Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 07-23-01 CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JULY 23, 2001 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana on July 23, 2001. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members present were: Leo Dierckman (late arrival); Michael Mohr; Pat Rice; and Charles Weinkauf. Michael P. Hollibaugh, Director of Department of Community Services, Jon Dobosiewicz, and Laurence Lillig were also in attendance. The minutes of the June meeting were approved as submitted. John Molitor, Counsel, reported that the Board had met in Executive Session prior to tonight’s meeting to discuss pending litigation. John Molitor called attention to an Ordinance Amendment that is in the process of being forwarded to the City Council by the Plan Commission. One of the items for consideration in reviewing Special Use or Special Exception Applications is the need for lifeguards in respect to recreational facilities. Another section would allow the Board to require appropriate fencing and commitments that necessary lifeguard protection be provided at all times when a swimming pool is open for use when a swimming pool is permitted as part of a Special Use Approval. In addition, the alternate procedure for Developmental Standards Variances is also included in the Amendments. If approved, the Plan Commission would have the right to appoint one or more members of the Board to serve as a hearing officer and to have a streamline process for minor Development Standards Variances. In light of the amendment regarding lifeguards and swimming pools, the Board may want to consider TABLING Agenda item 2i. until the Board has had an opportunity to see what sort of reaction the City Council may have to the Ordinance Amendment proposed by the Plan Commission. There is also a provision in the Amendment that would allow model homes to be permitted as a temporary use by the Director of the Department of Community Services for up to 18 months at a time with 3, six-month extensions allowed for a total of 36 months. If that Amendment would go forward, it would obviate the variances proposed as Agenda items 1h through 9h because model homes could be permitted directly by the Director rather than going through the Board. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 1 The Board may want to consider continuing to Table items 1h through 9h and also consider Tabling again item 2I pending City Council reaction to Ordinance Amendments prepared to go before City Council for hearing. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The following items are tabled: Item 1i., Moehl Residence, V-55-01—the petitioner has requested a Table to the August meeting. The Department concurs with the Tabling for items 1h through 9h and 2i. Items 13h & 14h, Carmel City Center, Goodyear Tire, (UV-72-01; A-73-01) are related to pending litigation and are tabled. H.Public Hearing: Donatos Pizza (V-66-01; V-67-01; V-68-01) 10-12h. 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 25.7.028(b): Number & Type 2 Identifications 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 Cavanaugh of Kevin J. Cavanaugh & Assoc. for Donatos Pizzeria Kevin Cavanaugh, 7705 Andrew Pass, Plainfield, appeared before the Board representing Donatos Pizzeria Corp. Due to the fact that a full Board was not in attendance, Mr. th Cavanaugh requested and the Board granted a Tabling to the August 27 meeting of the BZA. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish (SUA-74-01) 15h. Board Member Michael Mohr has recused himself from this petition, since he is a member of the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish. This item will be heard later in the evening, out of sequence, in anticipation of Mr. Dierckman’s arrival. th East 96 Street Auto Park, lot 1, 3 – Tom Wood Volkswagen (SU-75- 16h. 01) Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to establish an th automobile dealership. The site is located at 4610 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Lawrence E. Lawhead of Barnes & Thornburg for Tom Wood Nissan Lawrence Lawhead, attorney with Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. The site is located at th 4610 East 96 and will be operated as an automotive sales and service facility. The facility is designed for an upscale sales and service facility. This site was originally approved for automotive sales last year and the plans are now being presented for the s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 2 property to the north of the Lexus dealership labeled “future development” at that point. th The site is east of Keystone, just north of 96 Street and Palmer Dodge, and west of Gray Road and south of the CP Morgan Development, Williamson Run Subdivision. Mr. Wood is one of the owners of the eastern parcel which is divided into 3 areas. Mr. Wood is the owner of lots 1 and 3. Last year, a portion of lot 1 was approved for an automobile dealership. Mr. Wood is in the process of obtaining building permits for this purpose and plans are to begin construction later in the year. The northern portion of lot 1 was represented to be for future development. The use of lots 1 and a small portion of lot 3 was approved for automotive sales and this is the subject of tonight’s petition. The balance of lot 3 will be a separate filing when an actual franchise is in being. Several commitments were made as to the development and operation of the lots. These were reduced to a recorded commitment and included the 2 ½ acre triangle that would remain as a green area and would not be developed. In addition, certain parameters were established as to the hours of operation of the dealership, repair activities, limitations on speakers, noise level agreements, agreements for no test driving through Williamson Run Subdivision, lighting, signage, and promotional activities. The plans went through TAC last week and revised plans will be submitted to the Department. One change is that the legal description follows the boulevard, not the center of the oval. Mr. Wood is submitting a revised lighting plan to provide for high cut-off lighting. Mr. Wood has agreed to align his curb cut with Tom O’Brien’s Chrysler dealership across the street. Tom Wood has also agreed to provide a recordable commitment that when one of the lots is sold, the sale will be contingent upon either re-platting the lots to show the property line and lighting levels, or filing for a variance from the Developmental Standards. In regard to landscaping, there will be a landscape buffer between the sub-development, the subdivision of Williamson Run, and the property to the south. A view of the area looking south was shown depicting old pine trees that were planted as a part of the prior zoning petition last summer. Scott Brewer, Urban Forester, was concerned about the use of Red Maples in this area and suggested that these be changed to Oak or Linden, etc., and the petitioner is agreeable to that change, and a revised landscape plan will take that into account. Bob Hurst, architect, reviewed the building materials. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of opposition to this petition; no one appeared. Members of the public who had questions or comments were invited to speak at this time, and the following persons appeared: s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 3 Dan Borba, 30545 Howard Drive, Williamson Run Homeowners Association, questioned the location of trash receptacles, and also requested landscape pictures that were more representative of the existing landscaping. Rebuttal: Larry Lawhead said the trash receptacle was not included in the drawings and was an oversight. The landscaping plan will be finalized and submitted to the Department. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The remainder of lots 1 and 3 were previously approved for use as automobile dealerships (Document Nos. SU-53-00 and SU-55-00). Substantial bufferin was provided during the initial Special Use consideration of this site and the primary platting under Docket No. 102-00 PP. The Lighting Plan needs some minor revisions to address light intensity at the lot lines and fixtures that would produce less glare. Also, the Landscape Plan needs to be reviewed by the Urban Forester—a portion of the original landscape plan approved at the time of primary plat has been sacrificed in the proposed plan without consideration for alternative planting. The Department is recommending the re-alignment of the north access drive to align with the north drive for the Tom O’Brien dealership on lot 2. The Department is recommending favorable consideration conditioned upon satisfactory resolution of outstanding TAC concerns. The Department has not received documentation for the proposed revisions. The petitioner has not yet begun the process of Commitment Amendment before the Plan Commission. There was discussion among Board members regarding Plan Commission review for the ADLS process. Mr. Lawhead requested ADLS review by Committee, rather than formal public hearing. th TABLE Document No. SU-75-01, East 96 Street Auto Park, lots Pat Rice moved to 13 – Tom Wood Volkswagen , , until the building design and landscape plan are reviewed by the Special Study Committee of the Plan Commission on August 7, 2001, TABLED seconded by Michael Mohr. The vote was 3 in favor none opposed; th East 96 Street Auto Park, lot 2 – Tom O’Brien Chrysler (SUA-76-01) 17h. Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to establish an th automobile dealership. The site is located at 4630 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B-3/business. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for O’Brien Holdings. Paul Reis, attorney, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. The Special Use for this site was originally approved June 26, s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 4 2000. At that time, the Board requested architectural design be reviewed by the Plan Commission. The petitioner’s request is based on aesthetics not directly related to use. As a part of the review process, the actual building materials were specified as part of approval and amendment. The change of materials will not impact any of 25 criteria items for special use; review, nor will the surrounding use be affected. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic will not be affected by change of materials. The petitioner is in receipt of the Department Report—the Board has requested and the petitioner has agreed to submit to Plan Commission architectural review. However, B-3 zoning does not require that approval. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Samples of materials were brought to the meeting; however, because of the weight of the items, they could only be viewed from the parking lot. The members took a short recess to view the materials and will return to the Chambers for a vote. SUA-76-01, Tom O’Brien Chrysler Pat Rice moved for approval of , seconded by APPROVED Michael Mohr, 3-0. Note: At this point, Leo Dierckman joined the meeting in progress. Dan Young Chevrolet (V-77-01; V-78-01; V-79-01; V-80-01; V- 18-30h. 81-01; V-82-01; V-83-01; V-84-01; V-85-01; V-86-01; V-87-01; V-88-01; V-89-01) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of the following Sections of the Sign Ordinance: V-77-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign 18.11-\[/\]traffic directional sign V-78-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign 4’10” traffic directional sign V-79-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign 18.11-\[/\] traffic directional sign V-80-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-81-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-82-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-83-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-84-01 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-85-01 25.7.01-4(i) Prohibited Signs Identification Sign encroaching in r-o-w V-86-01 25.7.02-7(b) Number & Type 9 Identification Signs V-87-01 25.7.02-7(c (ii) Maximum Sign Area 104 square foot Identification Sign V-88-01 25.7.02-7(c (ii) Maximum Sign Area 104 square foot Identification Sign V-89-01 25.7.02-7(c (ii) Maximum Sign Area 122.4 square foot Identification Sign th The site is located at 3210 East 96 Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located partially within the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for Dan Young Chevrolet. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 5 Charlie Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel appeared before the Board representing the United Auto Group in connection with its various requests to renovate the Dan Young car dealership located in the northeast quadrant of Keystone Avenue and th 96 Street. Also present this evening were Al Young, and Chuck Cotterman, architect. The petitioner’s request is for Developmental Standards variance for signage only on the th Dan Young Chevrolet site located at 3210 East 96 Street. At the time Special Use Approval was presented in June, the petitioner indicated that the entire site would be reviewed by the Plan Commission for ADLS approval; the petitioner would then return to the Board for approval of sign variances. The Special Use Approval was granted, and the Plan Commission approved the ADLS application for the entire site, including signage. This evening, the petitioner is requesting Developmental Standards variances for signage only on this site. th The Ground Sign will be located at the entrance to the site along 96 Street. The monument sign is concrete block and EFIS; the letters are blue in color and internally illuminated. Two variances are needed for the monument sign; one for the encroachment in the right-of-way (V-85-01) and one for the number of signs (1 of 9, V-86-01). There are 4 directional signs; the variances are for height & size, (V-77-01 through V-84- 01). The signs are 4 feet 10 inches, and each one is 18 square feet. The directional signs consist of 4 internal to the site, internally illuminated panel sign with an off-white face and blue internally illuminated letters. The frame will be blue aluminum. Laurence Lillig simplified the 4 directionals; each sign requires two variances, one for height and one for sign area. Under the Ordinance, traffic directional signs are limited to 3 square feet for area and 3 feet in height. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to V-77-01 through V-84-01. No one appeared and the public hearing was closed on these dockets. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of these petitions. Although the directional signs are larger than permitted under the Ordinance, they are located on site in such a manner that they will only be readily visible on the subject property. In other words, their impact on the community is negligible, due to the practical invisibility. Docket Nos. V-77-01 through V-84-01, 4 directional Pat Rice moved for approval of signs, for Dan Young ChevroletAPPROVED , seconded by Leo Dierckman. 4-0. Charles Weinkauf questioned Laurence Lillig about the reference in the Department Report to a number of sign violations on the Dan Young site that must be remedied prior to the Department issuing sign permits for any signage approved by the Board at this meeting. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 6 Laurence Lillig stated that currently, there are a number of flags flying on site as well as a number of existing, traffic directional signs that are attached to poles on the site to the light standards. These signs also blow in the wind and are prohibited under the Ordinance. The building in the northeast corner of the property has several identification signs on it that do not have permits and would also have required variances for the number of signs. It is understood that these signs are to be removed prior to the issuance of sign permits. After conferring with his client, Charlie Frankenberger said that if Laurence would visit the site within the next 7 days and point out the signs that are in violation, they will be removed. Charlie Frankenberger then described the monument sign, V-85-01. This sign consists of th concrete masonry units. The north half of 96 Street next to the Dan Young site, is, in part, 50 feet, and in part 60 feet. The Thoroughfare Plan calls for a widening to 75 feet and the petitioner has agreed to make that dedication. When that is done, the sign encroaches. The petitioner will be appearing before the Board of Public Works to obtain th a Consent to Encroachment. If the sign is required to be removed at the time 96 Street is widened, the petitioner will do so at his expense. Laurence Lillig said the sign, where proposed, would be approximately 70 feet from the th centerline of 96 Street. In its proposed location, the sign will straddle the right-of-way line, partially on site and partially within the right-of-way. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to V-85-01; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed on this Docket. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending favorable consideration, conditioned upon a commitment from the petitioner that he will remove the sign at any future date at petitioner’s expense, and the City or any successor unit of government will not be held liable. Docket V-85-01Identification sign Leo Dierckman moved for approval of , encroaching in right-of-way, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 4-0. Note: The petitioner has entered into a written commitment to remove 3 pole signs on site, predicated on the approval of the sign package this evening and out of deference for Carmel’s desire to eliminate pole signs. Charlie Frankenberger described the signage on the main building will comprise a Dan Young sign and Chevrolet logo on the southern and western elevations on the building. These signs will be blue, internally illuminated. It is noted that the sign area is actually 104 feet. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to V-87-01 or V-88- 01; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 7 Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending favorable consideration for identification signs that are larger than are permitted for special use. Docket No. V-87-01V-88-01 Pat Rice moved for the approval of and , maximum sign APPROVED area of 104 feet, seconded by Michael Mohr. 4-0. Charlie Frankenberger displayed the pre-owned building on the overhead. The signage on the south elevation will be an internally illuminated, blue, Dan Young and logo. The size will be 122.4 square feet. The “Certified” or “Used” sign was changed to say “Entrance Only.” The variance for Docket No. V-89-01 is for the Dan Young and the th logo. This building is located closest to 96 Street and receiving the new surface of concrete masonry units and synthetic stucco. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor 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. V-89-01122.4 square foot Identification Sign, Pat Rice moved for approval of , a APPROVED seconded by Michael Mohr. 4-0 Charlie Frankenberger referred to the remaining 5 signs, two of which are on the main building. The Entrance Sign was changed from Showroom Entrance to Entrance; the Service Sign has blue, internally illuminated letters. The “Entrance” sign is 8.8 square feet, and the Service sign is 8.8 square feet. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to Docket No. V-86- 01; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition. Three of the signs are oriented internally, the Service sign and the two Entrance signs. The other six signs are directional, and the Department has no objection. Docket No. V-86-01 Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of for number and type—9 APPROVED Identification Signs, seconded by Pat Rice. 4-0. Heard out of Sequence: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish (SUA-74-01) Item 15h. Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval in order to expand the th parking lot and provide access to East 106 Street. The site is located at 10655 Haverstick Road. The site is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Charles D. Frankenberger of Nelson & Frankenberger for The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana. s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 8 NOTE: Michael Mohr recused himself from this petition, since he is a parish member of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. Charles Frankenberger, 4983 St. Charles Place, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also in attendance were parish members Will Wright; Tom Lazarra; and Claire Magna. Approval is being requested to expand the existing parking lot and provide an access th point onto 106 Street. To the north of the site is Carolina Commons, to the south is Cool Creek. Currently, access to St. Elizabeth Seton is only from Haverstick Road. The parish has grown and this has created traffic problems, particularly at Christmas and Easter. These problems can easily be alleviated by the enlargement of the parking lot and th the creation of a new point of ingress/egress onto 106 Street. The internal roadway will be extended east and southward, and then aligned with Cool Creek. 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 Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition. These improvements were shown on the original site plan for this project in 1983. There is a question regarding the routing of the drive, around the grading done in 1983, and down a steeper slope. Will Wright, 12 Rolling Springs Court, Carmel, said there is a 25 year plan for this site that contemplates the possibility of a school and educational facility. In order to anticipate that, it would fit into the area represented by the loop. If the road ran straight across as originally designed, it would be too close to the trees. Originally, as the site was cleared in 1983, the detention area on the north side was added at the request of the City. The plan was modified to prevent the cutting of trees on the north side of the property, and the parking lot was extended to compensate for the reduction in size. Everything possible has been done to avoid cutting down the trees. Charlie Frankenberger commented that some of the trees and scrub will come down, but most of the trees are being preserved. SUA-74-01, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish Leo Dierckman moved for approval of , APPROVED seconded by Pat Rice. 3-0. I. Old Busines: Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1, Common Area 3 (SUA-63-01) 2i. For the benefit of the petitioner’s representative who was out of the room when this item was TABLED, John Molitor again went over the Ordinance Amendment currently on its s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 9 way to City Council. The Amendment includes two sections relating to the Lifeguard issue. Firstly, there is the proposed addition to the list of items the Board considers when reviewing Special Use or Special Exception Applications; that would be the need for lifeguards and other supervisory personnel in respect to private recreational development or facility. Secondly, the addition of a new section to the Zoning Ordinance would read as follows: “Section 25.2.10, Swimming Pools. In districts where private swimming pool is permitted as an accessory use, the fencing for such pool must comply with both this section, 25.2 and the Standards applicable in the district. Whenever the Board grants Special Use Approval to a private recreational development or facility that includes a swimming pool, the Board shall require appropriate fencing and shall also require the applicant to make a commitment that necessary lifeguard protection will be provided at all times when the pool is open for use.” There was also a question regarding pool size, and the Department will be discussing this item with the Subdivision Committee. Dawn Barnett of Zaring Premier Homes, 2629 Waterfront Parkway, Indianapolis, asked if the Lakes at Hazel Dell commitment would go away if the City Council does not approve the amendment. Mr. Weinkauf’s response was in the negative. Dawn Barnett then formally requested that this item be Tabled and the Board granted the request. 3i. Merchants’ Pointe, Lot 5 – Borders V-70-01 Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 25.7.02- 8(c) 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 Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for The Linder Group. Jim Nelson, 3663 Brumley Way, Carmel, appeared before the Board representing Borders Bookstore. At the June meeting, Borders presented its request for a sign variance permitting a sign on the north facia of Borders Bookstore to be larger than that permitted under the Ordinance. Because of the number of Board members present, there was a “no decision vote.” Borders was then placed on tonight’s Agenda for re- consideration. Mr. Nelson briefly went over the current request. Borders Bookstore is in the southeast corner of Merchants Pointe on Lot 5. There is a practical difficulty in the lack of visibility of lot 5 and the future bookstore. Due to the greenbelt that is being preserved adjacent to Keystone Avenue, the distance of the th building from 116 Street, and the added fact that in the future, there will be a building s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 10 th between Borders and 116 Street, (Macaroni Grill) there is a distinct lack of visibility for signage. The sign that was presented was 187 square feet in size, and has received approval of the Plan Commission as to Architectural Design. A rendering of the sign was displayed. The Plan Commission requested the dark blue background, and this is computed in the dimensions of the sign. Mr. Nelson met with the Department in an attempt to reach a consensus regarding the sign. An alternative was presented and is being offered as an amendment to the variance request—a sign, exactly like the one presented, only smaller. The size proposed, 150 square feet, would include the blue background, however, the rectangular area of the text stating “Borders” is 93 square feet in size, within the size permitted by the Sign Ordinance. Last month, the Board approved the inclusion of “Borders” on the ground sign at AAA th Way and 116 Street. A commitment was tendered to the Department stating the inclusion of Borders on the ground sign would be included as one of the three signs Borders is permitted. The net result is that there are only two signs permitted on the Borders Bookstore—one on the north elevation, and one on the west, a total of three signs, one of which is the inclusion of “Borders” on the ground sign. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared and the public hearing was closed. Department Report, Laurence Lillig. On June 29, 2001, the petitioner’s representative met with the Department to present a revised design. The amended design of the sign resulted in an overall sign area of 151.42 square feet, the dimensions being 26.4 X 5.9. The text area on the amended sign measures 93.28 square feet, 23.9 ½ X 5.9, less than the maximum square footage permitted for an identification sign in this location, 95 square feet. The Department is recommending negative consideration of V-70-01. V-70-01, Borders Bookstore, Lot 5, Leo Dierckman moved for the approval of Merchants’ PointeAPPROVED , seconded by Pat Rice. 4-0. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. _______________________ Charles Weinkauf, President _______________________ Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\\BoardofZoningAppeals\\Minutes\\bza2001jul 11