Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes BZA 06-25-01
CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JUNE 25, 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, on June 25, 2001. Members present: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; Earlene Plavchak; Pat Rice; and Charles Weinkauf, thereby constituting a quorum. The Dept of Community Services was represented by Michael Hollibaugh, Director; Jon C. Dobosiewicz; and Laurence Lillig. John Molitor, Counsel, was also in attendance. John Molitor reported on three cases currently in litigation. Laurence Lillig announced that items 1h through 9h, Lakes at Hazel Dell, Use Variance and Variance petitions for model homes and sales offices remain tabled. Michael Hollibaugh introduced the newest member of the Department, Adrian Keeling, Code Enforcement Officer. Building Commissioner Jeff Kendall was also in attendance. Public Hearing: H. Merchants' Square - Carrabba's Italian Grill (V-30-01) 10h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 23A.2: Minimum Front Yard in order to encroach 89 feet into the 120-foot State Road 431/Keystone Avenue front yard (31-foot front yard). The site is located at 1235 Keystone Way. The site is zoned B-8/Business and is located partially within the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. A Developmental Standards Variance is being requested to allow an encroachment of 89 feet into the 120-foot Keystone Avenue front yard. The site is one acre in size, adjacent to Keystone Avenue, at the intersection of Keystone Way and Keystone Way East, and lies between MCL Cafeteria on the south and the FC Tucker building to the north. This parcel lies partially within the Keystone Overlay Zone. Mr. Nelson's position is that if the Ordinance were strictly applied, this building, as approved by the Plan Commission, would be prohibited--it simply could not fit on the site. Secondly, the site would be rendered meaningless as a building site for any type of development. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun The applicant's request is for a Developmental Standards Variance to permit the orientation of Carrabba's Italian Grill to be within 31 feet of the right-of-way of Keystone Avenue. The practical difficulty is most obvious. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. In response to questions, Jim Nelson's best estimates are that the Pier One building is setback 88 feet from Keystone and the Tucker Building is 102 feet. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. Although the Department does not share Mr. Nelson's interpretation of the Ordinance in regard to the 120 foot setback, the Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition. A site plan that placed the building on the southwest corner of the parcel could have minimized the impact; however, this was never suggested to the petitioner by the Plan Commission. Merchant's Square - Carrabba's Italian Grill Michael Mohr moved for the approval of (V-30-01), APPROVED seconded by Leo Dierckman. 5-0. Fidelity Keystone Office Park - National Bank of Indianapolis 11-12h. (V-49-01; V-50-01) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section 25.7.02-10(b): Number & Type in order to establish a second wall sign on the south façade. The site is located at 650 East Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Steve McVicker of Sign Craft for National Bank of Indianapolis. Dave Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also in attendance were Steve McVicker of Sign Craft and Michael Maurer, Chairman of the Board of National Bank of Indianapolis. A second wall sign on the south façade of the Fidelity building at the corner of Keystone Way and East Carmel Drive, one-half block west of Keystone Avenue. According to Mr. Coots, the second sign on the south elevation was installed through an error that occurred when the presentation of the sign and its location was made to the Department. At first, there was a discussion regarding the size of the sign exceeding the ordinance and whether or not the sign company would re-design it to comply with the ordinance. The sign was re-drawn to 75 square feet. and installed along with a sign on the east side of the building that is identical, although on the lower level immediately above the entry way on the southeast corner of the building. The sign was installed after the December 2000 presentation to the Department. Mr. Coots stated the sign company and the applicant, the bank, were not aware of the restriction on multiple signs per elevation on a multiple frontage building. As a part of the sign approval process, there is construction occurring on Carmel Drive and as the drawings depicts, the entry way into Keystone Way will be a permitted left turn onto Keystone Way, but traffic exiting Keystone Way will be right turn only. There is a new road constructed to the west side of this building that will go into Fidelity Plaza, the large building to the north. The Fidelity Keystone s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 2 Office Park has been approved and signage presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals in May, 2001. This is a fairly large building, a new tenant to the banking community in Carmel that sought to identify the location of its business from the south elevation and from the east elevation by the installation of a sign on each front. The petitioner is asking the Board to permit the installation of a second wall sign on the south elevation and that they be permitted to retain the east sign on the east elevation just around the corner from the Campbell Kyle & Proffitt sign. Traffic approaching from West Carmel Drive will not be able to see any signage on the east of the building, and patrons must either turn into the drive on the west side of the building or Keystone Way between McDonald's and this building. It is of importance to the Bank to have its identification and location shown on the south elevation as well as the east elevation. Michael Maurer, 1300 West 106 Street, attorney, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Maurer said he started the National Bank of Indianapolis approximately 7 years ago. Most of the major banks in Indianapolis have gone through merger or acquisition and there was no locally owned, national bank; thus the National Bank of Indianapolis was started. When Bank One abandoned this particular site after merger with First Chicago, the opportunity presented itself for this location. The National Bank of Indianapolis has been the fastest th growing, start-up bank in America and now ranks 16 in the State of Indiana in only 7 years. However, the Bank did not grow at all until a sign went up. Without the additional sign, the bank is not expected to grow. Mr. Coots believes the granting of the variances is not injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Other buildings in the Keystone Square area have many tenants with multiple signage. One building similar in appearance is the FC Tucker building that has three signs facing Keystone Avenue. There are many tenants in leased facilities of Keystone Square (Merchants Plaza) that do have multiple frontage signs, some permitted by variance, some through operation of the Ordinance. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be adversely affected; and strict application of the Sign Ordinance presents a practical difficulty to the petitioner. Approval is being requested to permit a second sign on the south elevation in addition to the sign on the east elevation. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to both petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. As mentioned earlier by Mr. Coots, the sign was established by the petitioner under the mistaken idea that the sign permit had been issued at the same time as the permit for the sign located on the east façade. At the time the sign permit for the east façade was granted, the sign permit for the south façade was denied by the Department because it represented a third identification sign on this building. The Department recommends negative consideration of V-49-01and V-50-01. However, if V-49 is denied, the Department would support a variance to allow a second wall sign on the south--this would necessitate the removal of the sign on the east façade. Pat Rice asked for clarification of the second identification sign on the south façade. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 3 Laurence Lillig commented that in the case of a multi-story, multi-tenant building, it does not matter how many tenants are in the building--only two identification signs are allowed. The petitioner is requesting permission for a second wall sign on the south elevation, and permission to keep the sign on the east elevation. Steve McVicker, 1292 Woodpond Roundabout, Carmel, of Sign Craft, said he applied for and received the permit for the east elevation. When the application was filed for the south elevation, the size was too large and the drawing was adjusted downward. Mr. McVicker did not pick up the permit for the previous sign. It was made known that Dawn Pattyn of the Department had clearly marked on the permit in the drawer "Do Not Issue--exceeds number allowed per building." Mr. Weinkauf referred to the pertinent section of the Sign Ordinance for multi-tenant, multi-level buildings . In the past, the Board has taken the Sign Ordinance to heart and tried to follow the Ordinance. There should be a compromise here. The Department is at least recommending that the Board consider allowing two signs on the south façade. We need to determine which sign is more important to the petitioner. Leo Dierckman suggested that the sign company take responsibility for having installed the sign without the permit. Mr. Dierckman asked whether or not the landlord was involved in the signage on the property. Mr. Maurer said Greg Small is the landlord; two signs were granted by the lease. Earlene Plavchak thought the wall sign on the south façade was far more valuable in terms of attracting clients and identification. Laurence Lillig clarified that the building itself is allowed two signs; the Ordinance allows a choice whether they are roof signs, wall signs, or ground signs--not two of each--one per frontage. Leo Dierckman's only issue with the building is the "no entry" sign--thought to be "tacky." Dave Coots responded the petitioner would be pleased to address the "no entry" sign located on the overhang and either replace with similar appearance, but not as gaudy. John Molitor said generally speaking, the approval would go with the building, not with the particular user or owner. Dave Coots said the sign is personal to the applicant, the Bank, and the Bank is willing to make that commitment. In the event the lease expires, the sign would be removed and the variance would have no lasting effect. Docket No. V-49-01, National Bank of Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Indianapolis, to increase the number of allowable signs from two to three, conditioned upon signage being granted to the petitioner only and not to the building, seconded by Pat Rice. APPROVED 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Charles Weinkauf.) s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 4 V-50-01, National Bank of Indianapolis Michael Mohr moved for the approval of , seconded by APPROVED Leo Dierckman. 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Charles Weinkauf.) Moehl Residence (V-55-01) 13h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 2.4: Lots in order to build on a parcel with 23.89 feet of frontage on a public street. The site is located at 1866 Valley Drive. The site is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by Timothy F. Moehl. th Tim and Heather Moehl, 701 East 104 Street, Clay Township, appeared before the Board requesting a Developmental Standards Variance to build on a parcel with 23.89 feet of frontage th on a public street. The site is located at 1866 Valley Drive, the first street north of 106 Street off Westfield Boulevard. Currently, the lot is 125 feet, north/south, and 325 feet, east/west. The property is in the northwest corner of the cul-de-sac on Valley Drive. At present, there is 23.89 feet of right-of-way attached to the lot. The variance being requested is from the required 50 feet. The 23.89 feet of right-of-way provides adequate space for a 16 foot wide driveway and also adequate to provide utility locations. The house will be a private residence for the Moehls and will complement the neighborhood. A site plan was displayed on the overhead. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition; no one appeared. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: th Taggart Birge, Bose McKinney & Evans, 600 East 96 Street, appeared before the Board representing the subdivision of Bailey's Hamilton Highland. Also in attendance was Joann Phillips, neighborhood representative, and a number of residents in the subdivision. Mr. Birge stated that Bailey's Hamilton Highland is a planned subdivision platted in 1950 and consists of 21 lots. Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rather large lots because the subdivision was originally planned with a north/south road running along the eastern edge of the subdivision. Mr. Birge pointed out where the road was originally to be located. When the road failed, the developer conveyed to lots 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Since that time, from 1950 to 1996, the same owner has owned both the lot on Highland Drive and the lot that backs up to the east of that. It has been one and the same lot, with one residential dwelling. During those approximate 45 years, the residents of Bailey's Hamilton Highland have come to expect the open green area behind their homes. Also in attendance were residents of Lincoln Highway Estates who also built, developed, and planned and were told that the lots behind hem would never be developed because of inadequate frontage. The Moehls have requested a variance from Section 2.4 of the Zoning Regulations that requires adequate frontage on a publicly dedicated street. The questions is: "What is adequate frontage?" The subdivision and the land to the east of the subdivision was platted and divided prior to 1959 when the Subdivision Regulations came into effect. The Subdivision Regulations require 50 feet of street frontage. Mr. Moehl has 23.89 feet of street frontage. Both the s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 5 Carmel/Clay Plan Commission and the City Council have spoken and said that 50 feet is adequate. Any deviation from that is purely subjective. In addition to Section 6.5.1 of the Subdivision Regulations that require the 50 feet of frontage, Section 7.12 of the Subdivision requirements state that the maximum deviation for dimensional requirements, including a street frontage requirement, is 35% that computes to 32.5 feet, significantly less than the 50 foot requirement that subdivision regulations set forth. In addition to the regulations already cited by Mr. Birge, the petitioner must prove three findings of fact in order for the variance to be granted. Mr. Birge did not believe there was conclusive evidence that the use or value of the adjacent property, including the variance, would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The land is not subject to any covenants; there are no commitments in terms of what Mr. Moehl intends to build, and Mr. Moehl has not met with the neighbors. Clearly, the neighborhood of Bailey's Hamilton Heights has grown up, lived, and spent time in this neighborhood with the expectation that there would not be any development of those back lots. The only way development can happen is if it is determined that there is adequate street frontage. Mr. Birge submitted a petition to the Board signed by 26 homeowners of Bailey's Hamilton Highlands who are opposed to this variance request. Peter Johnson, former property owner, said there is a beautiful swimming pool that backs up to the eastern part. The person Mr. Johnson purchased the house from stated in no uncertain terms that nothing could be built there. Mr. Johnson was in residence for 3 years and was transferred to Texas. Mr. Johnson sold the house to Ms. Courtway with the understanding that nothing could be built there. To allow a house to be built there would significantly affect the privacy of the Johnson/Courtway home, and it is unfortunate that the home does not show on the plat. Jamie Courtway, purchaser of the Johnson home in the past few months, stated her understanding that the adjoining lot owner was aware that there was an access problem and had pursued obtaining access by way of purchasing the bordering land on Highland Drive. The adjoining lot owner was not able to obtain access, and then sold the property to the Moehls. th Carol Hyatt, 1510 East 106 Street, lot 17, backs up to the cul-de-sac and to Mr. Moehl's lot. Ms. Hyatt said she and her husband were approached by a Mr. Matters wanting to buy additional footage. At the time the Hyatts purchased their ground, 20 years ago, they were told that those lots would not be split and would be safe from anyone being able to build on it. Mr. Matters said he could not sell the property unless the Hyatt's sold footage to him; however, the Hyatts refused. Last fall, there was work being done on the lot behind her property and she was again approached to sell her lot. Ms. Hyatt met Mr. Moehl at that time and wanted to confirm that his drive would not encroach on her property. Ms. Hyatt said she was told for years that the lot could not be sold unless they sold some of their property for access. Joann Phillips, adjoining property owner, lot 15, stated that she had purchased her land because she was assured the land would not be built on. They use the property for family outings because of the beauty and nature and trees on the lot. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 6 Rebuttal: Tim Moehl said he did not realize there was a lot of opposition to his proposal. The pool on Mr. Johnson's old house is in a wooded area of the lot and cannot be seen from where the Moehls are planning to build their home. The Moehls were not aware of covenants and submitted building plans with their application, however the neighborhood has not had an opportunity to see them. A gravel drive has been installed for access to the lot with the approval of the County Highway. A driveway permit was filed for and obtained. Parts of the lot were cleared in order to determine more closely where the house would be situated so they would not be able to see the neighbors and to conform with the privacy of all neighbors involved. Comments from the Board: Charles Weinkauf asked Mr. Birge about the initial road that was never constructed. According to Mr. Birge, when the road was not constructed the property was then deeded back to the owners of lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 and that is of record. Mr. Moehl said Greg Matters sold him property from the east side of lot 14. Laurence Lillig explained the boundaries--they are tax parcels, not platted lots--they were not split off from the lots, they were created separately. Naomi Heaton, 10685 Highland Drive, had a different opinion of the boundary line of the subdivision and said it extended to the railroad. Mr. Birge said for 30 plus years the neighborhood has operated on the assumption that Bailey Hamilton Highland covenants applied to those lots behind lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 and they do not apply. These parcels were never subject to the covenants, and the neighbors were unaware of that until tonight. Department Report, Laurence Lillig: As a point of clarification, Section 6.5.1 of the Subdivision Regulations cited by Mr. Birge does not apply to this lot because it is not a platted lot and was created prior to the adoption of Subdivision or zoning regulations. This lot was created in the early to mid 1950's and Carmel Clay did not adopt its first Ordinances until 1959. Regarding modifications, specifically Section 7.12--this section applies only to open space subdivisions, not to subdivisions generally. Regarding the 50 feet of frontage--for purposes of the zoning ordinance, that number is not established by the City Council or the Plan Commission. It is adopted by the Department of Community Services as an administrative matter for unplatted lots in parallel with the requirement in the subdivision regulations for platted lots. The language in the zoning ordinance is vague--adequate access to public streets--in contrast to the subdivision regulations which are very specific on this point. The Department enforces adequate access as 50 feet and that is why Mr. Moehl is applying to the Board of Zoning Appeals. All evidence available to the Department suggests that the property is a legal, pre-existing, non-conformity, and therefore hardship does exist on this piece of ground. The Department recommends favorable consideration of this petition. Pat Rice questioned being able to install a driveway off the end of the road. Laurence Lillig responded the driveway is more off a cul-de-sac rather than a road. Michael Mohr asked if this variance were turned down, could the petitioner build a home on the property? If the answer is "No," what would his options be with the property? Laurence Lillig s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 7 reiterated that the Department has interpreted 50 feet as adequate access. An improvement location permit would not be issued for the property. The alternatives would be to acquire adequate frontage from one of the adjoining lots or dedicate sufficient right-of-way off the lot that they would have 50 feet, although it is unlikely that the Highway Department or the County would be interested in taking additional right-of-way in that configuration. Or, they could appeal the determination that adequate access is 50 feet. John Molitor thought there was another possibility, that the original owner of the subject lot may have sold subject to an easement to the adjoining property the seller owned at that time. The owner of the parcel to the west may have owned the subject parcel at a prior point in time. Pat Rice requested more information as far as prior ownership. Either the former owner didn't reveal what needed to be revealed, the real estate person didn't--and if that is the case, it belongs in court. Ms. Rice felt that no decision could be made without more information. In response to questions from Leo Dierckman, as to whether or not this is a legal parcel, Laurence Lillig said it was legally created at the time. Leo Dierckman asked Mr. Moehl about the site conditions working from the west property line to the east. Is it wooded…? Mr. Moehl responded that the lot is mostly wooded, the home to the west has used approximately one third of the lot as backyard, it is grassy, and there is a swale that runs through it. There is a large open area with scrub growth that Mr. Moehl cleared. Along the east property line running north/south is a section about 20 feet wide of heavy vegetation; there is also woods along the north property line. Mr. Moehl said he does not intend to cut any more trees and he will leave the woods along the north property line and the woods along the swale. The woods along the east property line would also be left undisturbed. The house will be located in the middle of the east half of the property. Leo Dierckman asked for a commitment from Mr. Moehl that he would not create a landscape buffer along the northern edge, approximately 30 to 35 feet wide, and along the eastern edge north of the entry drive. Mr. Moehl said he had planned on putting landscape vegetation along the north and south property lines. Mr. Moehl said Rosies's will be doing the landscaping. Dierckman asked for a commitment from Moehl not to create a buffer along the south property line. Mr. Dierckman requested a landscape plan and specifics as to what remains, what is removed, what is to be installed. Leo also asked to see a site plan with the house situated on it. rd TABLE Mr. Moehl requested a voluntary to the July 23 meeting. Mr. Moehl's request was rd July 23 approved by the Board and this item will be heard at the BZA meeting. After a short recess, the Board continued with the following business: Shell Oil Company (V-56-01; V-57-01; V-58-01; V-59-01; V-60-01; 14-19h. V-61-01) Petitioner seeks the following Developmental Standards Variances: V-56-01 25.7.02-7(b) 4 Special Use signs V-57-01 25.7.02-7(c)(i) 43.17-square-foot ground sign on Carmel Drive V-58-01 25.7.02-7(d)(i) 6'11" ground sign on Carmel Drive V-59-01 25.7.02-7(c)(i) 43.17-square-foot ground sign on Range Line Road V-60-01 25.7.02-7(d)(i) 6'11" ground sign on Range Line Road V-61-01 25.7.02-7(c)(i) 44.375-square-foot wall sign s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 8 The site is located at 1230 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned B-3/business. Filed by Rob Roy of Insight Engineering for Equilon Enterprises. Doug Floyd, attorney, 970 Logan Street, Noblesville, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. David George, project engineer with Insight Engineering, Carmel Drive, Carmel, was Mr. Floyd reported that the following items are withdrawn: V-58-01; also in attendance. V-60-01; and V-61-01. The application is for the southwest corner of the intersection of Rangeline Road and Carmel Drive for the Shell Service Station. This property is in the B-3 Zone and the business is allowed as a Special Use. The previously approved signs are subject to amendment in the event the property owner petitions to change the previously approved special use. The existing signs include a ground sign on Rangeline Road, a second ground sign on Carmel Drive, and on the face of the building is a third sign, a business identification sign that says "ETD." At the entrance to the car wash is a fourth sign that says "entrance." The Company has changed its national image in terms of its signage and wishes to change the face of these signs to be consistent with color and style of signs being used the by the Company all other the country. The Shell pectin has changed color: the background will be white rather than red, and the style will be slightly different, artistically, that what is currently shown. The "ETD" sign is being removed from the building. With the replacement, the signs will be brought as closely as possible into compliance. The "ETD" sign is being removed. The colors have changed from gray to white on the canopy with yellow trim, no signage at all. The elevations were show with the proposed signage. The food mart sign above the door is 3 3/4 square feet and requires a variance. Over the entrance and exit to the Car Wash are signs that are under 3 feet and allowed as directional signs on the site. The proposed new ground signs measure 5 feet 20 inches tall, 32 square feet, mounted on a base that is 18 inches tall. The The Sign Ordinance would allow a sign not greater than 30 square feet; the variance being requested is for the additional 2 square feet. An outside storage building was on the property and was not permitted--it is being removed. There were also mulch materials displayed and stored on site--this has been removed. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to any or all of the petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending 2 identification signs and a maximum of 30 square feet. th Pat Rice asked about the Shell station at 96 and Keystone that has striped canopies and wanted to know if the Carmel Shell station would be the same. Ms. Rice said she is definitely not in favor of the brightly striped canopy. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 9 th Doug Floyd said the canopy on 96 Street Shell has been changed--it has been painted and the supports are white, the underneath side of the canopy is yellow with the red stripe. David George of Insight Engineering at 650 East Carmel Drive said the Carmel location does not allow lights on the canopy. of V-56-01, as amended, to allow three special use Michael Mohr moved for the approval signs,the two ground signs, one food mart sign (), seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 3 in favor 2 opposed (Charles Weinkauf and Pat Rice). V-57-01, as amended, to allow a 32 square foot Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of ground sign on Carmel Drive. APPROVED , seconded by Michael Mohr 4 in favor, 1 opposed. (Pat Rice). of V-59-01, as amended, to allow a 32 square foot Leo Dierckman moved for the approval ground sign on Range Line Road. APPROVED , seconded by Michael Mohr 4 in favor, 1 opposed (Pat Rice.) Lucky Farms Riding Stable (SU-62-01) 20h. Petitioner seeks Special Use approval in order to establish a riding stable on 5.0± acres. The site is located at 9911 Towne Road. The site is zoned S-1/residence. Filed by Adam L. DeHart of Keeler-Webb Associates for Lucky Farms, LLC. Adam DeHart of Keller Webb & Assoc. 486 Gradle Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Gary Alletto of Lucky Farms was also in attendance. The petitioner is requesting approval to establish a riding stable on a 5 acre parcel. The main riding stable lies to the north with Treesdale Subdivision to the Lucky Farms property. Mr. DeHart gave a brief history of the property. Due to the condition of the barn and the small stables., the previous barn could not be used for housing Lucky Farms own private animals. This site has been used as a riding stable in excess of 50 years. The foundation had deteriorated as well as the roof, and it was not economical to repair. The barn is being replaced with a slightly larger facility that will accommodate a mare with foal and/or mare and colt together in stalls. Outdoor storage can be eliminated to the north as well as maintenance vehicles. Another barn at this location is being used for outdoor storage of feed and machinery--this can also be demolished with the installation of the new barn. There is a private room and meeting area that will be available to the owners only. A building permit has been obtained from the Permit Services Department to install a barn, currently under construction on the site. The applicant is requesting re-instatement of the Special Use of a riding stable that would allow a horse to be housed in the barn. The 5 acre parcel will function as a private barn. The facility to the north is not included, and Treesdale Subdivision is used as an indoor riding arena. The north barn also needs to have stalls vacated per a lease agreement with Childrens' Theraplay of Indiana and the Theraplay Foundation, to make space available for their horses. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 10 Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department believes the site is suited to the proposed use; however, the petitioner must decide as to which zoning approval they would prefer to establish on site. In order to pursue the riding stable, the petitioner must again appear before the Plan Commission to amend the primary plat for the Treesdale Subdivision. The primary plat allows for two points of access for this subdivision. Establishing the second zoning approval on the property effectively makes a secondary access not viable--it also makes a cul-de-sac in excess of 600 feet. Adam DeHart said the subdivision is not installed as a developer advantage. The homeowners in the subdivision can make use of the riding stable for charitable work and own horses. There was never a commitment as to when the subdivision would develop. The Petitioner is willing to work with the Department--the lots in Treesdale are being sold very slowly. John Molitor's comments: The Department believes the use is appropriate, however, the trunkated cul-de-sac requires a variance in excess of 600 feet, and needs Plan Commission approval. Before the Special Use would be established, it seems only logical that the plat needs to be amended and this would require Plan Commission action. Mr. Molitor recommends the BZA not vote on this item until such time as the Plan Commission reviews and votes--otherwise it is an unlawful subdivision. Pat Rice asked if this item could be conditionally approved this evening, subject to the Plan Commission approval. John Molitoir responded in the affirmative; if the Board believes the land use issue is straight- forward enough, it would be dependant upon getting the access issue worked out by having the Plan Commission approve the amendment to the plat. Adam DeHart said the primary plat was approved by the Plan Commission for Section I. Section I secondary plat is approved, is under construction, and consists of 10 lots. The balance of the property was primary platted for Section II for two reasons: 1) There was a remonstrance from adjoining property owners concerned about the balance of the property and how it would be treated. 2) The owners of Lucky LLC, developer of the subdivision, wanted to place a restriction on the property and the barn area. In the event charitable work could not be provided from that facility and used to house their own horses, it would be restricted in development in accordance with the primary plat. As of now, there are only two lots that have been sold and being developed--lots 9 and 10. Treesdale is a very upscale subdivision with lots that are on the high end as far as purchase price. Section I is expected to develop very slowly. The current use and number of horses are being accommodated on the property. Prior to the approval of Treesdale, the number of horses was 38; currently there are 32 horses. Through attrition, it is expected that they will be operating with 25 horses. The only reason the petition is before the Board is because an inadequate barn to house the horses was demolished and the intention is to replace it. The intention of the balance of the property, referred to as Section II of the Subdivision, already primary platted, was to continue to use it as a riding stable. The area was primary platted for the petitioner's benefit and the s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 11 neighbors; benefit, as far as how the site would be developed if the use changed from the current riding stable to a subdivision that would comply with the zoning. Laurence Lillig reported that the continued use of the property was not something that was mentioned at the platting stage. The Department has no problem with this property as a riding stable, and it has been used for this purpose for 50 years or more. The problem, as pointed out by Mr. Molitor, is that the primary plat allows for two points of access for this subdivision, required by the Subdivision Regulations. The establishment of a second zoning approval on this property effectively makes a secondary access point un-establishable (impossible.) There would be a cul-de-sac that exceeds 600 feet, the length allowed by the Subdivision Regulations. The expectation when a primary plat is established is that it will be platted within the foreseeable future--this takes us outside the realm of the foreseeable future. Adam DeHart said the petitioner's definition of "foreseeable future" is a little different from the Department's, although their position is understood. This was made known by the Department at the time of Technical Advisory Committee, although their specific recommendation was not made available until this evening. The Subdivision has not been installed as a monetary advantage or developer's advantage, and has been designed and laid out so that the homeowners in the subdivision can make use of the riding stable for their charitable work and their own horses. There was never a commitment made on how fast Section II would be submitted. At this point in time, it is impossible to place a time frame on the secondary plat for Section II. John Molitor said there is no disagreement, the Department believes the land use to be appropriate and the Special Use should be approved. The problem is that when the Subdivision is trunkated, the cul-de-sac does not meet the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Thus, Plan Commission approval would be required for a variance for the cul-de-sac standard, 600 feet. This particular cul-de-sac is over 700 feet. The Plan Commission would need to approve that or the Subdivision no longer conforms to the approval of the Subdivision Regulations. Laurence Lillig wanted to clarify that in no way is the Department suggesting that the developer is trying to be deceitful or tried to mislead the Plan Commission or the Department when the property was platted. Leo Dierckman agreed that this item should be sent to the Plan Commission. Michael Mohr questioned the sequence of approval--if the Board voted negatively, would this case proceed to the Plan Commission or would it end here. John Molitor recommended not voting until the Plan Commission reviews and votes; otherwise it is an unlawful subdivision. Pat Rice commented that she was willing to move ahead without holding up the petitioner. John Molitor recommended that the Plat Amendment be approved by the Plan Commission within 60 or 90 days. Adam DeHart said the petitioner is willing to look into waivers that were granted on this Subdivision and file any application that may have been overlooked. The petitioner is seeking action from the Board this evening to re-establish the riding stable use. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 12 SU-62-01, Lucky Farms Riding Stableconditioned upon Pat Rice moved for the approval of , Plan Commission review and approval of the Primary Plat Amendment , seconded by APPROVED Michael Mohr. 5-0. Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 3 (SUA-63-01) 21h. Petitioner seeks to amend Commitment 2(B) (lifeguard) of Instrument No. 199909969620 relating to the Special Use approval granted for the Lakes at Hazel Dell Amenity Area as Docket No. SU-37-99 . The site is located at 12474 Dellfield Boulevard West. The site is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Joseph M. Scimia of Baker & Daniels for Zaring Premier Homes. th Joe Scimia of Baker & Daniels, 600 East 96 Street, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. The applicant is seeking a special use amendment to delete the requirement that a lifeguard be present during all hours of operation for the community pool located at Lakes at Hazel Dell Subdivision. This request was first made in the year 2000. After a series of continuances, this case was withdrawn. After that, meetings were held with the homeowners in Lakes at Hazel Dell who asked that this case be presented again to the Board for a final decision; this resulted in the case being re-filed. th The Lakes at Hazel Dell is a 280-lot subdivision located south of 126 Street along Hazel Dell Parkway. In 1999, a Special Use Approval was granted to construct a community pool for the subdivision. There were two commitments requested and agreed to at that time. One is that the pool be 25X75 feet in size, and 2) that a lifeguard be present during all operating hours during the time the pool is open to the residents. The petitioner is seeking a special exception to delete the second commitment. There are two reasons for the request. A Legal Memorandum has been provided to Counsel John Molitor, setting forth the petitioner's position and legal analysis as to why applicable state law does not allow the imposition of a commitment requiring a full time lifeguard in the absence of a specific City Ordinance to that effect. The summary of the memorandum is that state law exempts swimming pools that are less than 2,000 square feet from the requirement of a full time lifeguard; this pool is less than 2,000 square feet. County Ordinances also have the same exemption for pools that are less than 2,000 square feet. Both the state and county law that exempts the Lakes at Hazel Dell pool from the full time lifeguard requirement recognizes that a municipality may regulate swimming pools by adoption of an ordinance. No such ordinance exists in the City of Carmel. Secondly, the residents of Lakes at Hazel Dell do not want a lifeguard requirement at their pool as required by the current commitment. Currently, there are 85 residents at the Lakes at Hazel Dell; Mr. Scimia submitted a petition signed by 51 of the residents in opposition to having a lifeguard present during the hours of operation of the pool. One letter was received in support of the lifeguard, and there were 33 no responses. This means that more than 60% of the residents do not want a lifeguard commitment of the type that has been imposed on this subdivision. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 13 Currently, the pool has a lifeguard from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Recently, a number of residents have said they would like to swim in the morning prior to going to work, or later in the evenings. That is not possible, because a lifeguard is not present prior to 10:00 AM and later than 8:00 PM. Mr. Scimia said there is a significant financial burden upon the residents to support the employment of a lifeguard, and they would like to have free choice to decide if and when a lifeguard would be hired. Mr. Scimia commented that there are very few subdivisions in Carmel that have this requirement. Also, this is not a variance and the standards or findings required are not the same for a variance. The financial burden upon homeowners associations was not something the Board wished to consider because they did not feel the financial hardship was a requirement that should be considered in this case. That is a requirement with the Variance petition; however, this is a Special Use petition. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The question before the Board is one of a commitment between the Board and the petitioner--the Department has no recommendation on this petition. Pat Rice asked about economic factors related to the special use such as cost benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding communities. The cost basis appears to be at the core of the petitioner's request. It is the Department's opinion that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner by the absence of a lifeguard. Laurence Lillig responded that finding No. 2 covers economic factors, (cost benefit) and is left entirely up to the petitioner. The anticipated effect on the surrounding property values is another question and that is covered by the Department. Whether or not there is a lifeguard present does not affect property values in the area or surrounding properties. Earlene Plavchak asked Mr. Scimia if there were a lifeguard present in the 2000 season. Mr. Scimi responded negatively. Ms. Plavchak asked how that could be explained when a commitment was made to the Board to provide a lifeguard. If there were no lifeguard, how would the pool be maintained and who would monitor the pool in the event of a fecal contamination? If there were a substantial time gap before it is corrected, the condition would put swimmers at risk. Mr. Scimia responded that this pool would be monitored the same way all other pools in the entire State of Indiana are monitored and exempt from this requirement, as well as all of the pools that currently exist in the City of Carmel that do not have a lifeguard requirement. Mr. Scimia said he had been told by other developers in the area that they will not put pools in their plans because of this situation. There is current discussion--we have asked if this is going to be a requirement, that it be put into an ordinance so it would apply to everyone on the same basis rather than only those that come through the process. Not all subdivisions of this size or in this jurisdiction have this requirement. The residents have said that they feel this requirement has an adverse effect on the marketability of the subdivision. Earlene Plavchak's position was that Zaring Homes and the residents have paid Mr. Scimia more in legal fees than it would have cost to employ two lifeguards. The current situation is a flagrant disregard of the commitment made in writing to the Board in the spring of 1999. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 14 Charles Weinkauf said that at the time Mr. Scimia came before the Board for the Special Use, there was full knowledge and understanding of the Board's position regarding the granting of the special use. There were several factors that involved the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the community and protecting the residents of the subdivision during the hours of operation of the pool. It was deemed lawful for the Board to impose the lifeguarding commitment as a condition for the granting of the Special Use. Mr. Weinkauf had understood that the commitment was to build a pool 30X75 feet, not 25X75 feet. Regardless of State Law, this Board, based on the opinion of the Department and Counsel, stated it was lawful to impose that type of commitment. The petitioner agreed to the commitment and then flagrantly violated that commitment in the summer of 2000. Mr. Scimia responded that they are in compliance with the terms of the commitment made that there would be a lifeguard on duty at all times during the operating hours of the pool. There is not a lifeguard's chair and there are no plans for one. Pat Rice asked about the operating hours and whether or not the pool can be used at other times. Mr. Scimia responded that there is a lifeguard during operating hours; there is also a lock on the gate. Dawn Barnett, associate of Zaring Premier Homes at 2629 Waterfront Parkway, Indianapolis, said reports have been received that even though the gates are locked, persons have broken the lock and utilized the pool. There is a 6-foot, wrought-iron fence with a gate that is locked at all times, except when the lifeguard is there from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Earlene Plavchak referred to a letter from one of the residents who had refused to allow her children to swim there last summer. The pool was not maintained--it was dirty, trashy and unsanitary. There is also the possibility of a drowning because there was no lifeguard present or anyone available trained to administer CPR. Mr. Scima responded he was not present when his client initially agreed to the commitment. Mr. Scima did not expect this to be a popular request and received favorably by the Board. This application was not casually filed. It was only done so because this developer has found himself in a catch between this Board and its residents. Every HOA meeting held wants something done about the situation. The State and County Boards have made a decision that this is exempt and the petitioner is asking that the Board follow the same laws and not put them at a disadvantage with other communities that do not have this requirement. The petitioner is asking that the Board allow the residents to make the choice--they are the ones who live there and must suffer the consequences. The commitment has nothing to do with the cleanliness of the pool; again, that is regulated by the County Board of Health and the State. They must meet the same standards as any other pool. The fact that there may or may not be a lifeguard on duty may or may not change the sanitary condition of the pool. (one person out of 50 made that comment) Earlene Plavchak commented that what is really at stake here is Zaring's integrity. Zaring made a commitment. Ms. Rice asked Counsel if the Board's position would withstand legal scrutiny. John Molitor said this case would serve neither side well to litigate. However, on balance, it would be likely s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 15 that the Board's position would be upheld. On the other hand, the petitioner does make a good point--if it is a good idea, perhaps it is a good idea for all swimming pools in the community. The Plan Commission has a technical update ordinance coming before it next month and perhaps the Board would like to take the whole issue under advisement and wait and see whether the Plan Commission would wish to add this topic to that ordinance. Mr. Weinkauf said this Board and members of the preceding Board have taken the position that any special use for a swimming pool should make a lifeguard a requirement. Other subdivisions have committed or agreed to similar commitments and have followed them. This commitment was known full well by Zaring at the time the Special Use was granted for the pool. Leo Dierckman asked if other pools are operating within conformance; Laurence Lillig responded in the negative. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 3 (SUA-63-01), seconded by Pat Rice. Charles Weinkauf noted that the ballot sheet for the Finding of Fact had already been filled out by the petitioner. The Board will not be using the ballot sheet provided. John Molitor said he would draft proposed Findings for the Board to consider next month as opposed to the positive Findings prepared by the petitioner. Mr. Molitor could also draft negative Findings in support of denial, if that be the case. John Molitor suggested that the Board vote to continue this petition in order to allow proposed Findings to be submitted on behalf of both an approval and a denial. ontinueSUA-63-01 Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area Pat Rice moved to c , to the July 23, 2001 meeting to allow for the submission of Findings of Fact for both approval and denial, seconded by Michael Mohr. The motion to continue was approved 5-0. Leo Dierckman announced his intention to exit the meeting at 11:00 PM. Docket V-64-01 and V-65-01, Meridian Mortgage Note: Michael Mohr recused himself from Building - Carmel Financial Corp., since he is employed by a tenant of this building and the vote could directly affect his signage. Meridian Mortgage Building - Carmel Financial (V-64-01; V-65-01) 22-23h. Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section 25.7.02-8(b): Number & Type of the Sign Ordinance in order to establish a second wall sign on the north façade of the building. The site is located at 101 East Carmel Drive. The site is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by Joel Hall of Sign-a-Rama for Carmel Financial Corp. Joel Hall of Sign-a-Rama, 616 Station Drive, Carmel, appeared before the Board requesting a second sign on the building located at 101 East Carmel Drive. Sharon VanHoozer, senior vice president at Carmel Financial was also in attendance. The existing sign reads Meridian s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 16 Mortgage--Carmel Financial is requesting the addition of their name and signage to the other side of the building. The reason for the request is twofold. First, as a multi-tenant building, they are allowed one identification sign. Carmel Financial purchased the building in 1989 and within the past few years, has significantly changed their business and is wanting to start advertising and noting their local presence. The second part of the request is that the only alternative is to remove the Meridian Mortgage sign and replace that name with Carmel Financial. A compromise is a variance that would allow both signs on the building. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to this petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The ADLS approval for the existing sign and sign package was granted August 16, 1988 under Docket No. 78-88-ADLS. Robert Myers was vice president of Meridian Mortgage Group at that time and stated at both the July 19, 1988 Plan Commission meeting and August 2, 1988 meeting of the Industrial and Commercial Committee, that the Meridian Mortgage sign would be the only sign on the building. The attendant sign package for that approval sets three criteria for signs: 1) Signage shall be limited to individual back-lit dark brown letters not to exceed 18 inches in height. 2) The letters shall be installed on the upper section of the building. 3a) The tenants allowed to install such signage shall be limited to the approval of the building owner, at that time Eaton and Lauth, currently Carmel Financial, and b., It would be limited to the number of allowable signs by the City of Carmel for such a building. This sign package was approved by the Plan Commission; with that in mind, the Department is recommending negative consideration of V-64-01 and V-65-01. Should the Board elect to approve the petitions, the petitioner will be required to file an ADLS amendment with the Plan Commission in order to change the approved sign package. Pat Rice asked if there were anything in place to identify the other tenants in this building. Mr. Hall said there is nothing noticeable that would indicate identification--the only two tenants are Carmel Financial and Meridian Mortgage. Laurence Lillig stated that this building only has frontage on Carmel Drive and is therefore permitted one identification sign. It is possible that both tenants could share equally in the sign area on a ground sign. Mr. Hall said if the choice is to take down the Meridian Mortgage sign and share equally in a ground sign, it would need to be discussed. If that requires a variance as well, the preference would be to pursue the variance for the two wall signs. Sharon VanHoozer, senior vice president of Carmel Financial, said the proposal would have to be discussed with the other officers of the corporation and the owner to see what the preference would be. Carmel Financial has occupied the building since the mid-70's and became owner in 1989. At that time, it was not important to have a presence in the area until the last few years when Carmel Financial started to operate under a different name. It is extremely important to have name recognition as a finance company. It is also important for Meridian Mortgage to have their presence. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 17 After researching the Sign Ordinance, Laurence Lillig did not think it was an option for both tenants to share equally in the sign area on a ground sign. V-64-01, Meridian Mortgage Building - Carmel Financial, Pat Rice moved for approval of to allow two wall signs on the north façade of the building, seconded by Leo Dierckman. The DENIED motion was 0 in favor 4 opposed (Leo Dierckman, Earlene Plavchak, Pat Rice, and Charles Weinkauf), Michael Mohr recused. With the denial of V-64-01, it was unnecessary to proceed with V-65-01. John Molitor will draft formal Findings of Fact. At this point, Leo Dierckman and Earlene Plavchak exited the meeting and did not return. Chuck Weinkauf explained that for further business this evening, in order to have anything approved or disapproved, there would need to be 3 votes. Mr. Mohr and Ms. Rice indicated a willingness to stay until the conclusion of business this evening. Donatos Pizza (V-66-01; V-67-01; V-68-01) 24-26h. Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of the following Sections of the Sign Ordinance: 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign 5-square-foot directional sign 25.7.02-8(b): Number & Type 2 Identification Signs 25.7.02-8(b): Number & Type 2 wall signs on the east façade The site is located at 1422 Keystone Way East. The site is zoned B-8/Business and is located partially within the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone. Filed by Kevin J. Cavanaugh of Kevin J. Cavanaugh, & Associates for Donatos Pizzeria Corp. Kevin Cavanaugh, 7705 Andrew Pass, Plainfield, Indiana respectfully requested a Continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting on July 23, 2001, based on the number of Board TABLED members present. The Board granted the voluntary request by the petitioner. to July 23, 2001. Note: Dockets V-69-01 and V-70-01 for Borders Bookstore were heard together and voted on separately. Merchants' Pointe, Lot 1 – Borders (V-69-01) 27h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.01-4(l): Prohibited Signs of the Sign Ordinance in order to establish an off-premise sign. The site is located th at 2259 East 116 Street. The site is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for The Linder Group. Merchants' Pointe, Lot 5 - Borders (V-70-01) 28h. Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.02-8©: Maximum Sign Area of the Sign Ordinance in order to establish a 187-square foot wall sign. The site is located at 2381 Pointe Parkway. The site is zoned B-8/Business. Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for The Linder Group. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 18 Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant, Borders Bookstore and Merchants Associates. In April 2001, the Plan Commission approved the ADLS application for the first three of seven planned buildings on the 14 acre parcel of real th estate now under development at the southwest corner of Keystone and 116 Street to be known as Merchants Pointe. The initial approvals included a Borders Bookstore on Lot number 5, a tenant from the very beginning recognized as "the primary, the key tenant" for the future success of Merchants Pointe. The requested sign variances will appropriately identify Borders as the primary tenant within Merchants Pointe and meet the challenges of identification brought about by the location of the lot and certain commitments made during the zoning process. The site plan was displayed on the overhead showing the division of Merchants Pointe into 7 th individual lots; four fronting on 116 Street, and three south and adjacent to the south property line. The lot selected by Borders is lot number 5 and is situated in the southeast corner of the site, adjacent to Keystone Avenue. Although adjacent to Keystone, by way of commitment during the zoning process, the petitioner is required to maintain the existing tree line adjacent to Keystone. The petitioner is also required to provide for a greenbelt buffer, approximately 80 feet in width. With the greenbelt buffer, there is a natural separation between Keystone and the Borders building and, while it serves a valid purpose, the trees and greenbelt contribute to obscuring the visibility of lot 5 and the building from Keystone Avenue. In addition, by way of commitment, the petitioner agreed that there would be no signage adjacent to Keystone, and Borders will not have a sign on the east facia of the building. These conditions cause focus to th 116 Street for identification of the Borders Bookstore. An identification sign on the north facia th of the building is being provided facing 116 Street and an identification sign on the west facia facing the internal part of Merchants Pointe. th The petitioner is a substantial distance from 116 Street and in the future, there will be another thth building between Borders' front and 116 Street that will further obscure the visibility from 116 Street. For these reasons, the applicant is requesting two variances. One variance is to include th the name Borders on the project identification sign at the entrance from AAA Way and 116 Street in the northwest corner of the property. The second variance request is that the wall sign on the north facia of the building be larger than permitted by the Carmel Sign Ordinance. These signs were a part of the ADLS application that was presented and discussed with the Plan th Commission. The project identification sign will be located at AAA Way and 116 Street and is the prototype ground sign that will be used throughout Merchants Pointe. The identification sign was "borrowed" from the ground signs visible in Merchants Square. Because Borders is a primary tenant and because of its locational attributes, the applicant is requesting that Borders be th included on the ground sign at the intersection of AAA Way and 116 Street. The second request is for the wall sign on the north facia of the building to be larger than permitted by the Carmel Sign Ordinance. The rendering displayed showed the front elevation of Borders Bookstore, dark blue, navy awnings, and the sign on the front elevation that would be th seen if looking south from 116 Street. Under the Carmel Sign Ordinance, Borders is allowed three identification signs. However, the east elevation does not allow signage adjacent to Keystone. The petitioner is proposing signage on the north elevation and one on the west elevation. The one on the north elevation exceeds that permitted under the Carmel Sign s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 19 Ordinance. The proposed sign is white letters on a dark, navy blue background, a specific requirement of the Plan Commission, and is slightly less than 190 square feet. The sign is measured from the outer perimeter of the entire sign area, including the blue background. This computed to a sign 29.5 feet long, 6.3 feet in height, and the letters are 4.5 feet in height. The building is positioned so that it is obscured from vision by the greenbelt adjacent to Keystone. There is no signage permitted adjacent to Keystone, the building is set back in the th corner and will be difficult to see from 116 Street because of the distance and because of the future building that will occur. If the two variances are granted, Borders will end up having the three signs permitted under the Ordinance, two wall signs and a shared ground sign. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to both petitions; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. Regarding V-70-01, the wall sign: the measurement of the wall sign, 23 feet X 5 feet is not taken from measuring the letters, it is actually scaled from the original submittal for the petition. The exhibit in the variance application shows the dimensions recited by Mr. Nelson, and computes to a 187 square foot sign. However, a sign in this location would only be allowed 95 square feet per the sign chart. Regarding the signage on the east façade, it is incorrect to state that no signs are allowed there; the commitment language prohibits ground signs on the east—nothing prohibited against wall signs on the east. A sign would be permitted on the east façade of the Borders building, although it is agreed that there are certain trees that would obscure that sign. The site does have three frontages, two on streets within Merchants Pointe, the third is Keystone Avenue. Single tenants buildings that are permitted more than one sign are permitted to move a sign in the same fashion, i.e. a sign that is moved from one frontage to another would permit the tenant to establish one wall sign and one ground sign on that frontage. V-70-01 for a 187 square foot wall sign is recommended for negative consideration. Regarding V-69-01, the signs that were shown to the Plan Commission included both the text for Merchants Pointe as well as the text for the anchor tenant. The Department did make it clear at the time the petition was going through that the design of the sign was being considered and not text. The Plan Commission did not specifically approve an anchor tenant being on that sign—what they were approving was the design of the sign itself. The Ordinance specifically prohibits this type of off-premise advertising. Pat Rice commented that this signage should have come in as a whole package, not individually. Jim Nelson responded that an entire package was presented as part of the ADLS application. The Plan Commission approved the package. Laurence Lillig said the signs presented at Plan Commission were conceptual in nature; the question of subdividing the property was not something that was decided at the time of re-zone. The subdivision of Merchants Pointe came about later. Now, we are dealing with 7, single s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 20 tenants rather than a multi-tenant, multi-building complex—a different animal under the Sign Ordinance. Signage that was seen as part of the rezone was not approved as part of the rezone; it may have been seen as part of an overall package for consideration, but it is not an ADLS approval with a rezone. Further, the type of project evolved during the course of the development process from rezone to where it is today. The requirements and approvals for signage have changed as well—what is permitted for a multi-tenant building complex versus single tenants is different. Mr. Nelson stated that the petitioner was before the Plan Commission three different times: the first was on a recommendation for a rezone; the second time was primary plat approval; the third time was for ADLS approval for lots 5, 6, and 7. The Plan Commission recommended that the background of the sign be dark navy blue to match the awning. The signs were part of the package presented to the Plan Commission, and it was explained to the Committee that the front sign on the north facia of the building is over-sized and requires a variance. Pat Rice said she was particularly addressing the off-site sign. Mr. Nelson said the variance for the off-site sign was not easy to obtain and they did not want to try that again. Also, there were specific, written commitments regarding signage on Keystone Avenue—probably the most important considerations undertaken by the Plan Commission. The Linder Company had told tenants, “No signage on Keystone Avenue,” whether it is a ground sign or wall sign. That is not what the Plan Commission wanted and that is what tenants have been told. V-69-01, off-premisesignBorders Pat Rice moved for the approval of for anchor tenant “,” (no additional tenants to be named) seconded by Michael Mohr. The vote was 3 in favor none APPROVED opposed. Motion . Jim Nelson will write a letter to the Department committing to the maximum number of signs (3) for Borders and that there will be no additional tenant named on the ground sign. Ms. Rice said she was having a problem with the requested size of the sign and used the Kroger store as an example—the sign looks very small in relation to the size of the building. However, the sign is according to the sign ordinance. V-70-01, Merchants’ Pointe Lot 5 (Borders Michael Mohr moved for the approval of ,) to allow a 187 square foot sign on the north facia of the building, seconded by Pat Rice. The vote NO DECISION VOT was one in favor, 2 opposed (Michael Mohr, Pat Rice). E. The rd petitioner will return to the July 23 meeting. Dan Young Chevrolet (SUA-71-01) 29h. Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to alter the site of the existing th auto dealership. The site is located at 3120 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business located partially within the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Dan Young Chevrolet. Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Dan Young Chevrolet is requesting an amendment to a Special Use to permit the th renovation of its car dealership located in the northeast quadrant of Keystone Avenue and 96 Street. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 21 th The real estate is bordered on the south by 96 Street, on the west by Keystone Avenue, and on the north by the Keystone Office Park. Other uses in the area include car dealerships, gas stations, and fast food restaurants. The real estate is zoned B-3 and under the zoning classification, all uses are special uses requiring BZA approval. In addition, an Overlay Zone has been established for Keystone Avenue—120 feet on either side of the right-of-way. The petitioner must obtain ADLS approval from the Plan Commission. In terms of ADLS approval, only the western 120 feet of the site falls within the Overlay Zone, the petitioner has asked the Plan Commission to assist in review of the entire site. The petitioner will be appearing before th the Special Study Committee on July 10. Regarding signage, the petitioner will appear before the BZA on July 23, 2001 for sign variances and as part of the ADLS approval, the Plan Commission will also review signage. The emphasis this evening is on use--signage will be independently reviewed by both BZA and Plan Commission at a later date. There are five buildings located on the site. Two of the buildings in the northeast corner of the site will remain the same. The main building will be increased in size; the used car building will be reduced in size from 19,600 square feet to 9,00 square feet, 3,000 of which will be a canopy. The main building will be enlarged from 62,700 square feet to 82,140 square feet. The revised buildings will also received revised exteriors; other improvements will be made to lighting, and landscaping. Subject to the approval of INDOT, the existing fence along the western boundary of the real estate will be removed and a Hicks Yew hedgerow will be planted the entire western border of the site. INDOT has given a preliminary indication that it will grant the approval. If it does not, and per the suggestion of Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, Dan Young is committing to peel back the asphalt along the western edge of the real estate by two (2) feet to accommodate the planting of the hedgerow. Per suggestions made by Scott Brewer, three brick or stamped, concrete pads are to be placed along the western edge, accented by landscaping, including flowers and a center tree. Secondly, extending the length of the landscape strip in the northwest corner is a mound that tapers off where the landscape strip ends. A six-foot high concrete block wall will be extended from the end of the landscape strip to the point where Dan Young’s site connects with the Keystone Office Park. The Sheridan Group has the option to remove the fence after the concrete block wall is extended. Shrubs and flowers will be planted in areas internal to the parking lot. In addition, 19 trees will be placed in certain areas. Landscaping in the northwest corner of the real estate includes bushes, hedges, and 17 trees. Some of the landscaping is not located on Dan Young’s real estate; this is because of a fence located along the apex of the mound--to the south of the fence is Tom Wood’s boundary line. The landscape plan is the culmination of meetings and discussions between Keith Bauman, landscape architect, and Scott Brewer, Urban Forester. The plan meets Scott Brewer’s approval. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 22 The added exterior surfaces of the buildings will be light beige EFIS or synthetic stucco, light tan concrete masonry units, (textured blocks, 8X16) and brown, split-face block of a smoother texture. A greeter kiosk will be at the entrance to the site. The revised exterior surface of the used car building is the same as the main building, light beige EFIS and concrete masonry units, some light tan, others a darker brown, and of different textures. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition. There is, however, a question of the status of the right-of-way dedication for thth 96 Street. The right-of-way requirement for East 96 Street along this particular stretch is 75 foot one-half. Mr. Frankenberger said the petitioner is willing to dedicate right-of-way and will furnish to the Department in recordable form. The right-of-way, as it exists now, is 60 feet and tapers off to 50 feet a little farther east of the approximate center of the site. Pat Rice asked for clarification on the right-of-way. Laurence said the right-of-way was discussed in two separate TAC meetings, the most recent of th which was June 20. Michael Mohr moved for the approval of SUA-71-01, Dan Young Chevrolet. The motion died for lack of a second. SUA 71-01, Dan Young Chevroletconditioned upon Pat Rice then moved for the approval of , written commitment for dedication of a 75 foot one-half right-of-way the petitioner providing tocomply with the Thoroughfare PlanAPPROVED , seconded by Michael Mohr. Motion 3-0. Carmel City Center - Goodyear Tire (UV-72-01; A-73-01) 30-31h. Petitioner wishes to appeal the determination of the Director regarding the expiration of the legal non-conforming status of a discontinued business use. Petitioner also seeks Use Variance approval in order to re-establish the aforementioned business. The site is located at 800 South Range Line Road. The site is zoned C-1/City Center District. Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler for James E. & Betty J. Huffer. Dave Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler, 255 East Carmel Drive, appeared before the Board representing Jim and Betty Huffer. Also in attendance was Donald Dickson, real estate manager for the Great Lakes Region, from Akron, Ohio. The petitioner is appealing a decision made by the Department of Community Services. In the alternative, if the Board upholds the decision of the Department, the petitioner has filed a Use Variance application in order to permit the occupation of the building, known as the Goodyear Tire & Rubber store, just north of the City complex on Rangeline Road. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 23 The Goodyear store was approved in a B-3 Zone Classification in 1986, built in 1987 and occupied by Goodyear. The building was built and owned by Jim and Betty Huffer, Carmel residents, and leased to the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. In April 1997, as a part of the Civic Center process, a draft purchase agreement from the City of Carmel was submitted to the Huffers informing them that their store on 1.5 acres was needed for the expansion of the City Center Complex. The expansion included the former Kroger site, the Goodyear store, and all of the property the City has acquired between here and there. In good faith, the Huffers entered negotiations with the City and in August 1997, appraisals were prepared by Michael Lady on behalf of the City in order for the City to follow through with the acquisition of the property. In June 1998, right-of-way was taken from the property for th Rangeline Road widening and 126 Street expansion of the intersection. At that time, negotiations continued with Mayor Brainard regarding the purchase of the Goodyear Store by the City. In the calendar year 1999, in an effort to preserve their relationship with the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, the Huffers attempted to locate other properties within the City limits for the re-location of the Goodyear store. In June 1999, Dave Goodnight, the franchisee of the Goodyear store, passed away at age 43 leaving the store to his estate. Dave Goodnight’s two daughters then undertook to operate the Carmel Goodyear store in addition to a store in Kokomo. In February 2000, the Huffer’s representative received an inquiry from the City attorney regarding the status of the purchase agreement. Following the death of Mr. Goodnight, the store was closed in order to remodel and Goodyear was to take over the operation of the business. When the store was closed, nothing changed externally about the building, it has always been a Goodyear Tire & Rubber and accessory store, under lease. June 20, 2000, the City published notice of a hearing before the Common Council that the City intended to rezone the property. On May 1, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance Z-343 which established the C-1 City Center District. On September 18, 2000, the Council adopted Ordinance Z-347 which rezoned the Goodyear Store from B-3 to C-1 City Center Zone District. This is believed to be a key in the determination the Board is being asked to make. In March 2001, Goodyear advised the City, through Mr. Huffer, that it intended to re-open the store, since the City had not purchased the property. On April 9, 2001 a meeting was held with the Department of Community Services regarding Goodyear’s intent to reopen the store, at which time Mr. Hollibaugh informed the Huffers that there was a non-conforming use issue. On May 2, 2001 the Department of Community Services sent a letter to the Huffers and Goodyear informing them that the store had been closed and was therefore a legal, non-conforming use turned to a non-conforming use by the passage of time and the re-zoning of the property by the City. In November 2000, the Carmel Redevelopment Commission advised the Huffers that the City Administration with whom they had been negotiating did not have the authority on behalf of the Redevelopment Commission to commit them to purchase the property; the Redevelopment Commission, in fact, had no funds with which to acquire this piece of real estate, and they were not going to buy the property at this time—perhaps in the future, but not now. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 24 The petitioner is appealing the Department’s determination that because the store ceased having customers come in and out the front door in March 2000, that commenced the one year period under the non-conforming use Ordinance that required Goodyear to be back in business by March 2001. It is the petitioner’s position that the use did not become non-conforming until the City Council adopted an ordinance on September 18, 2000 changing the zone classification of this property from B-3 to C-1. From March 2000 until September 2000, even though the store was not accepting customers in and out the front door, it none the less complied with and was zoned B-3 and was simply a closed building. Goodyear could have gone in at any point and re-opened the store with no action by anyone. On September 18, the store then achieved status as a non-conforming use because of the City’s action in re-zoning the property. The petitioner’s position under the Ordinance, Section 28.1.5, quoted in the Department Report, “In the event that a legal non-conforming use of any building is discontinued for a period of one year, the use of the building shall thereafter conform to the applicable provisions of the ordinance.” The petitioner’s first appeal is that they did not become a non-conforming use until September 18, 2000 and therefore the one-year period of time does not expire until September 18, 2001. The petitioner has sought to re-open the store, and the Department sent a letter saying that could not be done—this is being appealed because of that reason. That is dispositive of the Use Variance if the Board agrees that the Department has prematurely determined the petitioner to be a non-conforming use when the store ceased having customers in March 2000. The Goodyear business never became a non-conforming use until the City re-zoned the property—when that happened, Goodyear became a legal, non-conforming use and there was a one year time frame to re-open the store without doing anything, and that is what the petitioner is requesting. The second prong of the appeal is that the use, in actuality, has never ceased. The building has never changed, nothing exterior has changed it from an overhead door Goodyear store from March 2000 until today, and that the use has always been a Goodyear Tire & Rubber store. By reason of Mr. Goodnight’s death and Carmel’s efforts to acquire the property (now over a four year period of time) Goodyear has delayed in replacing Mr. Goodnight, thinking, through conversations with the Huffers, who were in direct communication with the City, that there was no reason to re-open the store because Carmel was going to take it as the City’s property. The City has now told the petitioner that that will not happen in the foreseeable future. The petitioner is about to spend $200,000 in terms of equipment and interior fixtures and improvements to re-open the store as a Goodyear Tire & Rubber store, to be operated by the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Mr. Dixon has hired 12 persons who are awaiting the opening of the store, and in fairness to the them, those persons deserve a store that will be opened and their employment secured and not terminated by the City of Carmel through the operation of the Department of Community Services’ letter. If the Board disagrees with the presentation made regarding the on-going, non-conforming use status, the petitioner is prepared to move forward with the Use Variance. Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Coots asked the Chair for permission to either move forward with the Use Variance or have the Board rule on the appeal. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 25 With all due apologies to the petitioner and the chair, Ms. Rice said this Docket requires more thought and questioning than her ability at this point in the evening and she was not able to stay for the duration. Ms. Rice then exited the meeting and there was no longer a quorum. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, the discussion continued regarding whether or not to schedule a special meeting which would require 48 hours notice or simply continue the meeting to tomorrow. The only motion that could be made was that of adjournment, and the meeting terminated at 12:40 AM. __________________________ Charles W. Weinkauf, President _______________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\2001jun 26