Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 01-22-01 CITY OF CARMEL/CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 22, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7 p.m. in the City Court Room of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana on January 22, 2001. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present: Michael Mohr, Leo Dierckman, Pat Rice, Earlene Plavchek, and Charles Weinkauf, thereby constituting a quorum. The Department Staff attending were Steve Engelking, Director, Laurence Lillig, and Kelli Hahn. F.Mr. Molitor announced the Executive Session scheduled for this evening was cancelled, due partly to the fact that there are no new developments in the Cell Tower litigation. G.Director Steve Engelking of the Department of Community Services introduced Kelli Hahn, new Planner with the Department who comes with two summers of experience as a department intern. The following items have been tabled for this evening: Under Public Hearings, items 1h – 9h (Lakes at Hazel Dell); 15h – 21 h (Hazel Dell Corner); 22h – 23h (Pearson Ford). In addition, Item 1i under Old Business (Lakes at Hazel Dell Subdivision) is withdrawn thereby requiring the petitioner to wait ninety days to resubmit the petition to the Board for consideration. Mr. Molitor distributed a letter prepared prior to the withdrawal of the Lakes at Hazel Dell petition, and suggested commission members read it for their own benefit. Mr. Molitor administered the oath of office for Charles Weinkauf as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Election of Officers: Charles Weinkauf was elected President by Unanimous Consent. Pat Rice was elected Vice President by Unanimous Consent. H. Public Hearing: S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 1 West Carmel Center, Block A – Wendy’s (V-180-00; V-181-00; V-182- 10h – 13h. 00; V-183-00) Petitioner seeks several Developmental Standards Variances of the Sign Ordinance. The site is located at 10585 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. V-180-00 ZO 25.7.02-7(b) to allow three signs V-181-00 ZO 25.7.02-7(c)(1) to allow a 31-sq. ft. ground sign V-182-00 ZO 25.7.02-7 (c)(1) to allow a 32-sq. ft. wall sign on the north façade V-183-00 ZO 25.7.02-7(c)(1)to allow a 32-sq. ft. wall sign on the south façade Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. Kevin McKasson represented Glendale Partners. The Wendy’s representative had not arrived for the beginning of the presentation. Mr. McKasson referred to the packet provided to commission members and stated this petitioner has appeared before the board previously, at which time Special Use approval was granted for the property. Note: Leo Dierckman made a formal motion to re-order the Agenda and hear items 10h through 13h at the end of the public hearing items this evening to allow the Wendy’s representative time to appear at the meeting, seconded by Michael Mohr and approved 5- 0. Kevin McKasson displayed a drawing showing the elevation for signage that was previously approved by the Plan Commission as part of the ADLS application. We are here seeking a variance because B-3 requires special use for restaurant use; sign variances th are also required. The site is part of West Carmel Shoppes, south of Walgreens at 106 Street and Michigan Road. Three signs are being requested—two on the building and one ground sign. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or in opposition to the petition. No one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Recommendation, Laurence Lillig. The Plan Commission approved Docket No. 172-00 ADLS Amend at their 1/16/01 meeting. As part of the approval, the Commission approved a revised design for the ground sign conditioned upon the requirements of Sign Chart B being met. The Department recommends favorable consideration, providing the Plan Commission requirements are met. V-180-00 Earlene Plavchak made a motion to approve to allow three signs, seconded by APPROVED Pat Rice and 5-0. V-181-00 Michael Mohr made a motion to approve , seconded by Earlene Plavchak and APPROVED 5 in favor, 0 opposed. V-182-00 Pat Rice made a motion to approve , seconded by Michael Mohr and APPROVED with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed. S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 2 V-183-00 Michael Mohr moved for approval of , seconded by Earlene Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0. At this time, the Board heard Old Business items. Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 1 – Osco Drug (SU-198-00) 14h. Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish a pharmacy for Osco st Drug on 1.68+- acres. The site is located at 5790 East 131 Street. The site is Note: This Item related to tabled Items 15h-21h under zoned B-3/business. Public Hearings. Filed by J. Murray Clark of Clark Quinn Moses & Clark for American Partners, L.P. J. Murray Clark represented the petitioner seeking to build and operate an Osco st Drug at the intersection of Hazel Dell Parkway and 131 Streets. In 1995 six parcels of property were designated B-3, at which time certain commitments were made, including special uses that might be allowed. One of these is a drug store. Another commitment calls for automatic review by the Plan Commission of any ADLS sought for these properties. The petitioner has filed such a petition with the Plan Commission, and has appeared before the Technical Advisory Committee on two occasions. The Developmental Standards Variance applications on this agenda are tabled, pending resolution of some Plan Commission concerns on signage. Once those issues are resolved, we will return for review of these variances. Tonight we are seeking Special Use approval. We seek to build an Osco Drug of approximately 15,000 square feet in size. The exterior would be natural red brick with accents of prairie clay, and our intent is to comply with the 1995 commitment of retaining a residential character to structures on this site. Fifty-one parking spaces are provided. There are two curb cuts, one of which will be a common access drive to be used by properties to the north. Lot 6 will be a daycare center. That development is at a similar stage as this one under consideration. The proposed drug store with pharmacy and drive-through capability is a good use for the property at these busy arterials and fits in with the commercial/retail intent Shorter Corporation projected in 1995. Dan Shorter of the was in attendance on behalf of Osco Drug. Mr. Shorter is primarily working on the development issues, including lighting and design, as part of the ADLS application Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or in opposition to the petition. None appeared. S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 3 The Chairman asked Mr. Clark whether the 1995 commitments are in effect, since the property has changed hands. Mr. Clark stated the commitments are binding on successors to the previous owner. Michael Mohr noted he resides in the area, and there is a need for this project. Mr. Mohr feels the petitioner is doing a good job working with the Commissions. Laurence Lillig stated the Department favors approval. The public hearing was then closed. Docket No. SU-198-00, Leo Dierckman made formal motion to approve seconded APPROVED by Michael Mohr and 5-0. First Merchants Bank (V-224-00) 24h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.02-9(c): Maximum Sign Area in order to exceed the 95-square-foot maximum by establishing a 110.25 square-foot wall identification sign. Filed by Todd L. Ruetz of Campbell Kyle Proffitt for First Merchants Bank. Todd Ruetz appeared on behalf of the petitioner to seek a variance for the west wall at the th Marsh Plaza in the 421 Corridor at 106 Street and Michigan Road. Last month he appeared before the Carmel/Clay Plan Commission and received approval for the placement of the sign, as illustrated in packets provided for the board members. He also th showed a similar sign existing at the Marsh store on 116 Street. There is no other sign on the wall for which the variance is sought. The wall is approximately 3,600 square feet, and the requested sign would cover approximately 3% of the total wall area, and would help the bank identify its location. The property is zoned B- 2, and if approved, the sign would be more visible for people traveling along Michigan Road. Members of the public wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to the petition were invited to speak. None appeared. The Department recommends negative consideration. Ms. Rice asked for comparison in size of the illustration provided with the proposed sign. Mr. Ruetz said the requested sign is about 1/3 larger than the one illustrated. Signcraft is constructing the sign; however, Mr. Ruetz did not know why the additional 15 square feet is necessary for this sign. A slightly larger sign is probably desired for visibility from Michigan Road. S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 4 The Chairman made reference to the Sign Ordinance that was developed after a tremendous amount of time and great effort. Mr. Weinkauf did not agree that the sign would attract bank customers—the super market will bring in the customers anyway— they can then choose whether or not to use this bank. Mr. Ruetz pointed out this is a commercial area rather than residential. Julie Kerns, 12716 Wembly Road, Carmel, addressed the Board. Ms. Kerns is vice president and regional manager of First Merchants Bank. Ms. Kerns was unaware of the adjustment in sign size. Her understanding is the size was determined in part by the size of the individual channel letters and making the Hamilton County portion (Merchants Bank of Hamilton County) to scale, more easy to produce. The Bank hopes to attract a customer base from Marion County as well as Hamilton County, and this site is the closest location outside of Marion County for this division of Merchants Bank, which itself is over 100 years old. The bank came to Hamilton County just three years ago. Mr. Dierckman noted the volume of sign variances on the agenda, and commented the Sign Ordinance is not overly burdensome or strict on developers as it is written. Mr. Mohr asked if the size of the sign would pose an undue hardship if the variance were not approved. Mr. Ruetz said the developer feels the proposed sign would afford more visibility and identification, and that it is an appropriate size for the wall surface on which it would be established. Discussion ensued about the need for the increased size. First Merchants Bank feels they really need need “of Hamilton County” to appear on the sign for proper identification. Charles Weinkauf closed the public hearing. Docket No. V-224-00, Ms. Rice made a motion to approve seconded by Leo Dierckman. MOTION DENIED The vote was 2 in favor 3 opposed (Dierckman, Plavchak, Mohr) . St. Mark’s United Methodist Church (SU-225-00) 25h. Petitioner seeks Special Use approval to expand the existing facility. The site is th located at 4780 East 126 Street. The site is zoned S-1/residence. Filed by Paula A. Wright of the Partenheimer Group for St. Mark’s United Methodist Church. JohnWeisel, 14184 Woodfield Circle, Carmel addressed the Board on behalf of the St. Mark’s United Methodist Church Building Committee. Mr. Weisel explained the proposed expansion of the twenty-one year old congregation that will add educational space, a youth activity area, a chapel and an enlarged choir area. The seating size of the sanctuary is not being increased, neither is the size of the parking lot being increased. S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 5 Mark Van Allen, Vice President of the Partenheimer Group, Inc. with offices at 107 South Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, spoke from his experience of working with St. Mark’s on their last expansion campaign. Mr. Van Allen is now both a member of the church and an architect for them. He showed a site plan of the facility as it now exists. In the mid- 1990’s he worked with the church on a major addition, with a new entry, administrative space and classroom space and a Fellowship Hall. At that time, the parking lot was expanded and balanced with the 500 seating capacity of the sanctuary. Due to growth in the congregation, they now seek to expand facilities as it relates to the programming of the church, not to increase the capacity of the sanctuary. A master plan for future construction was developed for St. Mark’s construction with several phases to the expansion. The first phase is the previous construction; phase two in an in-fill project between the Fellowship Hall and parallel to Gray Road alongside the th existing sanctuary. Phase three is a similar type development along 126 Street; the culmination of these two expansions would be a new chapel. The reason for the phases is for the practicality of the ability to fund this project. We want to be sure to understand where we are going, and that we cannot afford to build all the needed space at one time; i.e. to be sure you know where the Master Plan is going, and how all the pieces will fit together. The petitioner seeks Special Use approval of Phase two this evening. It is a fairly simple plan, as shown with visuals, and will create a courtyard between the new additions. There will be a columbarium for the storage of human, cremated remains. They actually have ashes waiting for space in the columbarium. The intent is to maintain the architectural character of the facility, as we go through these building phases. Detailing and brickwork will be matched as much as possible up to the eave height, with similar material for all construction. Projected gable walls for the higher roof will be similar to the architectural theme used in the last addition. The petitioner feels the addition is consistent in character with the existing building. All additions will be one-story, and will occur within the setbacks and guidelines. The Church will work with the Department of Community Services to make sure landscaping and other details meet with their approval. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition, or in opposition to the petition. None appeared and the public hearing was closed. The Department recommends favorable consideration of this petition. Mr. Dierckman asked about the exterior. The exterior brick of the new construction will match or blend with the “orange-ish” brick on the present facility as closely as possible. There is a consistent band about three feet high of exterior insulation and finishing that wraps around the building. There will be a portion to connect between the junior high S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 6 classroom, and the fellowship hall will have a flat root. Another portion will have a pitch roof covered with brown residential-type shingles. Mr. Van Allen stated that approval this evening would enable the petitioner to adhere to a schedule with the contractor. The Chairman noted that other special use presentations have included more detail than this one, including landscaping, etc. It might be easier to make a decision with visuals of landscaping, etc. The petitioner said he based this evening’s remarks on his previous presentation before the Board. He reiterated that the plans do not include any deviation from the overall architectural character and materials of the existing building. SU-225-00 Mr. Dierckman made a motion to approve conditioned upon review and final approval of the landscape plan and building materials by the Special Study Committee of APPROVED the Plan Commission, seconded by Pat Rice and 5-0. Stoughton R.E. Partners (UV-227-00) 26h. Petitioner seeks a Use Variance in order to establish an office use in an existing th residential structure. The site is located at 1350 E. 116 Street. The site is zoned R-1/residence. Filed by Thomas Stoughton for Stoughton R.E. Partners. Tom Stoughton , Stoughton R.E. Partners appeared before the Board requesting a Use Variance to establish an office within an existing residential structure. Stoughton R.E. th Partners has an option to purchase the site at 1350 East 116 Street and do not plan any major changes for this location. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of this petition. None appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to this petition; the following appeared:. Scott Unger, 11618 Rosemeade Drive, presented a petition to be entered into the public record in opposition to the application. Mr. Unger is a Carmel developer and lives next door to this location. Mr. Unger is opposed to the use variance, as are residents of Donnybrook, Rosemeade, Trinity, and the Apostolic Church to the west. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that public policy should give preference to residences, and these are neighborhoods nearby. In addition, parking would need to be added, and the driveway runs along the east side of the property, which is 100% floodway. The only other business in the immediate area is the Woodland Animal Hospital located three-tenths of a mile to the east. Making cosmetic changes to the exterior of the house is not a reason th to grant the variance. There is a lot of roadwork to be done on 116 Street too. In summary, this is a residential area, and we want it to stay that way. S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 7 Bill Frey, 1329 Donnybrook Drive, Carmel, stated the area has always been residential; businesses bring increased traffic and the current roadway can barely accommodate the th existing traffic. Expanding 116 Street to 4 lanes will take an excessive amount of ground, plus the bike path, will endanger the existing structure. Also, in a recent “State of the Real Estate” narrative, F.C. Tucker attested the fact that there is a lot of vacant commercial space available where this particular tenant could re-locate without asking for a special use on this property. Doran Winn, 11420 Ralston Avenue, member and officer of Donnybrook Woods HOA, explalined that he moved to the area because it is a quiet neighborhood. Mr. Winn has three children who take the school bus. Currently there is a “dip” that drivers must go th over on 116 Street. It is difficult to see children waiting for the school bus in this spot. The added traffic for a business would only increase the safety hazard already existing. Paul Harborough, Glen Manor Court, Fairgreen Trace Subdivision, said this proposal comes as somewhat of a shock. The concern is how a manufacturing business or office space might infringe on the new neighborhood. We don’t want to be overrun by commercial activity. Rebuttal, Mr. Stoughton. The driveway will not be close to Mr. Unger—it will be located on the other side of the house. Landscaping can be utilized for visual screening from adjoining neighbors. There will be no signage. The business is a very small, consulting business with no walk-in traffic, and at most, 3 to 5 cars at any one time on the site. This is not a retail business; the hours of operation are 8 to 5, no nights, no weekends. The Chairman asked if the home is currently occupied and where the business is currently operating. Mr. Stoughton said the home is not currently occupied—he has an option to purchase the property predicated on the variance approval. Currently the business is thth located at 1917 East 116 Street (south side of 116 Street,) just west of AAA Way. Ms. Rice asked if there were plans for anyone to live in the house; the response was Negative. Department Recommendation, Laurence Lillig. At this time, the business operation at th 1917 East 116 Street is in violation. The Department is recommending negative consideration of this petition. UV-227-00 Michael Mohr made a motion to approve , seconded by Earlene Plavchak. MOTION DENIED The vote was 0 in favor, 5 opposed, . Following a five-minute recess, the meeting proceeded with item 10h-13h, due to the re- ordering approved earlier in the meeting. I. Old Business S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 8 Lakes at Hazel Dell Subdiviison, Section 1, Common Area 3 (SUA-88- I1. 00) Withdrawn by petitioner, who may return in 90 days. Parkwood Crossing, Building 1 – Verizon Wireless (V-222-00) 2i. Petitioner seeks a Developmental standards Variance of Section 25.7.02- 10(b): Number & Type in order to establish a sign on a façade that does th not front a public right-of-way. The site is located at 250 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B-6/business. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinney & Evans for Verizon Wireless. th Steve Granner, land use consultant with Bose McKinney & Evans, 600 East 96 Street, and John Smeltzer, attorney were in attendance. The Morgan Stanley Dean Witter sign th was approved January 8 2001 for Building 7. Since that time, there has been a change in name and “Dean Witter” has been eliminated. Color renderings of the sign were submitted—the sign meets the Ordinance but is additional signage. The commitment for building 7 states no signs on the south and east façades of the building. The Morgan Stanley building #7 and the 4.3+ acres around it are owned by Duke Hawk LLC. Point of Order : The Chairman questioned whether or not the Board could hear this petition under old business, since the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter sign is not specifically listed on the Agenda for this evening. John Molitor assured the Board that it was proper to hear this item at this time. The Verizon sign is proposed for building one (there used to be a GTE sign on the north façade of the building prior to the existence of building seven). The GTE sign was removed when their name changed to Verizon. Verizon wants to erect a new sign Verizon Wireless, but with the construction of building seven between them and the interstate, desires to erect the sign on the west side, which requires a variance. Mr. Granner referred to packets provided for each board member, and described the proposed lettering of 33 ½ inches. After meeting with Mr. Lillig last week, this was revised to 32 inches. The revised plan reflects the reduction in size to comply with ordinance chart requirements. We have been for ADLS approval for the larger sign. Two issues were raised at the last meeting. One concerns the lighting, the other concerning what would be permitted on the rest of the building. Becky Fields, Property Manager for the Dukes building at Parkwood Crossing, is present to answer questions. A letter dated 1/15/01 is included describing the recent directive for lighting in the buildings. Duke contracts a security service for the Parkwood Crossing parking lot. The security officers only have access to the lobby and not the floors above. Persons who work lake sometimes leave the lights on when they leave for the evening. The second issue is additional signage on buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; building 7 is owned by Duke Hawk LLC. Indiana Insurance owns their own property, and all of their signage S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 9 is part of a sign package. If they were to change their signage, it would require coming back for approval. If the Verizon sign is approved, they would need to come back for any changes to building one. Building three has a McMillan Publishing sign on the north façade; building five has a variance for two signs on the north façade; building six has a variance for two signs on the north façade. Currently, Buildings two and four have no identification signage and are 100% leased. The Ordinance permits a sign on the south façade. Building 7 at Parkwood Crossing is 100% leased. Building 5 is almost 99% leased, while building 6 is about 89% leased. We would give up our rights if we do not exercise that allowable sign. Each of these spaces comprises approximately 5,000 square feet. Buildings 1, 3, 5, and 6 cannot have additional signs without coming back to the board. Buildings 2 and 4, which have no signs, have lease obligations including a sign, and the ordinance permits a sign. Regarding the Verizon sign, the Commission approved an ADLS for a larger sign on the west façade facing 31. The petitioner is willing to make a commitment regarding the lighting situation and open to whatever can be reasonably done. Leo Dierckman gave a brief summation of the signage. On the building that Morgan Stanley controls, on the south, there would be no signage. An agreement was to be made to control the internal lighting of the buildings. John Molitor suggested that the Chair may want to ask for input from the audience. Also, a commitment could be made that if a tenant seeks to have a sign on the south façade, the sign would not be lighted after 11:00 PM or before 5:00 AM. Members of the public in favor: none. Members of the public opposed or having concerns: Janet Cox, 9540 Broadway, Indianapolis, resident south of Parkwood Crossing on the th south side of 96 Street, said the neighbors oppose a sign on the west façade. If signage were allowed on the west side, it would eventually overflow to every building. Also, Mr. Nicely promised the Plan Commission the lights would be turned off on the interior of the buildings—they are left on all the time and light up the neighborhood. Signage would be intrusive into the neighborhood. Traffic is already an imposition. Signage could face the opposite direction. Janet Cox asked about the original commitments that were made and amended in 1993 or ’94. The Department would look into this. After further discussion regarding the signage and lights, Leo Dierckman moved to Table this item for 30 days, seconded by Pat Rice and APPROVED 4 in favor, one opposed (Michael Mohr.) John Molitor referred to conditions distributed in regard to lifeguarding commitments. A draft is to be inserted in the Zoning Ordinance for future reference. S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 10 Perhaps a topic for future training session might be commitments imposed and what the Board can impose. Another topic might be Signage—temporary, on truck, cars or vans. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 PM. __________________________ Charles Weinkauf, President ____________________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001\\bzajan22 11