PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
November 17, 2011
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for November 21, 2011.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our Board Secretary to have a roll call please.
Mr. Carlucci: Ms. Duffer- here
Mr. Cavanaugh- here
Mr. Gibbs- here
Mr. Monnett- here
We have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Monnett: Would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (October 17, 2011 meeting)
Mr. Monnett: I will entertain a motion for approval or corrections to our minutes from our meeting October 17, 2011.
Mr. Gibbs: I move that we accept the minutes as written.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Second.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye, thank you. I will now ask our Town Attorney, Mr. Daniel to please administer the oath of testimony.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
MR. Daniel conducted the oath of testimony
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Monnett reviewed the Guidelines Governing the conduct of public hearings. Tonight the first petition is BZA-11-013.
Mr. Sprague: This one is for Duke Energy which you all know it is located at 1000 East Main Street, as you can see it is zoned office district and is surrounded by several different zoning districts, and then the little red dashes are where the banners are proposed to go. The petition itself is for them to have two banners on their building that are 360 square feet each for 210 days for their centennial celebration, this differs from our zoning ordinance in three ways, normally they would only be allowed to have one banner on 40, although they would be allowed to have another one on Carr Road if they wanted too. The banners are normally limited to 32 square feet, so obviously it is a much larger size, and then the 210 day duration, normally the time period are for thirty days for up to five times a year, and if you calculate those all together that is 150 days, so it is still a little longer than that but it makes it not quite as bad. The banners themselves will actually only be facing the general commercial district, because as you can see from the building here, that will block the view from the residential districts, so either general commercial or US 40 will be where the banners will be visible from, and then this is the drawing that you all have in your packets of what the banners will look like, and I believe that the petition does say that they will have that window of vinyl but that is not really a sign it is just kind of an art feature. We are not counting that as part of the variance at all. So they are asking for an extra banner with 328 square feet extra each and then for an extra 60 days if you add the normal times all together. Although Plainfield does allow a grand opening banner, which this is similar too, celebrating a business event and the banners won't be facing any of the residential, just the commercial and US 40. If you have any questions I know the petitioner is here or I can answer them for you.
Mr. Cavanaugh: One question, would there be any additional lighting for the signage?
Mr. Barr: Steve Barr, 6313 Stone creek Drive, here in Plainfield. Additional lighting, no there will not be, and the banners themselves, if you look at the rendition, one thing I want to point out is they are placed in between the first and second story windows and if you have driven by the complex you notice that there is about a 6 or 8 inch gap, that is where the banners will be affixed too.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I guess I have one other general question, presuming this is Mr. Jenson's artwork that will be on the windows?
Mr. Barr: Yes, Chris has been working with the artwork.
Mr. Monnett: If there is anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this please come forward now. If not, I will close it to the public and open it up to our board for any further discussion or a possible motion.
Ms. Duffer: I don't have any, I think Duke Energy is a good partner, community partner and I wouldn't object to this.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I don't have any problem with it, it is very time limited and specifics with what they want to do. I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-11-013 as filed by Doug Esamann requiring a variance for the development standards to allow 2 360 square foot banner signs for 210 days at 1000 East Main Street subject to the following conditions;
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted and file dated October 22, 2011.
Ms. Duffer: I second.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci will you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. Cavanaugh, seconded by Ms. Duffer. Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, the motion is approved.
Mr. Monnett: Mr. James, I understand our BZA-11-014 wants a continuance.
Mr. James: That is correct, there was some confusion about how much outdoor storage they were allowed, they thought it was based on the size of the lot instead of the gross floor area of all structures on the property, so they wanted some time to rethink that and take another look at it, so they would like to continue to the December meeting.
Ms. Duffer: I will make a motion to continue BZA-11-014.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Second.
Mr. Monnett: Motion is second, all in favor say aye, thank you. Next isBZA-11-015.
Mr. James: The first thing we need to do is withdraw the variance request for the front yard setback variance off of Stanley Road, they don't need it anymore, they found out that there is not 120' of right of way, it is only 60', so with only 60' of right of way they are able to move the truck parking out so that it complies with the required setback. So with that I will continue with the second variance request and that is to have loading space between the building and the front lot line or Stanley Road, this project is for a proposed 420,000 square foot spec warehouse building, it is at the northwest corner of Stanley Road and Perry Road, which is zoned I-2. I just said there was an error made when looking at the right of way, so they came up with the 60 extra feet therefore they don't need the front setback variance and they don't need the encroachment agreement either. There is a ditch that runs across the northwest corner of the property and they have to move that ditch to the north of the property and that is why they needed the front setback in the first place when they thought the right of way was 120'. They are still going to have to move the ditch, but now they have the extra 60' so they don't need that extra setback variance. I think they are still going to use the depth of the yard development incentive from Stanley Road and also from Perry Road, but the development incentive, they can reduce the required setback in half, so off of Stanley Road they can reduce it from 60' to 30' and from Perry Road they can reduce it from 90' to 45'. The difference is because Stanley Road is a collector and Perry Road is a secondary arterial. Normally with the orientation of loading space issue, we usually take care of that with the Plan Commission with the development plan, but we amended that a couple of years ago, it used to be where it was required for any street when the loading space was oriented toward a front lot, but we changed that a couple of years ago to allow it to require it only when it faces a gateway corridor. This is probably the only lot that this is going to happen in Plainfield, in this instance where they are going to have to get a variance instead of using the orientation of loading space developments, so that is why they need that variance and then because Stanley Road is a collector and it is at the corner of Perry Road, which is a gateway corridor, they've agreed to go ahead and do the level 6 landscaping off of Stanley Road which is what would be required for the loading space orientation developments. The reason why it is level 6 is because we are adding the depth of yard requirement which is a level 2 plus a level 4 which is the orientation requirement. Here is the site, Stanley Road, Perry Road, the ditch that has to be moved, zoned I-2 surrounded by I-2 and surrounding uses is all warehouse, this is appropriate for this site, to the south is Con-Way, they got the special exception last year to expand their terminal and with that we increased their landscaping to a level 5 I believe, so it is a similar situation. Here is the site plan, this is the truck courts that will be out front right here, but now that we have the extra 60 feet it will comply with the required setback, but they are still using the depth of yard development incentive reduced to setback along here and along Perry Road, this complies with the 45' setback. Here is the landscaping plan, they do have a level 6 along Stanley Road, they put a level 3 here, but only a level 2 is required so they may reduce that to a level 2. They can do that with a development plan, it still has to go before the Plan Commission for review of the development plan and the building elevations, the landscaping, lighting, signage, everything that is involved with this development. They do have some auto parking between the building and the street and so landscaping is required for that, and they've got the required shrub row here and shrub row here, and here. They have to have parking lot trees and that has been included on the site, so all of the landscaping complies with what is required. So even though it is not required, they have agreed to go ahead and do the level 6 which is normally what would be required with the orientation loading space development incentive, all the landscaping complies and we did take this to the DRC and they recommended approval with some landscaping changes, swapping out some trees, but we will take care of that with the development plan. So they do have representatives here to answer your questions, so with that I will have a seat.
Mr. Carlucci: So one of the major changes was that they are going to relocate that creek.
Mr. James: Yes, they still have to relocate it, but I think they had an issue with the Army Corp Engineers about the width of the creek, so that at first they thought this was 60' of right of way, but it is not, it is actually their property, the right of way width for Stanley Road is only 60', so with the extra 60' they are able to avoid the relocated ditch and still comply to the required setback.
Mr. Carlucci: Because it has pretty much completely changed since we had a TAC meeting.
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Monnett: Is the petitioner here or someone representing the petitioner?
Mr. Weeks: Andy Weeks, Caymus Real Estate, 1926 Beverly Road, Columbus, Ohio44321.
Mr. Monnett: How long have they been in that location, the company that you are representing?
Mr. Weeks: This is proposed as a specula building.
Mr. Monnett: You've done business with them before?
Mr. Weeks: Yes.
Mr. Carlucci: I'm glad this worked out.
Mr. Weeks: So am I.
Mr. Carlucci: Because the front right of way was complicating everything and now we don't have to worry about encroachment agreements or anything else.
Mr. Monnett: Was that kind of a hold up earlier?
Mr. Carlucci: Well the biggest part of the problem is still that relocated creek and then you narrowed down their front setback, so I am glad it was resolved because that piece of property was really originally with John Deere building and another company owning that wanted to sell that piece off, well we were concerned about is that had to have some kind of flexibility or that land will never be able to be used correctly, so I am just glad that it is straightened out.
Mr. Weeks: Yes, me too, it has been a dynamic process, we've had several conversations with the Army Corp and their requirements were pushing us in one direction and then the mistake on our side was assuming it was a 120' right of way when it was actually only 60', so when we made that discovery we can give the Army Corp what they want, we can fill all of the requirements of Plainfield other than the one we are asking for, so I think it has turned out as well as we had hoped.
Ms. Duffer: If I am understanding this correctly, the reason why you are here is because of the orientation of this lot, so it is specific to the way that the lot is, is that correct Joe?
Mr. James: No, Article 4-11 talks about loading, you can't have loading space between a building and a front lot line, which basically means that you can't have it out front facing the street, and in a lot of cases like this building, it doesn't face a street, a public street so that is fine, they don't need a variance. We used to take care of this with the development plan and it was approved by the Plan Commission, because it required it facing any street but we amended it a couple of years ago to only require it when it faces a gateway corridor, so this is actually the first time that we ever had to get a variance from article 4-11 to allow it to face a street. This is a rare instance; this will probably be the last site that we will have to do this. We made it because at Allpoints, they are going to have a private street where loading space oriented toward it and so we thought that was a little extreme to require the level 6 when it is just a private street between the two buildings.
Ms. Duffer: Thank you.
Mr. Monnett: I will close it to the public and open it to our board for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I am prepared to make a motion. I would like to note for the record the petitioner has withdrawn the request to reduce the Stanley Road front setback from 30' to 13' and having said that, I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-11-015 as filed by Caymus Real Estate, LLC requesting a variance to allow loading between building and Stanley Road on a 27.8 acre site at the northwest corner of Stanley and Perry Roads subject to the following conditions:
1. Substancial compliance with the site plan submitted and file dated October 21, 2011.
2. The landscaping plans to be revised per DRC comments and submitted to the development plan for the primary building.
Mr. Gibbs: Second.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board?
Mr. Carlucci: Motion was made by Mr. Cavanaugh, seconded by Mr. Gibbs.
Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, the motion is approved.
Mr. James: That concludes our public hearing portion of the agenda and we will move onto old business/new business. Earlier I passed out the negative findings for the BZA-11-012, the Crager Bartels roof variance request that was denied last month, so we need to adopt the negative findings.
Mr. Gibbs: I noticed they removed their signage.
Mr. James: Yes, they complied.
Ms. Duffer: Quickly, that is good.
Mr. James: Yes, they did it within the 30 days.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I make a motion that we accept the negative findings of BZA-11-012.
Ms. Duffer: Second.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and second, all in favor say aye, thank you.
