PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
For February 23, 2012
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for February 23, 2012.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our board Secretary to have a roll call for determination of a quorum.
Mr. Carlucci: Ms. Duffer- here
Mr. Cavanaugh- here
Mr. Gibbs- here
Mr. Monnett- here
Four members present, none absent, we have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Monnett: Would you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (December 19, 2011 meeting)
Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our board for approval or changes to our minutes from our meeting of December 19, 2011.
Mr. Gibbs: I make a motion that we accept the minutes as written.
Ms. Duffer: I will second.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Monnett: Our next order is election of officers for 2012.
Mr. Gibbs: I move to continue the officers as 2011; I nominate Greg for the President.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Second.
Mr. Monnett: The motion is second, all in favor say aye, and our Vice President is Ms. Duffer.
Mr. Gibbs: I make a motion that we nominate Ms. Duffer as Vice President.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Second.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye. Thank you.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our Town Attorney to administer the oath of testimony for tonight.
Mr. Daniel conducted the oath of testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Monnett reviewed the guidelines governing public hearings.
First petition is BZA 12-001 Harlan Holdings, Mr. James.
Mr. James: Good evening members of the board, one order of business to take care of before we get started, for the first petition tonight, BZA-12-001 the petitioner failed to send the notice out to the interested parties by one day, so instead of 15 days they did 14 days before the public hearing date, so they have asked if we can waive the rules and comply with the Indiana Code Statue of 10 days, which they did meet.
Ms. Duffer: I will move that we approve that.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Second.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion is second, all in favor say aye.
Mr. James: Jill will give the presentation.
Ms. Sprague: This site you may be familiar with, it is on the southeast corner of Stafford Road and Brookside Drive. It is zoned R-2 and is surrounded by residential, primarily R-2 and R-3, it is currently an existing non conforming pallet company, and the petitioner is requesting to have the variance approved to change that pallet company to an office business, at the time the pallet company might want to leave the premises. In the process they proposed to do several things to improve the property, this is the location, the southeast corner of Brookside Lane and Stafford Road. This is the site plan and building plan, they proposed to remove the fence that is out in front on both Stafford Road and Brookside Lane and to paint the stripes and stuff onto the already existing concrete so that they would have a parking area that meets with what the ordinance requires, and they would also propose to put privacy fencing slats in the chain link fence that is in the rear, and then also to paint the building and install an entrance on Stafford Road, just do a few things to make it less industrial and more office like and hopefully more compatible with the surrounding residential. This is actually the east side of the building it is not really the rear, a little bit of sun glare, I apologize for that that is the side that they are proposing to put in the privacy fencing. This one has been a fairly contested site being surrounded by residential as it is, and the comp plan also does recommend residential for it as opposed to business. It is already a business and they are proposing to lessen the intensity of what is there. There are a few questions based on that, do you guys feel comfortable with them allowing the pallet company to remain until it is ready to go? Is there any concern about how the building will be used, especially with the rear of the property like it is, they don't propose to close in the overhead doors, and then with the privacy fencing in the back there is potential for possible outdoor storage. The office use however if used primarily as an office it would be much less intense then the pallet company currently is. Do you feel there are any additional conditions that should be placed on the property to make the office use more appropriate long term? The site if it were improved at such time that it would be improved, it would need to get an improvement location permit so that we can go through the zoning ordinance and make sure that it complies with as many things as possible at such the time that they would want to do those improvements. With that, that is mostly all I have, if you guys have any additional questions or want to talk about conditions we can do that and I know the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Monnett: Is the petitioner here and would like to come forward?
Mr. Hauskins: My name is Chad Hauskins; I live at 7740 Quail Ridge North Drive in the Hawthorne Ridge neighborhood.
Mr. Monnett: Question, why do you want to keep the pallet business there, while you are waiting on the other, or what is your thinking there, am I reading that right?
Mr. Hauskins: It's currently been in business, it was grandfathered in since 1998 ordinance, R-2 zoning. We have no reason to remove the pallet business in its current state, the office development would be contingent upon if the pallet business were deceased to exist or relocate its current location on Stafford Road.
Ms. Duffer: Have you had any discussions with them if that is their intent and how long it would be?
Mr. Hauskins: As far as we know the pallet business is going to continue in its current state as long as possible.
Mr. Daniel: Is there some reason that you are asking for this change now before the pallet business goes out of business?
Mr. Hauskins: Well we have an interest in purchasing the location if the pallet business were to seize to exist or change locations, it would be a good location for office development, we have not intentions of removing the existing company but we have an interest of the site itself.
Mr. Daniel: So you are a prospective purchaser?
Mr. Hauskins: Correct.
Mr. Carlucci: I live a couple of blocks from there so I go by there everyday and I always thought that legal non conforming use, that you could not do anything to change the operation on that so it was always a pallet business, but at one point, the mini barn is still there, they were thinking about making mini barns, that is still on the site, they were storing canoes in the back of the building at one time, there is a trailer that has been there, that was never there when the pallet business was going, it is still there. I find it to be somewhat of a eyesore to the neighborhood there, and at some point they still have a motor home on that property, if it was a pallet business how does all of these other items get brought in there?
Mr. Hauskins: That is a very good question, myself we have nothing to do with the operations of the pallet building itself, so as far as the outdoor storage is concerned, the business itself I would assume has requirements through their pallets being stored outside, equipment needed to conduct their business.
Mr. Carlucci: I am asking specifically about the trailer which has rarely ever moves off that site at all, and it was not there originally when that pallet business was there, now it is there all of the time. I'm just saying there is other what I consider not legal uses being added to that property that should not be there.
Mr. Hauskins: Ok, what capacity do we have as a potential purchaser of that property to either require the movement of that or reasoning as to why?
Mr. Carlucci: This is really more information not only for you but for the board of what is on that site. Literally I come up Brookside Lane everyday, stop there at the corner come down here to go to work, you cannot expand a legal non conforming use and that is what I am trying to that point, that they have expanded a legal non conforming use already on that site.
Mr. Hauskins: So contingent upon our purchase of that property would those conditions need to be resolved prior to that?
Mr. Carlucci: That is up to the Board of Zoning Appeals of what they want to do with this case here. I just go by there everyday so I notice all of the changes, it is a 4 way stop, it is a good idea to stop at a 4 way stop instead of going through, and so I see it everyday so I notice those things of course.
Mr. Daniel: Rich I don't go by there everyday like you do, but quite frankly if that has been going on there is some possibility I could have or (inaudible) their non conforming status, we have expanded that when we've been in this before with a couple of non conforming uses her when they start doing things that they not entitled to do.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Chad can you tell us a little bit about the plan use for the office space, what type of business you will conduct there and as presuming your group to be an owner and get that occupied or is it going to be a leased space, tell us about the final outcome.
Mr. Hauskins: It would be all non retail, we would look to house, if you can see on the site plan, one of the businesses that would have their businesses that would have their office there would be the business of one of the owners, Elite Pro Painting, owned by one of the business owners, Andy Danforth that would be most likely the first business to move into the location, the other businesses that we envision would be small businesses per say, I would say businesses such as air conditioning and heating, more for the true office and administrative space perhaps to house a secretary who takes in phone calls, meets with clients on limited appointments. The spaces are not going to be substantial where you could host a board room, bring in a number of clients or customers per say or an administrative type of area, and it would be non retail.
Mr. Gibbs: (inaudible) that space being a professional type space (inaudible) where outdoor storage space would be necessary?
Mr. Hauskins: Correct, in terms of outdoor storage, the businesses that we are seeking, we don't feel that there would be a strong need for storage of materials, the only materials per say outdoor storage, maybe a vehicle for example. If we brought in a painting company and they had a work truck or what not, but obviously to be parked within the parking spaces allocated according to any of the zoning stipulations by the board. In terms of outdoor storage and piles of materials for various businesses, we do not anticipate that.
Mr. Gibbs: As a potential buyer, you have no idea how long this other place will potentially be there, even though the property is for sale, their intention (inaudible).
Mr. Hauskins: Correct, there is no specific timeline as far as we are going to be in business another 6 months or six years, we really can't project the timeframe. Our hope is that the business can function and operate in a profitable manor as long as we will allow, our plans and our proposals would come into play contingent upon the seizing of that business or their relocation.
Ms. Duffer: But once you have an agreement and you purchase that property, I assume you will have a lease with that company, is that correct?
Mr. Hauskins: That will be correct.
Ms. Duffer: Then what length of term lease would you start with?
Mr. Hauskins: That is a very good question; I would imagine that would be discussed with the current ownership of the pallet company, so I wouldn't even be able to tell you specific timeframe at this point.
Mr. Daniel: Joe has there been any written submission as far as the restrictions they proposed on that property, variances granted?
Mr. James: No, they have not offered any commitments.
Mr. Monnett: Thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this petition, please come forward.
Ms. Pence: Good evening, I am Marie Christine Pence and I live at 1422 Stafford, which is just catty corner from the business in question, and I just wanted to express that I understand that the use there is a variance, and they are looking for another variance. We have lived there for twenty years and it has been a good neighborhood, so my concern would be that any additional use that comes into that property doesn't negatively impact the property value, the safety, traffic is an issue there because you've got a 4 way stop sign there, people blow through that stop sign several times, we can hear a crash coming and then we call 9-1-1 because we get used to hearing what it sounds like, so if you've got parking with multiple businesses I could see that being a potential issue. In terms of what would be the hours of operation, so would there be restrictions on that, because you are in a neighborhood, so in terms of noise and safety for the children, or property value, then also outside storage would also be a concern like Mr. Carlucci mentioned, that trailer has been there, it hasn't been there and it is just kind of sitting there. Those are the kind of concerns I have, I'm not necessarily against it, but I'd be concerned about how this board rules on this and takes into account all those concerns I expressed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Monnett: Thank you is there anyone else that would like to come forward, please do.
Mr. Danforth: I live at 7884 Quail Ridge North Drive, and I am one of the owners of the Mark Wood Products which is the property that we are discussing. I just wanted to make a couple of comments about your concerns. The reason why the semi is there, is we about two years ago got some new business and in the process of doing so we were building it at another location, we moved the manufacturing into 1501 and with that came the trailer, now you think that trailer sits there all the time, but it actually moves, we fill it up, it goes and another one comes in it's place, but you are right it has been there. We have given up that business and we have about three more loads that we will be manufacturing in the semi will seize to be on that property, so that will completely go away. The canoes were there before we ever bought the building, Mark Allen was the previous owner and he was a Cub Scout Master and he stored the Cub Scouts canoe there that was the purpose of them. The RV was my tailgating RV for the Colts and it hasn't been there in a year, we sold it a little more than a year ago, I'm trying to think of what else you brought up that we might have a good answer for, the mini barn, we had the mini barn up the road, up closer to the road and a for sale sign on it and they asked us to move it back where did and we've complied with that, we did exactly what they asked us to do at that time. To my knowledge we have not been told that we were doing in anything wrong by having that mini barn on that property, if that is the case we will move it, we will find a home for it with out a doubt. As far as the length of the business staying there, it is a profitable business, it has been there for a long time before we bought it, we don't have any necessary plans on moving it, the property has been for sale, and we had considered if we sold it depending on who bought it whether we would continue to stay there or not, but just to answer that question we don't have plans necessarily on moving the property out of there and we know it is a wonderful neighborhood and we are all residents of Plainfield and take a lot of pride in Plainfield and will continue to do whatever needs to be done to keep it a safe and decent place to live. Thank you, do you have any questions for me?
Mr. Cavanaugh: Yes, could you give us some type of indication of the level of interest of other purchasers of the property, and if so what type of users continues the business there or similar business?
Mr. Danforth: Well our first business we were told was from the Town of Plainfield, we were told that they wanted to buy it for a park, and that was skipped around by a number of people for a long time and then we never heard anything about it. We've shown it a number of times to small businesses, the realtors have, others people want to do things in it of course that you don't want done there, and I understand, but we haven't had a lot of interest, but we have had some.
Mr. Monnett: Thank you is there anyone else that would like to come forth and speak for or against this petition please do so. Seeing none, I will close it to the public portion and open it up to our board for discussion, or a possible motion.
Mr. Gibbs: My feeling is we got an interesting piece of property for the Town and the use that it has been over the period of time, I'm not sure that there is a lot of businesses that we would actually allow to go in there in the future, but to me it seems like some type of professional office space seems logical to do that, there is some concern on outdoor storage and having businesses there that would create high traffic area in and out of there with service trucks and those types of things from my point of view, yet it is continuing to be there for privacy and things that can tend itself to be a bit more outdoor storage space, it would be nice if there was some perimeters that would come forth, either a recommendation (inaudible) Town, or the local property owners also around there would help satisfy at least some of my interest from that prospective.
Mr. Daniel: Mr. President let me make a couple of comments. The concern I have is with no written restrictions for this board essentially we spot zoning there and that is what you would be doing with a use variance, and then I don't know what the zoning is there because they haven't asked for office district or anything else, they just say let us put some business in there one of these days. I was on the board when the cherry building was approved down there on Stafford down there on the corner of residential over there. The problem there was the southern two lots are in the flood zone and no residents can be built in there because it was a hardship. So even though it was zoned residential it was impossible to sell those and put a house in there, so there was a legal hardship, I never heard any hardship here, that I think can't be used as residential area just like the rest of the neighborhood, and there is nothing unique about that property, it is not in a flood zone and there are no peculiar configuration or anything else about the property, but never the less even with the hardship, the BZA was concerned enough about that residential area that they could severe restrictions on that property up too and including approving every tenant that went in that building, and all of that was done before it was ever approved, which I think was a smart thing to do, because if you are talking residents that is concerned just like you are, what kind of business is going to be in there, and how much traffic and to deal with this and the abstract if nothing in their hands today and maybe nothing in two or three years and then somebody come in and say well I have a use variance to put a business in there and we don't have anything to say what you can and can't put in there. So I am just concerned this is just premature, I appreciate the fact that they would like to sell the business, and have somebody like to buy the business, but when you start even considering a spot zone variance like this in a residential area, I think you will have to be very careful that if you chose to do it, it is done in such a fashion that that residential area is really protected. For what that is worth.
Mr. Carlucci: It would be nothing to conclude the board from at least to attempting the Town and the owner to try to put a set of commitments together and bring it back at the next meeting, because I don't get the sense of right now that this is the approach you want to take at this time.
Mr. Daniel: Try to write those in the middle of a public hearing, it can be a hard thing to do.
Mr. James: That was my next question; can you use commitments with a use variance? I don't have my Indiana Code with me.
Mr. Daniel: Yes, we can place commitments on it. Now it is up to the board to decide whether or not you think this meets the legal standard otherwise whether there is a hardship there or whether there is something unique about that property that even qualifies for a use variance, because you can set precedence when you do that sort of thing and someone says well you let him go in a residential district, and I want to go in this one over here. Last but not least, I checked on that because our ordinance, I won't read it to you, but it essentially said non conforming uses are allowed to continue as long as they continue as they existed without expanding and they are not to be encouraged to continue it is right in the ordinance, that is the whole idea of a non conforming use, is that it is assumed.
Mr. James: Yes, that is the best case scenario that once the pallet company leaves, the building gets either converted into a single family and it gets demolished and somebody rebuilds…
Mr. Daniel: Or they rezone, that is why we have rezoning, if it qualifies for an office district for any rezoning petition under the Plan Commission and try to rezone it, and if you don't then your spot zoning with variances.
Mr. James: Correct, but the owners would have to petition for the rezone.
Mr. Daniel: Yes, correct.
Mr. Carlucci: However it maybe worth every bodies effort not to at least look at putting some type of commitments together, we may be able to do that or we may not be able to do it.
Mr. James: Yes, we can sit down…
Mr. Carlucci: And those commitments are recorded once they are adopted by the BZA, and I think that is the main approach to go, we have done these commitment deals in the past and a lot of regular development in the Town have commitments on them, so it might be worth everybody's effort to try to meet and try to work something out with the commitments.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I have a couple of comments, I'm in agreement with what Mel has said, there is a choice between a rezone and a variances being requested, the use variance. Mel you correct me if my understanding is wrong, but with the rezone and that is a permanent zone and it is that way until some body might want to request a different rezone, with the use variance that could be limited to current ownership, current occupancy, so that if the petitioner comes forward in some way and gained approval, and then at some point and time the current owner wanted to sell that asset, then before that could happen the potential new owner would have to come in and get a continuance of the existing use variance or not, it gives them un-opportunity if a successful conversion is created, a successful use is created, if that use was to change then the Town has the opportunity to see it again with the rezone it can always be used for the use that was set by the rezone.
Mr. Daniel: Correct, one thing I will say, the law does change, use variances traditionally, you could restrict them to the current owner and (inaudible) I haven't looked at that for a day or two, but I am assuming tonight that is true, but I will find out.
Mr. Cavanaugh: If we were to move forward with that, that would be something that I would consider, I think that, I kind of struggled with this, because it is a tough spot, it is a unique piece of property. I do think it has some hardship because it has currently been operating as a relatively intense business operation of some time, and the proposal before us, even without restrictions is for and I will say I think a significantly less intense, and with restrictions we can guarantee the intensity of the use, or have better control of it, I won't say guarantee, we could have better control over the intensity of the use, I would also be concerned from the development standpoint that if the current business was to leave, that location and not have all that interest, then we have a (inaudible) industrial lot, and I don't know if there is much desire for redevelopment of that into residential use in that area, so that isn't necessarily a variance issue, but it is worth consideration. So I would be inclined when asking the petitioner to work with staff and come up with a suitable list of commitments and come back so that we can have a well defined application there and you can make a good judgment of how it would fit in there and be more suitable for the neighborhood use for long term, it would also have the opportunity to have gone through that diligence and respect other petitions that may come that way, that is only my thoughts. I would like to hear from the petitioner to see if that approach is suitable.
Mr. Hauskins: I feel it is suitable, the only question that I would have is, lets say it is a six to ten year period with the pallet company still in operation, would this be periodically reviewed on a calendar basis of a year, every two years. I mean the businesses that maybe interested in that property now may change five years from now, so whatever commitments we would draw up in the near term, would they be able to hold true say three to four years from now? As long as the pallet company is in existence, we don't anticipate making the site plan changes until they would seize to exist or relocate to a different position, so would the commitments that we make now still be true for x amount of months or years depending upon the pallet company remaining in force.
Mr. Cavanaugh: They would be your commitments…
Mr. Monnett: So that is up to you.
Mr. Hauskins: So we can limit that to just business in general?
Mr. Cavanaugh: I think working with the Town staff and the allowances in the existing zoning classes with the Town, you can craft a fairly wide range of applications to chose from, I think the concern would be the vehicle size, parking requirements, outside storage, from the businesses that you mentioned, I'm somewhat familiar with the elite propanning truck that I see from time to time, but if we start having large step vans or trailer vehicles or vehicles above ton hauling capacity at that location, that is one consideration, if we are limited to typical contractor type vehicles that may be more acceptable, those I think will be the type of commitments that we would expect, so on the work vehicle issue, you could have a panning truck an HVAC truck, Pony truck, general carpentry truck or something like that that limited size and capacity, but if you want to come in with quad cab duallies and long distant trailers then that is probably not going to be acceptable just in comparison, so I think there are explanations and degrees of coverage in the zoning ordinance that people can pick and chose from, give yourself a wide range of flexibility of time but still want to keep a lower impact use, perhaps the board would be comfortable.
Mr. Hauskins: So would it remain as a variance use with no need in the future to ever be rezoned according to the commitments?
Mr. Cavanaugh: I would expect so, but as I've said before when you get to that point, I am probably in favor of limiting the use variance to current ownership, so that if your business changes hands or treats that as an asset and wants to sell it, then the Town has the opportunity to interview it if you will, the potential new owner and make sure that they understand the set of commitments and restrictions that they are going to be purchasing into at that time, and we do that with other special exceptions that we grant and it seems to work well, so that is something that I would be considering is a time limit from the current ownership position.
Mr. Hauskins: What details, do I just work with Joe and Jill in terms of down to the types of businesses anywhere from a certified public accountant to a carpenter?
Mr. Cavanaugh: Those lists are written in the zoning ordinance, Jill and Joe know it by heart I'm sure.
Mr. Hauskins: I will refer to them then.
Mr. Cavanaugh: That is my consideration that is how I can agree...
Mr. Hauskins: Sounds quite reasonable, absolutely, that is kind of the direction that we were looking for from the board, so thank you, and to meet at the next meeting?
Mr. Monnett: If we continue this, is 30 days enough time?
Mr. Hauskins: I'm off one week in March but I will work around.
Mr. Monnett: So 30 days?
Mr. Hauskins: Sure.
Mr. Cavanaugh: If there is no further comments or questions, I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals continue BZA-12-001, as filed by Harlan Holdings, LLC, requesting a variance of use to allow an office use to take over the property at 1501 Stafford Road until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and during that time the expectations is they will work out a set of commitments and use restrictions with Town staff.
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 and seconded by Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. Monnett: Our next petition is BZA-12-002, New Cingular Wireless.
Mr. James: Before we get started on that one I just want to make one more comment, I have stopped there several times and told them they can't store things out front on Brookside and I think I even met Mr. Danforth once and talked to him. I will get with Mr. Danforth and we will see if we can't clean up the property a little bit and reduce the impacts to the neighborhood.
Mr. Monnett: Thank you.
Mr. James: This is a petition to install a new cell tower at 2191 Airwest Blvd. Cell towers are allowed in all zoning districts by special exception, and this site is in our light industrial warehouse district, zoned to I-2, and article 4.6 in the zoning ordinance provides regulations for new cell tower installation at the site the cell tower will have to comply with, I will go over those, here is the site, Airwest Boulevard, 2191, this is their coverage map, it shows there coverage at this time without the tower, and it shows the existing towers, this is the proposed site and then this is their coverage if the new tower is installed, you can see they have much better coverage in this area. A new cell tower can not be closer than 5,000 feet from an existing cell tower, so this is the proposed site and this the 5,000 foot radius, they just make it, they are just outside of this cell tower location, here is an aerial of this site, they are going to put it out behind the building, you can see it is zoned I-2, so it is surrounded by light industrial warehouse uses. The type and height comply, it has to be a monopole tower, which it is, and a maxed out the height at 120' and that is the maximum height allowed by article 4.6, and as I said they comply with 5,000 foot radius requirement. They have to have a fence and it has to be landscaped by level 3 perimeter landscaping that complies, the new tower has to have the ability to carry at least three service providers and that complies, the location of the tower is to make efforts so there is no visual impact and it blends in with the surroundings, they have located at the rear of the lot, let me show you some photos, it complies with airspace height restriction based on the airport restriction, they can't co-locate on an existing tower or structures, so to get better service in this area they have to have the new tower. Article 4.6 requires that the design review committee reviews it and it was reviewed and they recommended approval as submitted, it does not impact historical sites, landscapes or residential areas for the equipment building it is going to be the standard prefab structure that is used for cell towers. This is the site plan, as you can see they are going to put it behind the building, it is a 50 X 50 compound, they do have the required level 3 landscaping and they do have a security fence around the compound. There is the security fence with the equipment structure and then the monopole tower that is 120' tall. Here is a photo of the prefab equipment building. I will show you some photos in these locations, here is Airwest, State Road 267, here is the proposed tower location, this is Airwest coming around the curb location 1, this is the building it is going to be placed behind the building, and here is the building with the tower. You can barely see it; it looks like another antenna or a flag pole. Here is location 2, it is going to be back here at the back of the lot, then here is what the tower will look like from out in front of the building, we have this tree line behind it that will help make it blend, this is from State Road 267, and then here is the proposed site and these trees help make it blend, I think they did a good job of choosing a location so that it will blend in with the surroundings. I've said enough, I will have a seat, and Steve Carr is here to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Carr: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, my name is Steve Carr; address is 2894 Aldergate Drive, Greenwood, Indiana 46143. I am representing New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC on the special exception request to locate a new wireless communications facility at the 2191 Airwest Boulevard, it was such a detailed presentation I don't really have to say much as to the location I think you all understand where it is, and I respectfully request your approval for the special exception before you and I can answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Monnett: I don't have any. Is there anyone here that would like to talk for or against this petition please come forward now.
Mr. Rooks: My name is Arnie Rojas, 2185 Airwest Boulevard, as place of employment and 8211 Cottonwood Court here in Plainfield is my place of residency. I am here on behalf of Griot's Garage, the beautiful white building with red stripes that is pictured right there. On behalf of the owner Richard Griot and as a share holder of the company we saw the zoning appeal and we have a concern we want to bring to the board. About a year ago we were approached perhaps the by the same group and had asked if we would put one directly behind our property and we thought about it, the owner again Richard Griot looked into it and at the end of the decision making, he decided not to do it because the fear of the diminishing property value that we put again in the building itself. We don't know if these are going to be short term or long term implications in the event we want to sell the business down the road, but again as a share holder, it doesn't look appealing, nor does it look ecstatically correct in our opinion, but we are just one opinion. We ask the board if there are any other considerations that we can do before the approval process, if there are any available avenues that we can look into before you approve this, that way we can go back to the owner and give him a report of this, we have seen several towers like that or even better, the one thing that we hope that the board would consider is if they would put something like this, make it somewhat appealing, I remember seeing one right by the water tower, I think there might be a cell phone tower by the Fire Department.
Mr. Carlucci: Yes, that actually, it is our water tower and it is the Hendricks County Communication Center equipment is up on top of that one.
Mr. Rojas: We also looked at several towers from our corporate office in the Seattle area, they are making these towers a little more ecstatically correct, to somewhat conform with the businesses, we've seen them in the manor of a cross tree, bird house of some sort, so to protect our investment, long term investment we are just bringing to your attention our concern, whether this is short term, long term , the property that we have now we feel it looks a little bit different than just a box or a cardboard, so at some point the panel will have to decide, and if the decision is that it has to happen we just really ask that you let us know if there is anything we can do before that approval process or if the company can make it look a little more ecstatically correct, perhaps draping a flag over it or something, instead of just being bland, it would immediately effect us, that was one of the decision factor that we thought, between us and Dorel and Dorel right next to us at that time it was Clark's Product, we figured they would be effected some what by the property value.
Mr. Monnett: Thank you. If there is anyone else that would like to speak for or against this petition please come forward, if not I will close it to the general public and open it up to our board for discussion, or a possible motion on BZA-12-002.
Ms. Duffer: I am ok with the proposal as it reads.
Mr. Monnett: I am too; I don't have any disagreement with it at all.
Mr. James: Mr. Rojas is this you're building?
Mr. Rojas: Yes it is.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I think the petitioner did a good job (inaudible) that meets the requirements and use in that area (inaudible).
Mr. Monnett: Mr. Gibbs, any questions?
Mr. Carlucci: Our ordinance specifically says it has to be a monopole and if you go by the interstate or some of those other poles that were put up in the Town at the time, what is the other company besides monopole, lattice.
Mr. James: What is your question?
Mr. Carlucci: Well we have monopole, but there are other types of poles that look much worse, if you go out on I-70 there are two or three type out there.
Ms. Duffer: Lattice.
Mr. Carlucci: Lattice, we don't allow those and we also have a distance requirement so that we are not interfering with someone else's pole, but also because we wanted them separated out so they wouldn't be clustered throughout the community, so that is why we have that distance.
Mr. James: And we do encourage co-location before they attempt to put up a new tower and we just don't have any structures or we don't have the ability to co-locate in this area.
Ms. Duffer: I'm prepared to make a motion if there is no more discussion. I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-12-002, as filed by New Cingular Wireless, PCS, requesting a Special Exception to allow installation of a new
Monopole wireless telecommunication tower at 2191 Airwest Blvd. subject to the following conditions: 1, Substantial compliance with site plan, tower elevations, equipment building photo and landscaping plan file dated January 20, 2012.
Mr. Monnett: Second. A motion and second Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by Ms. Duffer, Seconded by Mr. Monnett, Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. Monnett: Our next petition is BZA-12-003, Ms. Sprague.
Ms. Sprague: This one is for a new Teddy's Burger Joint at Metropolis. They plan to take over what used to be the Centro Italian Restaurant on the corner there. In 2005 Premier properties did get approval for four special exceptions out at Metropolis, but at this point those have all been taken up so we have to bring in new people each time. The tendency in the past was to have the bar area 25% of the floor area of the restaurant or less, and in this case, we had the plans for the Centro, but I asked them, or they submitted us the plans for the Centro and I asked them what the difference would be and they said that their bar area is actually going to be 400 square feet smaller than that was, so then that will definitely put them within our preferred 25% area, so I know it is a burger joint and I know the petitioner is here if you have any more questions, it seems pretty straight forward.
Mr. Monnett: Petitioner wants to come forward please.
Mr. Larson: Hi, my name is Corey Larson, 6725 Marble Archway, in Indianapolis, Indiana 46259. I'm open to any questions or concerns you might have.
Mr. Monnett: I'm not concerned; I'm just asking what your hours are.
Mr. Larson: We are going to be open, our current restaurant is open from 11 to 9, Sunday through Thursday, Friday and Saturday we are open till 11. At this location we may stay open a little later, but it would not be past midnight, maybe 11:30.
Mr. Monnett: You want to gear it for St. Patrick's Day is that correct?
Mr. Larson: That is the correct.
Mr. Monnett: I don't blame you.
Mr. Larson: We are hoping to get opened around March 13th so we can have a friends and family sort of thing.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Larson, you mentioned another location, so you have other restaurants that you operate?
Mr. Larson: We currently do, we have a location at Southport and 37, in Indianapolis, that is our first location, this location is under construction right now, and then we plan to open like I said mid March, and then we have another location that we are opening in Center Grove in July or August, somewhere in there, they've started construction in March. Plainfield is the closest we are going to get to there until we franchise out, but currently it is the Plainfield Mall.
Mr. Monnett: What would you say is the best item on your menu?
Mr. Larson: As far as our Cajun burger sells the most, that and the tenderloin, the hand breaded tenderloins are really good. My favorite is the Stromboli burger.
Mr. Carlucci: I have a favorite and I haven't gone there yet, it is called build your own grilled cheese sandwich.
Mr. Larson: Yes and you can put anything you like in there, we have nine different cheeses and we have white and wheat bread and buns things like that, gourmet salads, it is a good place, we are a very family friendly place. The liquor license is really just kind of a thing for the Metropolis location, we are a very family friendly place, we have a kid's room in the back with chalk boards, so it is a fun place and a good place for everyone, and everything is separate so it is good, we have a lot of fun with it.
Mr. Gibbs: I'm glad it is family friendly.
Mr. Monnett: Thank you sir is there anyone here that would like to speak for or against this please come forward now. Seeing none I will close it to the public and open it up to our board for anymore discussion or approval.
Ms. Duffer: I'm ready to make a motion if we have no discussion. I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-12-003, as filed by Corey Larson, requesting a Special Exception to allow the serving of alcohol at Teddy's Burger Joint at 2499 Futura Park Way, Suite 170, subject to the following condition: 1. Approval is only for Teddy's Burger Joint and is nontransferable to a subsequent business/owner/operator at the same location.
Mr. Monnett: I will second that. We have a motion and a second Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: The motion was made by Ms. Duffer, Seconded by Mr. Monnett. Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs- yes
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. James: That is all that I have for tonight, I just want to let you know that Mike Brouillard is going to be our new BZA member, he will join us in March, but he will be the appointee from the Plan Commission, we will appoint him in the March meeting so he will be with us in March. We will now have two petitions in March.
Mr. Monnett: If there is not anymore business I will take a motion for adjournment.
