PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPPEALS
For June 18, 2012, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for June 18, 2012.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINE OF QUORUM
Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our board Secretary if you will please have a roll call for determination of a quorum.
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- here
Ms. Duffer- here
Mr. Cavanaugh- here
Mr. Gibbs- is absent tonight.
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, one absent, we have a quorum for purpose of conducting business.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Monnett: Would you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (May 21, 2012 meeting)
Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our board for approval or changes amendments to our minutes for our meeting of May 21, 2012.
Ms. Duffer: I have no changes and I will make a motion to approve the minutes.
Mr. Monnett: I have a motion to approve do I have a second.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Second.
Mr. Monnett: and a second, all in favor say aye.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our Town Attorney, Mr. Daniel would you please administer our oath of testimony tonight.
Mr. Daniel conducted the Oath of Testimony.
Mr. Monnett reviewed the guidelines governing the conduct of public hearings.
PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Monnett: First petition tonight is BZA-12-009, Ms. Sprague.
Ms. Sprague: Good evening. This petition is requested by Jason Bourne, he is the owner of Fleet Lease, they are hoping to open a used auto car dealer in what is currently a residential building, but it is zoned general commercial. As the building is residential it is not really set up for auto sales and as the ordinance requires that any auto sales within 600' of a gateway corridor, which Main Street is that it has to have a showroom, detailing or washing facilities as well as repair center. Since the home obviously does not have a show room, they are requesting the special exception, and they propose to use the garage as the detail and potential repairs. The site and most of its surroundings is general commercial as you can see from the map. To the north and a little bit to the west is actually is out in the County and that is a residential district there. The comprehensive plan also shows this is regional commercial and then still residential in the same areas that the County zoning is residential. The comprehensive plan also however has a separate amendment that is in regard to the Ronald Reagan Parkway. Anything within 1,000' to either side of the Ronald Reagan Parkway is covered by this amendment and in this case the property is within the 1,000' and the Ronald Reagan Parkway does not recommend the auto sales as a use within that corridor. This is the site plan that they proposed for us, it showed that the pink area that you can see there is already paved and they propose to amend that so that the green area is also paved and so that the pavement flows together evenly. They do not show what would be required as the parking area and landscaping that would be required with any new parking area, but we could approve that with an ILP to make sure that they got all of that stuff approved at the time ILP was submitted. This is the building, so obviously a home with no showroom. And you can see the circle drive there. I did pass out a letter to you guys from the next door neighbor to the east. One issue that I think this photo addresses is that some of the folks from the previous use would come in her yard and just drive across this property if they missed. I think you can kind of see where their pavement is pretty near to each other and I can see how that can happen, at least relatively frequently. I don't have a photo zoomed in far enough from the aerial to show where their pavement is. But those are a couple of issues there. The site plan shows the paving but not any striping, landscaping, or setbacks, which again we can make sure it gets approved properly with ILP, the petitioner runs a similar facility out of the building to the west and the same neighbor with the letter there had some concerns about how that property was being maintained, particularly in the rear. Does the Ronald Reagan Comp Plan Amendment cause any concern with the proposed use, and is the conversion of existing singe family homes in the general commercial uses, is that the way we want to try and have the east side of Plainfield develop? Then also are there any additional commitments that you would like to see made in order to feel more comfortable if you decide to approve this special exception?
I know the petitioner is here and if you have any questions for me just let me know.
Mr. Monnett: Would the petitioner like to come forward?
Mr. Bourne: Good evening, Jason Alexander Bourne actually live at 725 S. East Street, Plainfield. My goal is to take this current property and pave it to get started with, we will go ahead and stripe it and we will do the necessary landscaping to the front closest to the road and also on the side as closest to the neighboring property to prevent the drive over that they had an issue with, so that should take care of that little issue. We are planning to do a showroom later, but we wanted to get the property started off with the lower income and work our way up as the years go by to make sure it is a successful business. That is pretty much it, I think that when we are done, it will actually improve the area because we are going to make the whole site there look better when you first get into Plainfield with the landscaping, the lighting, and the new blacktop paving, it will actually help it out and then like I said eventually with the showroom, it will enhance the whole building. If you have any questions for me.
Ms. Duffer: I do, so you currently run the car lot that is next door?
Mr. Bourne: I run one that is actually two properties over, it's Fleet Lease, and there is actually a hotel and a diner in between the two properties as of right now.
Ms. Duffer: Ok, so this is an expansion of what you currently, or is this going to be totally separate?
Mr. Bourne: Totally separate lot.
Ms. Duffer: What is the differentiation between this lot and the one that you currently have.
Mr. Bourne: The one I have now I am leasing, so this one here I plan on purchasing, or it is purchased, like I said I will be able to put more money to the property to make it nicer.
Ms. Duffer: So the other one will go away?
Mr. Bourne: Yes.
Ms. Duffer: Then it also says that you are going build a service department in about two years.
Mr. Bourne: Probably yes, in the back, I want to pave that part also, just enough for the property and then build a three car bay just for the servicing of the vehicles.
Mr. Carlucci: I was curious, is the three bay areas where you are going to fix cars, is that going to be approved now, or will you come back later to get that approved.
Ms. Duffer: Well it says within two years. But that is something that we could inquire.
Mr. Bourne: I will be more than happy to come back and show plans for that and get approved before hand.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Bourne have you had contact with your neighbors then, particularly those to your west about the plans you have in mind here? We have a letter there on the table…
Mr. Bourne: Was that the neighbor to the east?
Mr. Cavanaugh: Yes.
Mr. Bourne: No I have not had any contact with them. I have been over there at the property and I have seen them, I've waved and everything, but nobody has come over and made any issue as far as I know. But I have not gone out of my way to go and knock on the door and ask them about it, no.
Mr. Monnett: If you don't mind at this point, Ms. Duffer will read that so we can have it in our record.
Mr. Bourne: Yes, I haven't seen that either.
Ms. Duffer: This is from April Franklin, 3162 East Main Street, Plainfield, Indiana. The letter states; I do not want this car lot next to me, they are already on Main Street, they work on vehicles behind their office, non running vehicles are parked in the rear like a junk yard. I had a problem with Rosey's Spa that was there before, their customers would use my driveway as an access to their property, they would drive through my yard and leave big ruts in my grass. I almost got ran over twice last winter removing the snow from my drive. Rosey's customers came up my drive and crossed over my yard and into theirs; they never even slowed down or asked if they were using the right driveway. Lighting for the car lot would shine right into my bedrooms, if you do grant them the rights to have a car lot there, I would like a fence in front to keep them from crossing over into my yard and a tall wooden or plastic 8' fence in the rear of the property so that I can still use my pool and have some privacy. I think the car lot would hurt my property value. A dentist office or insurance company would be a better match for the neighborhood. I don't want to see these tires stacked up and draw bugs or have cars leaking oil or antifreeze contaminating the ground, I have well water.
Mr. Monnett: This was received and stamped in our office June 18, 2012. Thank you Ms. Duffer, sorry to interrupt you Mr. Cavanaugh.
Mr. Bourne: As far as the fence is concerned, I can take care of that, the 8' fence for privacy would actually work for both of our benefits. The cars being worked on that she issued, I cannot speak for the other properties, but we do not work on cars behind our place, nor do we have any location to do so. So I think she might be mistaken as for another dealer. I can see her concern with the cars antifreeze, most of the cars that we buy are in working condition, as far as the service phase, that is just going to service the oil and stuff like that to maintain the cars more so than actually buying cars to fix up and do that kind of stuff. I understand her concern with the lighting and stuff too, we will do our best to shine our lights away from it, from my understanding I thought she was using that residence as a rental and renting it out, so I'm not actually sure it is going to effect her herself or not, or the tenants she plans to have in her place.
Mr. Monnett: You do want to build a showroom in two years but still want to start this without a showroom correct?
Mr. Bourne: Yes, start without a showroom, it does have a 2 car attached garage, I was planning on using that as service bay for now.
Mr. Brouillard: Is it like a sheer driveway?
Mr. Monnett: I can't tell what…
Mr. Bourne: No, there is actually, there is quite a bit of difference in the drop between the two properties. The one to the left is much higher, I'm not sure if you can tell by garage doors on hers, but they are actually half way up, there is about a good foot and a half to two feet between the driveways and then there's probably about 4' of grass growing between them, so the cars that drove over would have to have been trucks is what I am guessing to make it over the hump to get to the next property that she was talking about. I'm not saying that it couldn't have happened by any means, but there is a difference. Then once the blacktop comes in, there will be a big difference because it will raise it up even more.
Mr. Cavanaugh: If you granted to proceed with this, what is your plans for start date for paving and to get the lot ready to use?
Mr. Bourne: Actually I have pavers that are ready to start prepping the yard and everything this week, so once we get it approved we are ready to go.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Realize the variance for a special exception you still have to (inaudible) location permit.
Mr. Bourne: They are ready when we are is what I meant to say. They already know that I had to come here, actually before we found out that we need to get a special exemption they have already come to get a permit and so that was one of the reasons we knew we had to do this, so they already know the standards to get it done.
Mr. Brouillard: Do you currently own this property?
Mr. Bourne: No, I wanted to be sure that I can do what I plan to do before I actually purchase it. I have all the plans and I have been approved, so it is pretty much what you guys decide tonight.
Mr. Daniel: Who owns that property now?
Mr. Bourne: The bank does.
Mr. Monnett: Is there anyone here in the public that would like to speak for or against this please come forward at this time.
Mr. Mohr: Hello, my name is Andy Mohr 2713 East Main Street, Plainfield. I am a property owner down kind of in the gateway corridor. I just have a lot of concerns about not specifically his business, and I'm not trying to be immaterial as far as a competitive car dealership or used car lot. It is really what he selling to, and what we are selling to is totally different. It is a non competitive kind of customer, but what I am most concerned about is what is happening on the corridor, and where the corridor is going. I've had some discussions with the folks here and in the Town and if this is supposed to be our gateway corridor, at what point do we start making an impact there? I'm very concerned that when you come into Plainfield from Raceway Road that we have a bunch of houses that could be converted to anything right now and we at least have two things that they have to get exceptions in order to prove it. One is 1,000' from Ronald Reagan and the other issue as far as what they talked about was as far as what they have talked about is getting that kind of use in that particular gateway corridor. I'm very concerned about what is happening to our property values on that side of Town. We have a big investment, we have a lot of frontage throughout that whole area, we have a lot of investment in the property and landscaping through all the codes and everything that we had to go through in order to be a business in that particular area. We weren't able just to convert something very inexpensively and all of a sudden be competing or be in the market. I'm concerned that it is a very slippery slope in that area, we start allowing exceptions and what's next, I'm not really too interested in, and no offense, but I am really not interested in having what is occurred on the other side of the County on Washington Street, or even inside 465, I'm just very concerned about our overall philosophy. When we first went out there and spent and built the Ford Store, everybody was talking to us about this gateway corridor, well we are about it besides us and Adesa who we've spent money through there. We are very concerned about how we keep taking small buildings and converting them into used car lots or some other type of use while we are dealing with buy here pay here customers or whatever and all we are doing is transferring some of that business and those outlets that are kind of down in Indianapolis to Plainfield and I am very concerned that our first as people drive in there is no differentiation, here you come and you are in Plainfield already and the facilities are not up to standard. If he was in here telling me today he is going to build a state of the art showroom that has to be approved through you folks with the necessary landscaping and retention issues that come up out when you start all of the things we went through, I'm all good because I think our regulations are solid and while I think they are tough and we went through them, I never thought that you folks weren't fair in helping us get through a lot of those. But I do think that we have businesses that we take care of and facilities we constantly upgrade and the standards that we adhere too are very high. I spoke with, I don't know if he is here, I don't think he is, but I spoke with Broadbent company this past weekend, they had a representative come but he called me and something happened with one of his kids, I didn't know if he was going to make it, they are very concerned about it, I talked to George Broadbent himself on Saturday, he is very concerned about what is happening in that corridor, he is having a hard enough time, he's spent a lot of money on that facility, the strip center across from us, it is a first class looking facility and he has had to work really hard for tenants, lets face it, it didn't open at exact right time of the market, he's worked really hard for tenants, he is very concerned also for what takes place and how fast and some of these businesses come and go and how quick they can get in business. Specifically you already have a neighbor concerned about how they operate another business. So what happens to this property if that is the case? Just converting normal garages to shops that was low ceiling you can't get a lift in there. What about drainage? What about all those things environmental issues that we all have to deal with. I'm the first one in line to say hey listen whatever we have to do to work as a group to improve that corridor I'm all for it and that is putting my money where my mouth is and I am all there, and I'm all in. I feel like I am somewhat young so I think I am going to be here for sometime, so I just want to make sure we adhere to the proper standards and we constantly look for ways to improve that corridor and not kind of go the other way. Thank you.
Mr. Monnett: If there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this petition please come forward. Seeing none, I will open it up for our board for some discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Jill could you cover the Ronald Reagan Parkway overlay again for me please?
Ms. Sprague: The Ronald Reagan Parkway Corridor amendment to the comprehensive plan, there is no code based on it, but it is 1,000' wide on either side of the Ronald Reagan Corridor and the recommendation in this case is that no auto sales be within that corridor. I think that is the only thing that applies directly in this case.
Mr. Cavanaugh: This location is within the 1,000'.
Ms. Sprague: Yes it is.
Mr. Brouillard: Jill I know that there is auto sales place obviously his original one is in that. Did they get grandfathered in I'm guessing?
Ms. Sprague: Yes.
Mr. James: I just want to clear up a few things. If this were to get approved they would have to submit improvement location permit and they would have to show us what they are going to do for drainage control and also that property to the east, they would have to have at least a 10' yard that separates that property to the east and then they could put up an 8' tall fence down that property line because it is zoned general commercial. Then also you've got to look at the long term planning with the corridor. At the end of this year, Ronald Reagan is going to be connected to 36 and that is really going to open up the redevelopment for this area, so that is something too to think about.
Mr. Daniel: Joe this petition is not consistent with our comp plan is that correct.
Mr. James: Well we have adopted the Ronald Reagan Corridor Master Plan, which is a working element of our comp plan, so in that respect, it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and also we did a limited comprehensive plan and at the end of 2005 it's called a supplement number 1, where it looked at development in this area because we knew the Ronald Reagan Corridor was coming and it recommends that development be consistent with their gateway corridor standards.
Mr. Daniel: Thank you.
Ms. Duffer: Then my comment would be, we want to stick with the comp plan, we want to adhere to the 1,000' Ronald Reagan Corridor Amendment then I would not be in favor of this.
Mr. Cavanaugh: We had to deal with similar requests Joe that have been recent involved in the…
Mr. James: No, in the existing used dealerships out there, if they are legal non-conforming, but if they are abandoned for over six months then they would have to come back in and do the same thing, get a special exception. This is the first one we've had where it is involved a conversion from a single family home to potential used auto dealership.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Thank you.
Mr. Brouillard: Was this plan in place when Andy Mohr opened his facility? Is that over a 1,000', I'm guessing.
Mr. Carlucci: I think it was before.
Mr. James: Yes, the Ronald Reagan Corridor master plan wasn't done at that time, but we did have the gateway corridor standards and so Mr. Mohr did have to comply with those standards.
Mr. Brouillard: Thank you.
Mr. Mohr: I'm not so sure that one of the operations was a later date than the others, so one might have, but I think you are exactly right.
Mr. Monnett: I personally feel to stick to the comprehensive plan. I'm all for entrepreneurship, but I don't think this is the right location for that. I don't think with the Ronald Reagan Parkway opening up, I can see something else there. If it was a dealership, I'm not saying he is not first class, but if he had a showroom, I think that is different from my personal view and space wise being that close obviously I am not in favor of it.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I'm afraid I can't be either, I have no reason to think that Mr. Bourne doesn't run a first class outfit, but I am afraid you would have to be on the very leaning edge of the development of this area, and the comp plans and ordinances in place, and occasionally the person that is on the leading edge maybe the first person to be told no, because this is the only opportunity that we have to start that influence to what that the comp plan is and the overall direction of the Town has decided it wants to take the future development. If there is no further discussion with that in mind I would move that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny BZA-12-009.
Mr. Monnett: I second that motion, would you please poll the board Mr. Carlucci.
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs is absent
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, motion is approved.
Mr. Monnett: Our next petition is BZA-12-011.
Mr. James: This is a sound variance petition. The request is to install a 15' tall pole sign instead of a 16' ground sign for the Dunkin Donuts that is going to be at 2120 Stafford Road. They are going to renovate the existing building there. Out lots along State Road 267 are allowed 2 6' tall ground signs at 48 square feet each. One for 267 frontage and one for the frontage road. When the renovations were reviewed by DRC, our Design Review Committee, they thought a free standing sign might not be needed because of the architectural elements with wall signs at the west and north elevations and I will show you those elevations. The sign plan shows a grade of State Road 267 four feet higher than the free standing sign grade, so they feel like the difference in grade the sign is not going to be seen at only 6' tall. Two signs on one pole is allowed at 46.2 square feet, so that would be under the 48 square feet they would be allowed with the ground sign. Here is the site, existing building that they are going to renovate. Here is 267/Stafford Road, here is the Huntington Bank. I think Kathy knows that property and it is zoned general commercial, you have the Marsh over here. Here is their site plan; this is the proposed location for the pole sign. The first site plan with your packet didn't have the correct setback, but this one would be it at the correct setback it would comply with the required 10' setback from the INDOT right of way for 267. Here is rendering for the pole sign, you can have two signs on one pole, so that is allowed and again that would only be 46.2 square feet double sided, which is allowed. Here is the elevation view of the sign they are showing the grade difference. Here is State Road 267, 4' higher grade for the sign. These are the greeneries that were approved with the Design Review Committee, and here is the monolith that I was referring to that they thought they would just use these as their signs. They thought these would be sufficient for their sign package I guess I am trying to say. This is north elevation, they can have 50% of this monolith and I think I had to reduce this one a little bit and then here is the east elevation with the monolith or logo on it. This is approximate location of the pole sign, and here is the view as you are heading south, again that would be the approximate location of the pole sign. That is our way finding sign that is just out of INDOTS right of way.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Joe, sorry to interrupt, but on that picture can you give us an idea east to west of Plainfield way finding sign would be?
Mr. Brouillard: Will that sign be taller than the way finding sign?
Mr. James: I think so, I don't remember what the exact height of that sign is, but yes, I think it would be taller.
Mr. Cavanaugh: It would be to the west of that sign?
Mr. James: West and south yes. Here is the way finding sign there and then there is where the location is. There are three legal non-conforming pole signs in the immediate area, and then the abandoned pole sign was removed from this site. The former Lincoln Bank site to the south received a variance for a 20' pole sign because 267 elevation was really raised at that location because of the pedestrian tunnel underneath and then does this open the door for a variance for every out lot along 267 where the road is higher than the site? So with that I will have a seat and they do have a representative here that would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Monnett: Would the representative come forward please.
Mr. Curran: My name is Shawn Curran with Curran Architecture; the address is 6925 E. 96th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. We are here representing Dunkin Donuts on this project. As was well stated we are looking for a variance for the height of the pole sign primarily because Dunkin Donuts is a, the majority of their business is for people driving in cars obviously. A large volume of their business is drive thru business, it is people that is either on their way to work and they pick up a dozen donuts on their way to work, or it is travelers coming up off of 70 and visibility of their location is going to be very important for their business, particularly coming from the south if you get off of 70 and come north, the visibility of the building would not be seen. You would not see the building until you are literally passed the intersection because of the location of the bank on the corner with just a ground sign there kind of because of the hill there. So they were concerned that the 6' monument sign would become lost and kind of lost in the weeds sort of speak down in that area and we are hoping to be able to get a pole sign similar to what the bank has on the corner and similar to what had been there previously when the previous tenant occupied it. If there are other questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Mr. Monnett: The actual entrance to the building will be north south east or west?
Mr. Curran: The front door faces north.
Mr. Monnett: So the sign will be east west or north and south or just east and west?
Mr. Curran: On the building there is signage on the east and the north, there is no signage on the south, primarily because you can't see it because of the bank. The only people that would see it would be people sitting at the bank drive thru, and then the actual drive up window, you can kind of see it, it is basically between the building and the road. It is on the west side of the building, so traffic will come into the parking lot at the north end circulate to the south and either park in the parking lot and go inside through the north doors or follow basically along the west property line, you can see it there on the site plan, follow the west property line and to the drive thru. The majority of the traffic is on the north end of the building, there won't be any vehicular traffic south.
Mr. Brouillard: Can I ask what that big block thing is; it looks like the southeast corner.
Mr. Curran: That is the dumpster enclosure and the concrete pad so the truck doesn't tear up the asphalt in front of the dumpster enclosure.
Mr. Monnett: The building that is to the north, that little strip, Church of Christ was there now it is somebody else, that building before (inaudible) did they have a pole sign out there to the east?
Mr. James: Yes, they have a pole sign that is one of the three existing; it is a tanning salon that is one of the three existing legal non-conforming pole signs, that one, then Huntington Bank, and the Marathon across the street.
Mr. Monnett: The newest one would be the bank right?
Mr. James: Lizton State Bank?
Mr. Monnett: Yes.
Mr. James: They did ground sign in compliance.
Mr. Brouillard: Joe can you show that picture, can you see the Huntington sign in one of those photos just to give a relative feel?
Mr. Curran: You can see the Village Pantry sign.
Mr. Brouillard: That is probably blacked out by the school sign?
Mr. Curran: I think it might be actually.
Mr. Brouillard: And this sign will be shorter than that, shorter than the 20'?
Mr. Curran: I believe it was about 15'.
Mr. Carlucci: I find this argument interesting about signage and how much you really need, because you go across the intersection to the east where Chicago Pizza is at, they can make the sign argument that everybody else got it, they can't see me, well they can see you going north pretty easily, but they can't see you going south.
Mr. Monnett: What is on the corner, IM Credit Union?
Ms. Duffer: Correct.
Mr. Brouillard: Who does?
Ms. Duffer: The east side of the road?
Mr. Brouillard: Oh do they, so there is a difference from side to side on 267.
Ms. Duffer: I have no more questions.
Mr. Monnett: Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against the petition please come forward. Seeing none, I will open it up to the board for further discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Monnett: I am all for the, I love Dunkin Donuts. I look at the facilities to the east and I realize that there are some that are grandfathered in, but I am in so much favor of the ground sign, I don't want to start anything else, and the pole signs to the north, I don't want anybody to die but if a tornado would take out I would be happy because you put a ground sign in. I just take the value and the uniformity I think is good with the east side and going down 267, to me would be tremendous, I'd go down and cut all the pole signs down. I just like the ground signs and what the landscaping can be around it and what can be built up maybe. But people are going to know that Dunkin Donuts is there, with that well of a good marketing brand that is my opinion. I'm for the ground sign; I'm against the pole sign.
Mr. James: Pylon sign is that what they have? A pylon sign can also be a taller ground sign up to 20'. That could be an option, just a taller ground sign.
Mr. Monnett: And that would be ok with me if they were all taller ground signs, I just dislike pole signs.
Mr. Carlucci: In any case that is not up for consideration tonight.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I'm not in favor of the pole sign. The only thing unless I missed something the request for the variance is the difference from the grade where the sign would be installed compared to that on 267 is about 4', so the only thing I would be willing to consider would be the difference of 4', so that could put a ground sign for a small monument sign with an overall height of ten feet from the existing grade that would get you to allowing a level playing field relative to the elevation of 267 for the north and southbound traffic. I've driven up and down the road quite a bit in the last week or so with this particular petition in mind and I am definitely not in favor of a pole sign. I would be more considerate for something that if only asked for an exception to equal the grade difference between the site and 267.
Mr. James: I was just thinking, the only problem with that they are probably going to get over their square footage with a taller ground sign, because as an out lot they are only limited to 48 square feet, so that is a 6X8.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Just for my particular view point Joe, I would be willing to allow that increase of footage, but not allow the greater height and certainly not a pole sign.
Mr. James. Ok.
Mr. Brouillard: Other than your comment so far, were there any other complaints of what pole signs are already up. Do people later talk about them or
Ms. Duffer: I don't think we've had any negative comments.
Mr. Monnett: I think the uniformity and gateway corridor in the future.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Very similar to the first petition from my view point and fact that we would have an opportunity to do things within the comp plan, with the intent that the zoning ordinance would file some of this outside of it and any petition that you normally get but this particular location, every chance we get I think we should bring towards more conformity and then that makes the level playing field for all of the competitive businesses up and down the business corridor, and I am kind of sensitive to signage's on businesses and I don't want to try to be really constrictive, but I do think there is a disadvantage particularly to the north bound traffic visibility because of the grade difference, so at the most I would be willing to consider something equalized to that difference. And for others that have come before, maybe they just got lucky.
Ms. Duffer: Do you need to make a motion, do you want to do that with the grade difference or would that need to be something that came back to the board?
Mr. Daniel: Definitely come back, the only thing before the board tonight is…
Mr. James: I always thought you could reduce your request, say going from 15' to 10'.
Mr. Daniel: Well he is talking about a ground sign versus a pole sign.
Mr. James: Ok, so that would be a new petition.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I don't want to hinder the process, I'm anxious to stop and get donuts and coffee myself, but what's the, in my way of thinking through the process and not taking direction, it seems like if the board is of consensus, it might be advisable of the petitioner to withdraw and come back with a new petition as opposed to get a denial this evening.
Mr. Daniel: The speed which they can bring another petition is much greater if they withdraw if the board did vote against it. If they would be willing to withdraw it they could be able to re-file rather quickly.
Mr. James: The board can also waive the requirement when the new petition can be brought back.
Mr. Daniel: That is correct.
Ms. Duffer: Would we like to bring the petitioner back up?
Mr. Cavanaugh: So procedurally we would continue it, we have to have a new application.
Mr. Monnett: If the petitioner would withdraw it, then we can waive the…
Mr. Daniel: What is being discussed here sir is if the board goes ahead and votes and should they vote to deny this, then there is a waiting period before you can re-file, now that can be waived by the board, but if you were to withdraw the petition then you can turn around and re-file a petition for a ground sign.
Mr. Daniel: So it is up to you what you prefer to do.
Mr. Curran: Can I give just for a point of clarification, a definition of ground signs versus the sign that we have other than one is on a pole and one is, if it is just a function of the height of it, is that really technically a different sign.
Mr. Daniel: I will let Mr. Cavanaugh speak for, although my understanding of what he was saying was he is opposed to a pole sign, but he will be willing to look at a ground sign that was elevated 4' above, but normally when you would required, is that a fair statement.
Ms. Sprague: I can clarify with that it is in the definitions, a pole sign has to be at least 10 feet off the ground, the base of the sign not counting the structure, where the ground signs base is on the ground.
Mr. Brouillard: Does it have anything to do with the number of legs or anything, or is the pole just one, no, ok.
Mr. Curran: I just wanted clarification to make sure there wasn't a way that we could modify what we've done without having to go back through and re-notice all the 28 different neighboring businesses that we had to notice and go through the process again.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I don't think we can change the notice requirement, but we can change the waiting period.
Mr. Monnett: I'm in agreement to waive the waiting period if they want to withdraw the petition.
Mr. Curran: We will withdraw and we will get with Joe to bring it back as soon as we can to take care of that.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I move that we accept the withdraw of BZA-12-011 as filed by IBC Food Services Plainfield, Inc and I will further move that we eliminate the three month waiting period for such re-application.
Ms. Duffer: Second.
Mr. Monnett: We have a motion by Mr. Cavanaugh and a second by Ms. Duffer. Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs is absent
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, motion is carries.
Mr. Monnett: Our last petition is BZA-12-012.
Mr. James: This is a variance to allow a trash enclosure to be located between the building and the street. Article 41D stipulates trash enclosures cannot be located between a primary building and a street. This site has three street frontages, the ordinance limit's the location of trash enclosure to only one location behind the building and this is a very small lot and there is no room to put it at the north elevation behind the building and then the enclosed trash enclosure complies with all of the requirements of gateway corridor standards as far as building material, landscaping, and the gate. Then the (inaudible) to the south has the same situation, they have a trash enclosure located between the building and the street, but that is legal non-conforming. Here is the site here at the corner of Hartford Avenue and Cambridge Way it would be the north west corner. They are only taking 6/10 of an acre, they are going to reduce the size of this lot. It was zoned general commercial, everything around it is general commercial. Here is the site plan and this is the proposed location for the trash enclosure. The Plan Commission did approve the development plan with the condition that the BZA grants the variance for the trash enclosure location. Here is a rendering of the trash enclosure, it can be the same material as the primary building and they are going to have a cedar gate and then the proposed landscaping does comply, then here is the rendering of the Waffle House building just to show you how it will match the primary building. So the lots with three or four frontages are rare, even a corner lot allows some flexibility with two choices for a location, so the situation with three frontages and only one choice, does the ordinance create a hardship. So with that I will have a seat and Jerry Wiggins is here representing Waffle House.
Mr. Wiggins: My name is Jerry Wiggins, I am located at 19 North Middle Street in Greenwood, Indiana, I am representing Waffle House and I know you like Dunkin Donuts, but I hope you won't hold that against Waffle House. I will make it simple, we don't have a place to put trash bag except between a street and a building, we just need approval.
Mr. Brouillard: Joe can you go back a few slides where it showed the enclosure with the brick? That grease container, that won't go inside the enclosure, is that on the outside?
Mr. Wiggins: They are always inside all facilities they are never outside.
Mr. Brouillard: Maybe that is where the doors open.
Mr. Wiggins: Matter of fact I'd say that is where the doors open, because I see the dumpsters sitting here too.
Mr. Monnett: What is the proposed open date?
Mr. Wiggins: That depends on you.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I have a question it doesn't necessarily directly related to the trash enclosure placement, but I see that Cambridge Way Drive is not going to be fully developed with this project, is that correct?
Mr. Wiggins: Cambridge Way is already built, all the way from Hartford Avenue north.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Yes I know the road is there, I'm talking about an access into this back corner of the lot.
Mr. Wiggins: The full entrance will be built in, but it is a common access between two lots.
Mr. Cavanaugh: So are you going to construct that entire paved area on the lot?
Mr. Wiggins: Exactly what you see there for the entrance and this crosshatch will all be constructed.
Mr. Cavanaugh: So all of the crosshatched area will be…
Mr. Wiggins: The entire entrance will have to be constructed.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Thank you.
Mr. Wiggins: Basically it in time to get the businesses established in there.
Mr. Cavanaugh: Was the lot for the Waffle House high, or was that size already determined?
Mr. Wiggins: No, the lines that you see to the north, that was the original overall lot number one, all we are using is the bottom part of it, it is being re-subdivided and re-plat prepared to divide that lot into half like that, Banning is doing that.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I'm not trying to second guess the site design because we are talking about the trash enclosure; I was just curious how that entryway would be used.
Mr. Carlucci: The other part is that is a public road and if there is a situation before how many months?
Mr. Carlucci: 18, if there is a serious issue out there with traffic and accidents the Town would put that in, because the Town has to pay for it from what I understand from the meeting.
Mr. Wiggins: I believe there were three different versions of that.
Mr. Carlucci: Well in either case, we just need to be clear if that becomes a problem and there are multiple accidents out there, the Town has a right to close that off.
Mr. Monnett: I will close it to the public and open it up to our board for further discussion or an approval.
Ms. Duffer: My thought process on this is that the way that it sits and the way that it has been approved by the Plan Commission, it has created the hardship, they have to have trash.
Mr. Carlucci: I think you are absolutely right, the issue is, they bought too small of a lot. A lot in small area, 6/10 of an acre.
Mr. Brouillard: Now would it be in the same position if they could put that garbage can behind the restaurant or you could still view it.
Mr. James: That would bring it into compliance, but again with the three frontages that gives them one potential solution and they would still have to comply with the setbacks.
Mr. Wiggins: I just want to say, someone said they bought a lot too small, across the Country where Waffle House is building, basically .063 acres is probably the maximum amount of ground that any Waffle House has, they just don't need that much. They whole layouts are basically the same all over where ever they are. They don't really need a piece of ground any bigger than basically 105 X 220 is all they really need on any site to produce everything that they have on that one site. So they didn't really buy a piece of ground that is too small, but what they did was on that lot number 1, by keeping it with Waffle House's size of what they normally require, it still left a build able portion of the rest of the lot.
Mr. Brouillard: So if he moved this garbage receptacle behind the building, we would still need a variance? Cause you would still see it from some part of the road right?
Mr. James: No, if they were able to locate it behind the building it will comply.
Mr. Monnett: Comply by all setbacks and everything.
Mr. Brouillard: Ok, so it is not so much seeing the trash container, it is the setback?
Mr. James: The location and the compliant to setbacks.
Mr. Wiggins: This was the only piece of ground that was available to us is why it was laid out like it is.
Mr. Cavanaugh: I think with the restrictions of the three frontages it is a very difficult piece to comply in the first place. A different facility might be able to have a better solution for the given use; I think the three frontages and lot size limit what they can do. From other trash enclosures that I see in different places, I sure hope that one stays clean because the front door as everyone pulls in the main drive of that parking lot is going to be looking right at it. That would not be my choice for my facility.
Mr. Brouillard: Is that a typical location for Waffle Houses…
Mr. Wiggins: In that location with regards to end of the building that is the same place as all Waffle Houses.
Mr. Cavanaugh: This might be a really good location actually it is right where everyone will see it if it is ugly.
Ms. Duffer: I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-12-012 as filed by Waffle House, Inc. requesting a variance to allow a trash enclosure location between the primary building and street for a new Waffle House at 2110 Hartford Avenue, subject to the following conditions; substantial compliance with site plan and trash enclosure details submitted file date May 21, 2012.
Mr. Monnett: We have a motion by Ms. Duffer and a second by Mr. Monnett, Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board.
Mr. Carlucci: Mr. Brouillard- yes
Ms. Duffer- yes
Mr. Cavanaugh- yes
Mr. Gibbs is absent tonight
Mr. Monnett- yes
Four ayes, none opposed, one absent, the motion is approved.
Mr. Wiggins: Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Monnett: Any old or new business Mr. James or Ms. Sprague?
Mr. James: No that is all we have for tonight.
Mr. Monnett: I will entertain a motion for adjournment.