for south end tenant(40 sq. ft. proposed, 30 allowed) Docket No. 12070029 V Ch. 25.07.02-10 b) Total number of signs (7 proposed, 3 allowed) Docket No. 12070030 V Ch. 25.07.02-10 c) Two signs not facing a right of way (north and south proposed, neither allowed) Docket No. 12070031 V Ch. 3 Definition of Identification Sign—logo larger than 25% allowed The site is located at 1430 & 1432 S. Range Line Rd. It is zoned B-3 within the Carmel Dr./Range Line Rd. Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg DeVault, LLP on behalf of the owner, KRG Centre, LLC. Action: Mr. Hawkins recused himself. Vice President, Ephraim Wilfong led the meeting. Present for the Petitioner: Paul Reis, Krieg DeVault and Ashley Bedell, Project Manager, Kite Realty Group • Mr. Potasnik and Mr. Wilfong have seen the project as members of Plan Commission • Aerial photo shown; northwest corner 116`h Street and Range Line Road • Kite Realty Group in process of partially redeveloping The Centre o Adding new anchor food store, new bank and new retail tenants • Variances for new multi-tenant office/retail building located on north portion of site o Signage for Verizon Wireless, perspective tenant o Wall signage for new Range Line Road building o Site plan of building shown o Variance for square footage for east and south frontages • Permitted east frontage sign along Range Line Road • Increase square footage from permitted 30 feet to 40 feet • Increase due to size and design of sign o Verizon has trademark sign incorporating a large "check" or "V" o Increases dramatically size of sign o Sign needs to be larger in order to be readable o Relative size of"check" (11 square feet) shown in example of sign • South facade does not face Range Line Road • Does not have permitted size • Discussed with Staff and proposing 30 square feet o Size allowable if facing Range Line Road o Rendering shown with relative size of"check"/logo to overall sign Page 23 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 • South side sign seen by traffic and pedestrians along Range Line Road • Believe neither sign will have negative impact • Proposed signs will enhance business of tenant, value of building and area • Without proposed sign area, Verizon will be negatively affected o Variance needed for increased size of logo • Trademarked sign design • Tenant cannot change design of sign • Under Federal trademark law, under the Zoning Ordinance, the Board has the ability to change the size or location of sign, but not design o Two variances are for the building • Range Line Road Overlay requires two occupiable floors • On stores built previous to the Overlay, each tenant in a single-story building was permitted a sign along with a ground sign for the building • Variances would allow signage equivalent to signs permitted for a one-story building • Would identify the retail and office users • Allow people on Range Line Road to identify stores • Consistent with signage in area • Would not have any negative impact • Will enhance business of tenants to make building a successful venture • Without this signage, overall success of building and redevelopment of The Centre will be negatively impacted • Variance needed for signs not facing Range Line Road • Signage needed on each end of building • South elevation for Verizon; north elevation for future tenant o Renderings of elevations with signage shown o East elevation with two proposed signs on second floor and three tenants along Range Line Road • Without adequate signage, significant practical difficulty for successful building Public Hearing closed. Department Report: Rachel Boone • Variances in two sections: Verizon tenant and rest of building o Verizon has genuine hardship with design of sign • • Trademark "checkmark" portion of sign creates negative space that counts against them in overall square footage of sign • Department supports size variances for the signs • Verizon text is onlyl 5 square feet on east elevation and 11 square feet on south elevation — which is very small • Larger overall signage accommodates the unused square footage • South sign follows model proposed in new Sign Ordinance • Entrance on side elevation • Building brought up to street • Important location for identification Page 24 of 25 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals August 27,2012 • North elevation also has entry door o Number of signs for whole building • Department supports these variances • Would like to have identification for upper-story tenants • Follows proposed new Sign Ordinance which allows building identification sign on upper story for mixed-use building • If building was not up to the street or was not in Range Line Road Overlay, it could have a ground sign that may identify upper-story tenants • Department prefers wall signage over ground signage for this site • Department supports logo percentage being more than 25 percent because with trademark requirements, they cannot shrink logo Department recommended favorable consideration of all variances Discussion: Alan Potasnik o Actual second floor tenants; not just a facade? o Second floor,signs will be for actual tenants? o Larger Verizon signs are needed because of the check mark? Paul Reis: o Confirmed questions o Verizon sign above black awning on south elevation and one on front/east elevation of building o Overall rectangle for sign is enlarged to be able to read "Cellular Connection" o Size of logo drives size of sign Motion: On a motion made by Ephraim Wilfong and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: Docket Nos. 12070028 V through 12070031 V, The Centre North Retail Building - Signage, be approved, for square footage facing east for south end tenant(40 square feet proposed, 30 allowed); total number of signs (7 proposed, 3 allowed);.two signs not facing a right-of-way (north and south proposed, neither allowed); and Definition of Identification Sign—logo larger than 25% allowed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Adjournment Motion: On a motion made by Ephraim Wilfong and seconded by Earlene Plavchak: The Meeting be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM. ' Approved this 7`-(111 day of -1)-gµ»l 'V 20 Pr/sident James R. Hawkins /- Co, nie ngley Filename:201 208 27.doc Page 25 of 25