Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 02-26-01 CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 26, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana, at 7:00 PM. Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak; Pat Rice; and Charles Weinkauf. A quorum was established. Department of Community Services Staff in attendance: Terry Jones, and John Molitor, Counsel. John Molitor reported on an Executive Session held prior to this evening’s meeting for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. Mr. Molitor will continue to keep the Board apprised. Terry Jones reported the following items as Tabled for this evening: Items 1h through 16h, and items 20h and 22h. H. Public Hearings Pearson Ford (V-220a-00; V-220b-00 17h-18h Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 25.7.02- 7(c) (ii): Maximum Sign Area (increase from 40 square foot maximum to 76.17 square feet) and 25.7.02-7(d): Maximum Height of Ground Sign (increase form 8 foot maximum to 9’4.125”). The site is located at 10650 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler for Pearson Ford. Dave Coots, attorney, 255 East Carmel Drive, Coots Henke & Wheeler, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. John Pearson was also in attendance. The petitioner appeared before the Special Study of the Plan Commission for ADLS review; the Committee had positive comments on the sign package. The petitioner is now requesting approval for a ground monument sign. There are two variances required: the size of the sign in terms of its height, and the additional sign for a ground monument sign. The 30 foot tall pole sign that currently exists on the property is 80 square feet and will be eliminated. The pole sign will then be replaced by a sign 60 square feet within the “blue oval.” When squared-off, the sign will be 75 square feet and exceeds the permitted square feet by 3 ½ feet. The height of the monument sign exceeds the allowable by 4” 1/8”. The monument sign is on a 3 foot masonry base and will give the facility some identification. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 1 The petitioner is requesting permission to allow the additional height of this sign and additional square footage of the sign in consideration for the removal of the pole sign, as previously discussed. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or opposition to these petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. In respect to V-220a-00, increase in maximum sign area, the Department recommends that the area of the ground sign be limited to the maximum permitted per the standards of Sign Chart B, Freeway, of the Sign Ordinance, or 75 square feet, and that the variance be approved only to that extent. With respect to V- 220b-00, increase in height of ground sign, the Department recommends that the variance be denied. Pat Rice asked for further comments from the Department, considering what the petitioner has agreed to remove and the size of the requested sign. Laurence Lillig responded that by Ordinance, the removal of the pole sign is required. Its current position puts it in State right-of-way, and the Ordinance requires that legal, non- conforming signs that have to be re-located lose their legal, non-conforming status. The sign would have to be removed regardless. There is no trade-off. Regarding the area, the Department’s recommendation to limit the sign to 75 square feet is consistent with the Department’s recommendation for virtually all signs in the special use category. The signs are to be governed by the Sign Chart rather than the 40 square feet or 10 square feet dictated by the Ordinance for a special use. As far as the height is concerned, 8 feet is already one foot taller than allowable by the Sign Chart. Discussion ensued as to whether or not the oval was the standard Ford sign supplied to dealerships and is the sign on some type of monument base, and whether or not it could be reduced to make it an 8 foot tall sign. Dave Coots commented that there are a number of sign option packages that are supplied to Ford dealers. The monument does have flexibility in terms of its height. The sign being sought rests on a 3-foot masonry base. The concern in reducing the sign is that with landscaping along 421, the sign becomes less visible for traffic on 421. The landscaping in existence was a part of an overall ADLS approval process when the new dealership building was constructed in 1992-93. Michael Mohr questioned whether or not the pole sign is still in existence and if so, what is the time frame for it to be removed. Dave Coots responded that the sign is still up, however, the petitioner agreed to return with a proposal, and if approval were granted for a ground monument sign, the pole sign would be removed. The pole sign is still a legal, non-conforming sign. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 2 John Pearson of Pearson Ford stated his understanding that upon approval of the monument sign, the sign will start being manufactured and available in approximately 2 months, plus two weeks. Pearson Ford V-220a-00 Pat Rice moved for the approval of , to increase maximum sign APPROVED area to 76.17 square feet, seconded by Michael Mohr. The motion was 3 – 2 (Leo Dierckman, Earlene Plavchak). Pearson Ford V-220b-0 Michael Mohr moved for the approval of 0, to increase the height of a ground sign to 9’4.125”, seconded by Earlene Plavchak. The motion was APPROVED 3 – 2 (Leo Dierckman, Earlene Plavchak). Carmel Christian Church (SUA-226-00) 19h. Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to expand the existing facility 5000 square feet. The site is located at 463 East Main Street. The site is zoned R-2/residence. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for Carmel Christian Church. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Jim Johnson was in attendance as a member of the congregation and head of the building committee. Mark Smith, Architect from MAS Associates, was also present. The Special Use Amendment request is to permit the addition of an education wing to the existing church at 463 East Main Street. Mr. Nelson described the existing church that is just east of the new Carmel Library. There is a single point of ingress/egress from Main Street and an interconnection between the church parking lot and the parking lot that serves the former library. The church is oriented to the north (Main Street). The plans for the church addition including the following changes: 1) A 5,000 square foot, rectangular shape addition to the southern edge of the building. 2) Expansion of the parking lot to include an additional 26 spaces beyond the church addition. 3) One additional pole light fixture for the parking area. 4) More landscaping along the east property line between the Church parking lot and the one that serves the old library site. Along the south property line where today exists a mounding between two and three feet in height, the petitioner is proposing a substantial number of Colorado Blue Spruce trees planted 20 feet on-center, to provide continuous screening along the south property line. The revised site plan was displayed on the overhead. The church addition will be constructed of the same building materials as the existing church – Indiana Brownstone veneer siding with a shingled roof. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition. Judy Edwards, 3373 Eden Hollow Place, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the Carmel/Clay Board of Trustees for the Carmel/Clay Public Library. Ms. Edwards s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 3 dislikes choosing a side in this issue and is simply coming to the Board with some points of information. Drainage might be a very real problem between the site and neighbors on the south side. The library attempted to purchase the church property, but was unable to do so. As a public entity, the library could not pay the price the Church was asking. The church does seem landlocked. Another concern is noise factor, since the Church and expansion are so close to the library. Mr. Nelson said the plans for the expansion were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee and there were no unanswered issues of a technical nature. The review process did include drainage, and everything is satisfactory. As far as the neighbors to the south are concerned, (there are only three) the addition is only 90 feet away from their property lines and there are no outstanding issues. Mr. Nelson confirmed the intent to keep the interconnection between the church parking lot and the parking lot of the old library that is to be used by IUPUI for Continuing Education. There is a written agreement for each entity to utilize the alternate lot for overflow parking. Pat Rice questioned the noise factor, mentioning the problem with the air conditioner noise at the new library. Mr. Nelson responded that he was not aware of any noise issue connected with the Church. Ms. Edwards said the library had spent a sizeable amount of money remedying the problem with the air conditioner condenser at the library. Ms. Edwards stated concern with noise from the Church being connected with perhaps a playground as part of the educational wing expansion. Jim Nelson said the new outdoor area being created is mainly for Christian education and Sunday School classes during the time of worship service and other times. The pre-school is still active and the outdoor space will remain. The property on which the new library was built was sold by the church to the high school, and was subsequently sold to the library. Carmel Christian Church SUA-226-00 Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of . APPROVED Following a second by Earlene Plavchak, the motion was 5 – 0. Carmel United Methodist Church (SUA-2-01) 20h. Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to expand the existing facility. The site is located at 621 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned R- 2/residence and B-3/business. Filed by Jeff Bolinger of Fanning/Howey Associates for Carmel United Methodist Church. Tabled. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 4 Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 5 (SU-3-01) 21h. Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish a professional office building on 1.832+- acres. The site is located at 13250 Hazel Dell Parkway. This item is paired with Item 22h. under Public Hearings. (V-4-01) which seeks to establish a 30-square-foot Special Use sign. V-4-01 will not be discussed until the Plan Commission rules on ADLS considerations. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for Hazel Dell Office Development, LLC. Jim Nelson appeared before the Board representing Hazel Dell Office Development, LLC, an affiliate of Cornerstone Companies. The site is located on the northwest quadrant of st 131 Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The petitioner is requesting Special Use to permit a professional office building to be constructed on lot number 5. The aerial photo shows a drive or street proceeding eastward from Hazel Dell Parkway into Plum Creek North called Ivy Hill. The entry into lot number 5 will be a shared entry with lot number 6 to the north and would actually be a westward extension of Ivy Hill from Hazel Dell Parkway. As described in the informational booklets, the plans provide for a professional office building, single story, 15,220 square feet in size of a traditional design. With respect to the lighting, there are only four pole-mounted fixtures, 16 feet in height. With respect to signage, there is only one sign that is a ground sign. The site plan shows the shared entrance between lot 6 to the north, reserved for a day care facility, and the proposed office site on lot 5. The drawing identifies the professional office building oriented toward Hazel Dell Road with the front facing Hazel Dell, with an “L” shaped parking area accommodating 51 parking spaces. The required landscaping has been provided around the perimeter of the site and within the parking area. Under the prior commitments, the petitioner was to provide 15% landscaping within the parking area, and this has been done. One modification to the site plan suggested by the Plan Commission is a sidewalk connection or walkway to the office building from the walkway adjacent to Hazel Dell Parkway. One ground sign will be located perpendicular to Hazel Dell Parkway, immediately in front of the office building. Four elevations were shown, showing traditional design with deep red brick building material, with iron specs. There are white cast stone coins and columns accenting the building, and the shingles will be a gray-brown color. This application also requires approval of the Plan Commission with respect to architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and signage. The Plan Commission has suggested some changes in architectural design to create more interest in the building. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 5 Some considerations may include additional or larger dormers or muttons at the windows. Changes will be presented to the Plan Commission the first Tuesday in March. The Chairman asked interested members of the public to speak in favor of, or in opposition to the petition. None appeared, and the public hearing was closed. Department Comments, Laurence Lillig. The Department recommends favorable consideration of the petition. Mr. Mohr asked why a special use is required. Mr. Nelson explained that all uses in a B-3 zoning classification are considered special uses and must come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval. Earlene Plavchak asked about prospective tenants for the building. Mr. Nelson responded that based on interest, this is likely to be an all-medical office building. Docket No. SU-3-01, Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 5 Earlene Plavchak moved for approval of . APPROVED Following a second by Pat Rice, the motion was 5 – 0. Hazel Dell Corner, Lot 5 (V-4-01) 22h. Tabled Currently Pending Resolution of ADLS Petition Note: Items 23h through 25h were heard together and voted on separately. North Haven, Lot 2 & Block D (SU-5-01) 23h. Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish five general office th buildings. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned R-5/residence. Note: This item is related to items 24h and 25h. under Public Hearings. North Haven, Lot 2 (V-6-01) 24h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 2.4 in order to construct a general office building on a lot with zero feet of frontage on a public th street. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned R-5/residence. North Haven, Lot 2 (V-7-01) 25h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 11.5.32 in order to allow two multi-family structures and six garages to encroach up to 25 feet into th the north side yard. The site is located northwest of East 96 Street and Gray Road. The site is zoned R-5/residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for the J.C. Hart Co. and C.P. Morgan Co. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 6 Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel represented the petitioner. The th real estate is a 43-acre parcel bordered by 96 Street on the south, and by Gray Road on the east. Surrounding uses include mining operations to the north, Bottamiller th Enterprises to the south, along with Palmer Dodge, H.H. Gregg, 96 Street Auto Park (under development), and the Williamson Run community. This real estate was zoned S- 1/Residence and changed to R-5/Residence to permit construction of a mixed-use multi- family to the north, and an office campus to the south. After review of the plans by the Plan Commission and Special Study Committee, the petitioner received a unanimous, favorable recommendation. The City Council also granted unanimous approval for the rezone. Requests for final Development Plan approval and Primary Plat approval are now pending before the Plan Commission. With the exception of the primary plat reviewed by the Plan th Commission on February 20 and referred to committee, all the plans and elevations included in members’ informational packets are identical to those approved by the Plan Commission. Regarding the Special Use, a color rendering of the site plan was shown describing the real estate as divided into a northern portion and a southern portion. The petitioner is seeking special use approval to construct an office park on the southern portion of the property because this use within an R-5 zoning district constitutes a special use. This will include Lot 2, blocks C & D. C.P. Morgan’s corporate headquarters will be located on Lot 2. Block D will later be subdivided into separate lots, at which time final development plan approval and secondary plats will be submitted for approval at the Plan Commission level. A variance request for Lot 1 is sought to reduce the 75-foot setback requirement between an R-5 and an S-1 classification. The development plan provides for a 50-foot sideyard. The property affected is zoned S-1, but is being used for mining operations. The multi- family use is essentially buffering itself. Most of the encroachments are for garages for the apartment buildings. The zoning ordinance also requires that all lots have frontage on a public right-of-way. The streets within this community will be private; therefore, lot 2 will not have frontage on a public road. Consequently, the variance is being requested for lot 2. This private street is an entryway for the apartments and for the office park. Because Block D has not yet been subdivided, the department has recommended returning to this body for necessary variances on that portion at a later time. The Commercial Association for the lots in this commercial development will provide for mandatory assessments for the proper maintenance of the private entryway. The petitioner has met with Dan Borba, president of the Williamson Run Homeowners Association, on many occasions. Mr. Borba asked that Mr. Frankenberger share his letter indicating the continued support of Williamson Run community. C.P. Morgan intends to s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 7 move their corporate headquarters to the proposed office area, on lot 2. John Hart’s company intends to own, and manage the apartments. st Gary Weaver, Architect with offices at 91 and Meridian Streets, reviewed the buildings and the site plan. The site is very transitional, with a variety of different uses surrounding the site. The first concern was how they would relate to the single-family neighborhood. The petitioner has worked with the Williamson Run Community and worked out a landscaping plan and arranged for good transition to the west. Secondly, they worked out a transition with the commercial neighbors to the south. The commercial and residential buildings will be anchored by a central green area/parkway, and consistent landscaping plan across the front of the project on Gray Road. Along the north property line, parking lots for the apartments and garages will provide screening from the mining operations. Parking areas have been broken down into small segments and positioned inward on the site. Along Gray Road, a landscaping plan has been developed that will screen the parking from Gray Road. The parking spaces are two deep so that there is not a large parking lot along Gray Road. The entry to the project is anchored by a central green and community building, used both by the office complex for recreation during the day and by the apartment community for recreation during their everyday activities. There will also be a sales center located in the community building for use by the apartments. Within the community building will be a half-court basketball court, large exercise area, and large community room and community space for additional office areas for meeting rooms, etc. A rendering of the apartment buildings was shown. The apartment buildings will be similar in scale to the commercial buildings, with the type of windows and materials blending together. A rendering of the office building was also shown. The architectural standards displayed in this development will be adhered to by future buildings in the project. Consistent landscaping and signage will prevail throughout the project, so that it ties together, even though it is mixed-use. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or in opposition to the petitions. None appeared, and the public hearing was closed. The Department recommends favorable consideration of all three petitions. Ms. Rice questioned only one entry to the project. Laurence Lillig said the development plan presented to the Plan Commission at the time of the rezone incorporates emergency access for the fire department near the north end of the property off of Gray Road. Mr. Dierckman questioned the rendering of the apartment building and was concerned with the depth of the buffer along Gray Road. Mr. Weaver explained that the consistent row of street trees and hedgerow are to conceal the parking areas. The buffer is approximately 10 feet wide, and there is 75 feet of right-of-way. Leo Dierckman asked if there were only four office buildings established along Gray Road, would there be a wider landscape buffer. Mr. Frankenberger responded the s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 8 Ordinance requires a ten-foot buffer; perhaps they could go to a 15-foot buffer on the office portion. On the apartment portion, the petitioner would prefer remaining at 10 feet. Laurence Lillig said that in parallel with this petition, the Plan Commission is currently considering a Development Plan petition and a Primary Plat petition for this property. The R-5 district has no specific requirements on landscaping, so we rely on the Plan Commission buffer yard guidelines. Ten feet is suitable between residential districts. Mr. Dierckman explained his concern is not with the buffer between districts, but rather the proximity to Gray Road. Greg Snelling with CSO Architects said the apartments are approximately 67 feet from the proposed right of way, and the parking lot is 10 feet from the proposed right-of-way line. From the eastern edge of the parking area to the center line of the road is roughly 80.5 feet. This is based on future improvements to Gray Road included in the Thoroughfare Plan. Even after such improvements there would be a buffer of ten feet from the parking lots Laurence Lillig further explained that between the edge of the path and the right-of-way line, there is an additional one and one-half feet; on the lot itself will be 10 feet of buffer. There will be 11 feet between the path and the parking lot, and approximately 59 feet from the path to the center line of Gray Road. At present, the distance from the eastern edge of the path to the western edge of Gray Road would be 36-37 feet. , the petitioner agreed toan additional five (5) feet of buffer Leo Dierckman askedand along the office portion of the development. SU-5-01, North Haven, Lot 2 & Block D, Pat Rice moved for the approval of conditioned upon the additional 5 feet of landscape buffer , seconded by Leo APPROVED Dierckman. The motion was 5 – 0. Regarding item 24h, V-6-01, Mr. Frankenberger explained that lot 2 will have frontage on a private road, but no frontage on the public right-of-way that is Gray Road; hence the request for a variance. When Block D is further developed and those lots are separately platted, some of them may not have frontage on a public right-of-way (Gray Road) as well. Further, to the Department’s request, the petitioner is not asking for a blanket variance at this time for Block D, but has agreed to return at a later date to request required variances. V-6-01, North Haven, Lot 2 Michael Mohr moved for the approval of , seconded by Leo APPROVED Dierckman. The motion was by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Regarding item 25h, Mr. Frankenberger explained that the garages would encroach about 25 feet into the 75-foot setback required between an S-1 classification to the north and an R-5 residential classification. The two multi-family buildings would encroach 6 feet into a 3-foot requirement. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 9 Mr. Frankenberger further explained that the real estate to the north is zoned S-1 and used for “accessory” mining operation uses such as storage of mining materials. There is blasting and mining beneath the lake as well. Ms. Plavchek asked for clarification of the mining/blasting operations under the lake and if this activity would continue where people are going to be living in the apartments and working in the offices. Mr. Frankenberger responded that he was unsure of the extent to which the mining operations would continue. His understanding is that there is limited limestone mining beneath the lake to the north. There is approximately 50 feet of the limestone bed beneath the lake and that further beneath that, there is continued mining. Leo Dierckman requested an additional five feet of buffer for the pedestrian path. Mr. Frankenberger said the petitioner would calculate a way to make it work for the full span, south to north. Charles Weinkauf then asked about the proximity of the eastern-most edge of the buildings to the western-most portion of the existing and proposed right-of-way to Gray Road. Mr. Weinkauf was concerned that these buildings would be right “on top” of Gray Road traffic. According to Mr. Frankenberger, the western edge of existing pavement to the (eastern) facia of the closest building is approximately 125 feet. It is uncertain at this point how they will work out the additional 5 feet, but it will be done. Ms. Rice asked about the possibility of bringing the apartment buildings into alignment with the office buildings. Mr. Weaver explained that there is a difference in design—the apartment buildings have a double row of parking between the right-of-way and the face of the building. There would be two rows of parking in front of the office buildings. In the apartment buildings, there is a single row of parking, a drive lane, and then an apron entering into the garages. Pat Rice commented that even though the design is different, the apartment buildings could align within a few feet of the office buildings. Mr. Frankenberger said the exact location of the buildings in Block D has not yet been determined. Requests for review of final development plans for that block will return to the Plan Commission at a later time. The ordinance requirement is 75 feet, which has been met and exceeded. This variance is really a buffer for the apartments from the adjoining property to the north. Mr. Dierckman again asked about the 15-foot landscape buffer along Gray Road; Mr. Frankenberger stated they have made that commitment. V-7-01, North Haven, Lot 1 Pat Rice moved for the approval of . Following a second by APPROVED Earlene Plavchak, this item was by a vote of 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Mohr). After a short recess, the Board resumed with the business at hand. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 10 Northview Christian Life Church (V-8-01; V-9-01; V-10-01) 26-28h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.02-5(b) of the Sign Ordinance in order to establish two additional institutional identification signs. The petitioner also seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section 25.7.02-5(d) of the Sign Ordinance to allow these signs to stand six feet tall rather than the five permitted. Filed by Mark C. Thomas for Northview Christian Life Church. Scott Senefeld of Senefeld & Associates Architects, with offices at 935 Logan Street, Noblesville, Indiana appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Mark Thomas, business manager for Northview Christian Life Church, was also in attendance. The requested variances are for two signs with permanent text, one to be located at the st property corner, adjacent to the intersection of 131 and Hazel Dell Road. The second sign would be located at the new drive entry off Hazel Dell Road, giving a total of three st ground signs, the existing sign is located at the entrance off 131 Street, the original entry. Northview would also like to request an additional one-foot of height for each sign in order to increase visibility. The church site is large, and the building sits a significant distance from the road. The two property entrances are separated by a major intersection and are on different streets. For these reasons, the Church is requesting additional signage to aid in the direction of visitors to the site. Due to the large setback distance of the sign, and the rate of traffic along Hazel Dell Parkway, Northview is requesting one foot of additional height in order to make the signs visible. Elevations of the proposed signs were shown. Mr. Senefeld offered apologies to the Board for not submitting informational packets in a timely manner. st Sign one at the intersection of 131 Street and Hazel Dell Road sits approximately 75 feet from the curb. Sign two at the entry off Hazel Dell Road is 25 feet from the right of way. st The existing sign is located at the entrance off 131 Street, the original entry. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petitions. No one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Kelli Hahn reported the Department is recommending favorable consideration of these petitions. Earlene Plavchek asked if the increased height is requested for the existing sign as well as the two new signs. Mr. Senefeld was not sure if a variance was needed for the original sign, but the current request is for the two new signs only. Mr. Mohr expressed a real concern about the request and need for the large sign, particularly at the roundabout location. Mr. Senefeld responded that the Church desires it for increased visibility from all directions. With the slope of the land and distance from the curb, the petitioner feels it should enhance the property rather than be an obstruction. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 11 Ms. Rice was concerned about not having information packets to review prior to the meeting, and the lack of ability to depict exactly where the signs are to be located. If there were a re-design of the roundabout, Ms. Rice did not want to approve something that would later be a problem. Mr. Senefeld explained the new entry off Hazel Dell Road has been approved. He assumes the distance from the roundabout to the sign is at least 100 yards. Chuck Weinkauf said he understands the signage off Hazel Dell Parkway, but he is concerned about allowing any signage on the roundabout because there are enough potential problems inherent in safety concerns. Granting the additional sign on Hazel Dell seems to gain no practical purpose. Mr. Senefeld said it was the intent of sign one at the intersection to maintain a 45 foot visual triangle at the intersection; we surpassed that with the 75-foot. The concern was to make the sign a visual obstacle to reach the people who are not familiar with the Church site. Within a 45 foot visual triangle there could have been a problem; hence the proposal of 75 feet. Kelli Hahn explained the variances being requested. The petitioner is allowed one ground identification sign; the variance is a request for two additional signs. If the board wants to approve only one additional sign, there are procedures to accomplish this. The Chairman asked the petitioner if they would consider amending the petition for fewer than two signs. Mr. Senefeld asked to amend the petition. Mr. Senefeld explained that the Church would like the opportunity to erect two signs, but would prefer at least the sign at Hazel Dell be approved rather than no additional signs. Mr. Weinkauf quizzed the board members on what they would and would not be willing to support. Mr. Mohr was concerned regarding a sign on the roundabout; Ms. Rice would at least want the sign moved back farther. Ms. Plavchek and Mr. Dierckman concurred with Mr. Mohr’s and Ms. Rice’s comments. Mr. Senefeld formally requested an amendment of V-8-01 to establish one additional identification sign, to be located at the entrance to the church on Hazel Dell Parkway. Northview Christian Life, V-8-01, as Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of amendedone additional identification sign on Hazel Dell Parkway, , to provide for APPROVED seconded by Michael Mohr. The motion was 5 – 0. withdrawal of V-9-01 At this time, the petitioner formally requested , which is now unnecessary with the elimination of one sign. V-10-01 Northview Following a motion by Leo Dierckman and a second by Pat Rice, Christian Life Church, to permit a height of six feet for the newly approved sign located off Hazel DellAPPROVED , was by a vote of 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Plavchek). s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 12 Brookshire, Section 1, Lot 42 (UV-11-01) 29h. Petitioner seeks a Use Variance of Section 7.1 in order to establish a business in a residence. The site is located at 12316 Brookshire Parkway. The site is zoned R- 1/residence. Filed by Winston H. Long Due to proximity of their residences to this site, i.e. the Brookshire Subdivision, both Leo Dierckman and Chuck Weinkauf recused themselves from this public hearing. Pat Rice, vice president, conducted this portion of the meeting. Winston Long, 12316 Brookshire Parkway, explained he did not realize information packets were expected, and apologized. Mr. Long is seeking to operate a business within his home. Mr. Long has resided at Brookshire Parkway for approximately 26 years and shares the concern to maintain a residential stance. His business is somewhat different, as he edits material and uses primarily computers and TV cameras. The business is strictly editing and finishing. There is no retail traffic. He is in full compliance with the Home Occupation. The only part of the definition he deviates from is employing people outside the family. He does employ two persons, who aren’t necessarily at his home, since they work with clients outside the premise at least 40% of the time. There would be no exterior changes to the home, and no need for signage. Neighbors would be unaware of any business being conducted in his home. Mr. Long has been in business over 15 years and seeks the variance for him and his family only. The variance would not follow the site if his home were sold. 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 Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending negative consideration of this petition. Michael Mohr asked Mr. Long about the history of the business and how long he had been operating out of his home. Mr. Long said he started his business in his home about 16 years ago and when video production became a large part of the operation, he moved it out of the home. Mr. Long is appearing before the board as a person interested in the City and wants to abide by the Ordinances. Mr. Long does not currently operate his business from his home, and does not wish to do so without permission from the City. Earlene Plavchak asked about frequency on site of the two outside employees and how long additional cars would be parked at the residence. Mr. Long said it would vary; they could be there from 8 to 5, or not on site at all during the course of a day. Over the last year, 30-40% of the time these employees were outside the operation. One week they might be there all day, other weeks they might be at the residence very little. Currently, Mr. Long has his business on Old Meridian and his lease is up; he is seeking other options. The dynamics of the business have changed, in that so many things that needed to be s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 13 provided on site are now done via e-mail. Mr. Long uses an Explorer to transport equipment, and an older van that is seldom used except for small errands. Mr. Long is currently re-wiring the garage to be used as an editing facility; the vehicles would be parked in the concrete driveway. UV-11-01, Brookshire Section 1, Lot 42 Michael Mohr moved for the approval of , seconded by Earlene Plavchak. Findings of Fact were prepared—the motion was DENIED 0 for approval, 3 opposed (Mohr, Plavchak, Rice). For informational purposes, Ms. Rice asked if conversion of the garage would be in violation of ordinances. Mr. Lillig felt as long as necessary permitting was approved, changes would be in compliance; however, changing the use applies to the entire property. At this point, Mr. Weinkauf and Mr. Dierckman returned to the meeting. West Carmel Center, Block A – Ritter’s Frozen Custard (SU-12-01) 30h. Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish a fast food restaurant. The site is located at 10575 North Michigan Road. The site is zoned B-3/business within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. Sam Barrick, 13816 Driftwood Drive, Carmel, represented himself as a Ritter’s franchisee. th The proposed site is located at 106 Street and Michigan Road, within the 421 Overlay Zone. On February 20, the Plan Commission gave a favorable approval for the ADLS request on this site. The petitioner would like to begin construction as soon as possible for an opening in May. 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. Favorable consideration is recommended. SU-12-01, Ritters Frozen Custard Pat Rice moved for the approval of . Following a APPROVED second by Leo Dierckman, the motion was 5 in favor, 0 opposed. West Carmel Center, Block A – Ritter’s Frozen Custard (V-13-01; V- 31h-36h. 14-01; V-15-01; V-16-01; V-17-01; V-19-01) Petitioner seeks the following Developmental Standards Variances for Ritter’s Frozen Custard; V-13-01 ZO 23C.10.2(2) to forego foundation planting on the west side of the building V-14-01 ZO 25.7.02-7(b) to establish 3 Special Use signs V-15-01 ZO 25.7.02-7(c) to establish a 28-sq. ft. Special Use sign on the west façade V-16-01 ZO 25.7.02-7(c) to establish a 22-sq. ft. Special Use sign on the east façade s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 14 V-17-01 ZO 25.7.02-7(c) to establish a 22-sq. ft. Special Use sign on the south facade V-19-01 ZO 23C.8.4 to construct a 1315-sq. ft. building (2500- req.) Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners. The above will be heard simultaneously. Mr. Sam Barrick summarized the wish to establish a facility that can serve patrons on three sides, thus a request to relocate the required plantings. Since only one sign is allowed, they are asking for two additional signs, one at Michigan Road, and one at a service road behind the facility. The main sign is internally illuminated, neon, individual block letters, 4 ft. tall by 7 ft. wide. V-16 would be the sign on the east side of the building, 42” tall by 66 inches wide, constructed of redwood, and only lit when the building is lit. The additional sign would also be redwood, and would come off Michigan Road entering the project. The final request is for the building size, smaller than the requirement because there is no indoor seating. The Plan Commission asked them to maximize safety from the standpoints of parking and outside seating. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of, or in opposition to the requests. No one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Laurence Lillig stated the Department recommends favorable consideration of the petitions. V-13-01,to forego the foundation planting on the Pat Rice moved for the approval of west side of Ritter’s buildingAPPROVED , seconded by Michael Mohr. 5 – 0. V-14-01, to establish three, special use signs Michael Mohr moved for the approval of for Ritter’s, APPROVED seconded by Leo Dierckman. 5 – 0. The façade of this building differs from the typical white Ritter’s building with blue roof. This one is red brick with a brown roof, unique to the Ritter’s brand. Ms. Rice complimented the petitioner on working with the Plan Commission’s request for a different exterior. V-15-01, to establish a 28 square foot Leo Dierckman made a motion to approve specialuse sign on the west façade of the Ritter’s building , seconded by Earlene APPROVED Plavchak. by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Informational comment: Mr. Lillig said special use requirements would allow a 10 square foot sign. Ms. Plavchak thought this was a reasonable request. V-16-01, to establish a 22 square foot special Leo Dierckman moved for approval of use sign on the east façade of the Ritter’s building, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 5 in favor, 0 opposed. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 15 V-17-01, to establish a 22 square foot special use Michael Mohr moved for approval of sign on the south façade of the Ritter’s building , seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed. V-19-01, to construct a 1,315 square foot building Pat Rice moved for the approval of ascompared to the required 2,500 square foot building , seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 5 in favor, 0 opposed. Mayflower Park, Block 1, Lot 5 (V-18-01) 37h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 2.4 in order to plat a lot without adequate frontage on a publicly dedicated street. The site is th located northwest of West 96 Street and Mayflower Park Drive. Filed by James W. Browning of Browning Investments for Mayflower Park Associates. Jamie Browning of Browning Investments, 251 North Illinois, Indianapolis, represented the petitioner. He is seeking approval for frontage on a publicly dedicated road of less than 50 feet. Primary and secondary plat approval for Mayflower Park was secured about thth two years ago. The Park has frontage on US 421, 96 Street, and 106 Street to the north. As the park becomes fully developed, this site of 5.8 acres does not have the required 50 feet frontage. A final secondary plat application was filed with the Plan Commission and approval has been received from the Technical Advisory Committee for lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 1, Mayflower Park. Mr. Browning is seeking a variance on lot 4 to plat without adequate frontage on a dedicated street of less than 50 feet. V-18-01, Mayflower Park Lot 1 Block 5, Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of APPROVED seconded by Michael Mohr. by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed. H.Old Business Parkwood Crossing, Building 1 – Verizon Wireless (V-222-00) 2i. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.02-10(b): Number and Type in order to establish a sign on a façade that does not front a public th 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, 600 East 96 St., represented the petitioner and Dukes-Weeks, limited partnership and property owner. The variance is for the sign on Building One, seeking permission to establish their sign on the west facade of the building. When known as GTE, the sign was on the north side of the building. Since that time Building Seven has been constructed to its north. The only sign permitted by ordinance would be on the th south side facing 96 Street. We desire placement on the Meridian Street side of the building. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 16 One of the issues raised concerned notice. Bose McKinney filed most of the petitions for Parkwood. Somewhere in the history Bose McKinney agreed to notice residents south of thth 96 Street. Persons two-deep south of 96 Street were notified, more than complying with BZA requirements to notice persons one property deep. In the cover letter was a statement stating the Plan Commission would consider an ADLS petition at their th December 19 meeting. George Haerle and Ruth Hayes did receive notification. There were no remonstrators at the Plan Commission meeting, and there was a suspension of the rules. The petition was approved without being sent to committee. nd Three remonstrators appeared on January 8, and again two weeks later on January 22, two persons were in attendance. The only change to the petition occurred after a meeting th with Mr. Lillig on January 18, following which an amended plan was submitted. This change reduced the size of the sign. Mr. Granner explained that in the original rezoning there was a set of recorded commitments and covenants. The commitments were amended in 1998 to clarify how to measure the height of the parking garages in Parkwood. Later in 1998, the commitments were amended again when a hotel was removed from the plans. Square footage was adjusted for the office buildings at that point. Mr. Granner explained the notices signed for by Mrs. Cox on previous meetings and said Mrs. Cox did receive notice of both changes that took place to the original commitments that were approved. Regarding variances, Mr. Granner gave the history of Duke’s attendance at previous variance hearings. At the last meeting a request was made to reduce the light intensity. Commitments were drawn up, which include: a) instructions to the janitorial staff to be sure lights are turned off; b) identifying 11 p.m. as the approximate time cleaning will be complete and lights turned off, (telephone number and name of contact included; and c) Duke commitment not to erect additional upper level wall identification signs over those originally granted on buildings 1, 3, 5, and 6, unless additional sign variances are obtained. th Buildings 2 and 4 need to keep the ability to erect 96 Street signs permitted by ordinance, since they have lease commitments. Both buildings are 100% occupied and have no signs on them currently. The Chairman asked if members’ questions have all been answered. Mr. Dierckman commented that item c) of the commitments addressed the concerns of the neighbors; however, Mr. Dierckman was disappointed that there has been little attendance by Duke. Mr. Granner responded Chris Seger is in Florida on business at this time. John Molitor suggested reopening the public hearing, since the petitioner has supplemented its information substantially. Mr. Weinkauf commented the public hearing actually is still open. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 17 Steve Granner asked to address the Board for clarification. Mr. Granner stated Duke leaves signage issues up to individual tenants, and may not therefore feel it is imperative to attend each hearing. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition, or in opposition to it. The following persons appeared: George Haerle, 502 Braeside Drive, Land Use Chairman of the Nora Northside th Community Council, appeared. He referred to a letter he wrote on January 7 informing th the Board that at their meeting on January 4, it was determined they had no objection to two of the signs at Parkway East. Traditionally, they either support, object, or take a position of no objection. Janet Cox, 9540 Broadway Street, Indianapolis, came with nine of her neighbors in College Commons, in support of a request to obtain a written commitment of Duke- Weeks or any future purchaser of the property, to never install or display neon-lit signs th facing 96 Street in the Parkwood Crossing. She apologized for conduct at the previous meeting, and complimented Terry Jones for his help in researching any commitments on lighted signs 12-14 years ago. Tonight we are at the mercy of the board and realize we should have insisted on such a commitment many years ago, but did not have the wisdom to do so. The lights face their yards, and there is concern home values may be affected. She complimented those in building 5 and said the lights there are great. Building 6 where Duke is the principal tenant, is always lit, even on the weekends, and this building faces her home and illuminates the area. Mrs. Cox’s group will not object to the request sought th this evening, but would like a commitment for no lit signs on 96 Street. Karen Hamilton, 9545 Broadway, is here to support Ms. Cox in the request for a commitment to not erect lighted signs. The Chairman asked for a building layout of the complex. Mr. Weinkauf said he has th driven down 96 Street numerous times recently in the evening and has not seen anything th offensive on those occasions. The remonstrator acknowledged that driving along 96 Street with the mounds gives a very different view than from a 2-story home across the street. Patty Horrigan, 9126 North Delaware, VP of College Commons, and member of the advisory committee of the Nora Northside Community Council, addressed the Board. The residents are concerned that if a variance is granted to Verizon for a lighted sign, it may set a precedent for those buildings on the south façade wanting a similar lighted sign. Mr. Granner clarified that if this variance is granted, there could be no sign permit issued for this business on another façade without another variance. Mr. Lillig reiterated that businesses are allowed one sign in Parkwood, and if a business would choose to establish th their allowable sign on 96 Street, that is their right. If a business requests a variance for their sign to be established on a different façade and that variance is granted, their right to s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 18 a second sign anywhere would require a request for a variance, which may, or may not, be granted. Steve Granner said McMillan Publishing in building 3 has a variance for a sign on the north façade. Without a variance, building 3 could not have a sign on the south façade. Building 2 presently has no signage but would be entitled to a sign on the south façade. Building 4 presently has no signage and would also be entitled to a sign on the south façade. Basically, there is no other building, besides 2 and 4, that could put a sign on the south façade without a variance. The Chairman explained that any agreement would need to be worked out between Duke- Weeks and the College Commons Homeowners Association. The variance under consideration this evening would actually protect the homeowners from signage on two of the four remaining buildings to establish a sign on the south side of the façade. Ms. Rice asked for clarification of the “neon” sign. Mr. Granner said there is a neon tube inside the sign that shines through the black covering that appears white at night. There is no exposed neon, and the internal illumination is neon on the Verizon sign. Mr. Lillig said the Department recommends a favorable recommendation. Point of Clarification, Steve Granner. Currently, there are three buildings without signs on them—one of the three is being protected. Docket V-222-00, Verizon sign, Michael Mohr moved to approve seconded by Earlene APPROVED Plavchak. 5 in favor, 0 opposed. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 AM. __________________________ Charles W. Weinkauf, President _______________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001feb 19