The Board of zoning Appeals met on Monday, January 19, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Matrana, Mr. Blevins, Mr. Haase, Mr. Monnett and Mr. Shrum.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Higbee administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Shrum made a motion to approve the December 15, 2003 minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals as submitted. Second by Mr. Monnett. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said at this time being that it is January of a new year we need to have the election of officers and appointments to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Higbee said simply put I think you just need to decide if you are going to name the same or different people as the president and vice-president this year and then we will take a vote. It was Mr. Matrana and Mr. Blevins last year.
Mr. Haase made a motion that we retain Mr. Matrana as President of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals and Mr. Blevins as Vice-President. Second by Mr. Shrum.
Mr. Higbee asked, are there any other nominations?
Mr. Haase said I move that they be closed.
Mr. Higbee administered the roll call.
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Shrum – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals tonight is BZA-04-001, Premier Properties.
Mr. Higbee said this is several variances of Development Standards for a sign out at the former Plainfield Shops now known as Metropolis where the J.C. Penney’s has gone in. The reason that the variances are necessary is because our ordinance requires that when the primary building associated with a development site is torn down that any freestanding sign for the primary building go with it. That did not occur at this time. When we went through our initial phase one planning for the mall and the J.C. Penney project, it is just something that never really got honed in on because there were so many other issues getting evaluated. I think we all kind of forgot to look at the sign and then we became aware driving by that the sign had been remodeled to become a sign for Metropolis. Unfortunately, not only did we have a problem with the fact that the ordinance requires the sign to be torn down, but the sign predates our ordinance and doesn’t meet a number of other ordinance requirements. If a new sign had been erected there today, it wouldn’t have been able to be as large as it is and it wouldn’t have been able to have the same setback that it has. It would have required more landscaping at the base than it has, etc.
If you go to page 2 of your Staff Report toward the bottom of the page, there is a table. You see in the center column five lines that note the variances that are required. So, we have the fact that the sign is still there at all when it should have been torn down. That is a variance. The sign area you can see a new sign would only be permitted to be 64 square feet. I will explain why that is so small in a minute. The fact that it is a pylon. The fact that it only has a 15-foot setback when it would require 33. And then the amount of sign base landscaping. It is actually less than what would be required for a sign that size. So, we have a number of issues.
If a new sign that complied was put there today, it could only be 64 square feet because it is based on the amount of street frontage. We have kind of a technical issue with how you look at the street frontage out here. It doesn’t maybe reflect the reality but we have a technical definition that we have to follow in the Zoning Ordinance. As I understand it, the original plat for the Plainfield Shops included the street frontage where the street comes out to Main Street and then the lot that includes McDonald’s out on U.S. 40. So, it probably had a few hundred feet of frontage back then when it was platted Plainfield Shops. The amount of sign that is permitted is based on how much frontage. The bigger your frontages the bigger your sign can be.
When they re-platted Metropolis, they lost the outlot that McDonald’s is on as part of the plat. They were only left with the little piece that has a street that goes into the development. So, now they have less than 100 feet of frontage. And the amount of sign that they are technically permitted is now less because they have less street frontage. In reality if you look at your map, there is a colored map that shows the sign location, you can see that street. I think I may have highlighted it in yellow on your map and you can see the sign location. You can see that street. I think I may have highlighted it in yellow on your map and you can see the sign location. You can see just east of that is the McDonald’s outlot and then you go over farther east to Perry Road. That whole area south of that is part of Metropolis. It is just that those corner lots up there don’t happen to be within it but everything south of that is part of what is going to become Metropolis. So, we have a technical issue in how we define the street frontage there but in reality I look at it as the whole area between Perry Road and this entry street.
So, that probably muddies the water for you a little bit but what I’m really trying to say to you is that I don’t think the size of the sign is the big issue here. Because there is actually a lot of street there on Main Street. The main issue in my mind is the fact that the sign was never torn down as it was supposed to be and there was an expectation when we planned for Metropolis, that there would be a unified sign package for the whole development. And then was going to be the time that we would evaluate these new signs and this one kind of snuck up on us and hasn’t really gone through the proper review process. There are the technical variances but those are really the bigger issues.
The Design Review Committee reviewed it but they reviewed it for the Plan Commission and not the BZA. I happened to go ahead and put their recommendations in the report. They show up on the last page as items two and three under your motion regarding their suggestion that we get an overall sign package in here as soon as possible. And they are suggesting that they would recommend approval of this as a temporary sign and not a permanent sign pending getting the sign package for the whole mall. And then having a sign that would replace this as part of that package.
Those two items, number two and three, are optional since those recommendations were really for the Plan Commission. If you were to leave those off of there, you would probably be following the direction that you gave me before where you said DRC doesn’t really need to speak to the BZA. So, I had kind of overlooked that when I wrote the report. If you want to strike those two items, the Plan Commission could take care of those. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Shrum asked, this is to be for a temporary sign is that correct?
Mr. Higbee said they have not specified the request as a temporary sign but DRC suggested that is what it should be. I don’t know if they are willing to modify their request to that extent or not.
Mr. Matrana asked, isn’t it actually a permanent sign until there is an expansion?
Mr. Higbee said it is a permanent freestanding sign today. The only way that it would become a temporary sign is if you were to place, as part of your conditions for approval, a requirement that it be temporary similar to what DRC was suggesting that the Plan Commission would do.
Mr. Haase said you keep mentioning the Plan Commission. Is it set to come before the Plan Commission?
Mr. Higbee said yes it is because it requires both the variances and since the sign was never torn down irregardless of that fact we are treating it as a new sign. Under the ordinance that sign should have disappeared so we are treating it as a new sign by taking it to the Plan Commission as an Architectural Review.
Mr. Ryan Cronk with Premier Properties at 5252 E. 82nd St., Indianapolis, IN said I think Mr. Higbee described pretty well how this came about regarding how the sign was overlooked especially from our part. I think when we went in for our zoning originally, it was our intent to submit a sign package for the entire development. I think at that time it was also our intent to be a little further along on some of the other tenants. When we first went in for our zoning, we weren’t finalized with our J.C. Penney deal yet. That deal came. We thought we had some more momentum with the other guys. Deals didn’t get done as fast as we can. We built the J.C. Penney building and pushed that through probably with a lot of heartache with the Town and Mr. Carlucci. We got the building opened. When it was time to get the building opened, J.C. Penney is screaming at us about the signage on U.S. 40. At that time I think our office was designing a sign to use the existing structure and figuring out how to get this permitted. The pressure that we had from J.C. Penney, and I think there was probably a lot of conversations with various people in your office, the sign got up. Obviously, we were still needing approvals.
It is our intent to create a sign package. One of the things that we need to get closer on before we finish that sign package is to figure out our architectural details before we get to that. Everything that the Town of Plainfield has seen to date for the rest of the mall has been very schematic. Probably when we get to the design development stage, is when we will start that design package on where the signs go and how big the signs are and what will be on those signs.
As far as the J.C. Penney’s sign goes, we tried to clean up the existing sign structure as best as we could. I think that was accomplished from what was there before. I think the existing sign was pretty ugly and outdated and the storm damage didn’t help this past year either. So, from our standpoint I think what we are asking is to have this sign approved. It is more like a non-conforming use. It is just an existing sign structure and I think we probably would be agreeable to have it on a temporary basis. I don’t know exactly what that time frame would be, maybe 12 months and then we could reconvene and/or hopefully have our signage issue done with the rest of the mall before that time. This sign will be addressed with the whole sign package for the mall. So, I guess possibly have it for a 12-month temporary permit and then this whole sign on U.S. 40 mall will be re-addressed as we submit our sign package.
I will say when we get to the mall signage, it has always been our intent to have it more of a mall sign without tenants. With J.C. Penney opening by themselves without the rest of them with them there was some lease language that they wanted to pursue that sign if they were the only people opened I guess. But when the rest of the mall opens, their sign rights, when the other anchors open, kind of go away. So, when you go to, i.e., the Greenwood mall, you will see that they have signs for the mall and not for the tenants. That is our intent when we get to that sign package with you at a later date.
Mr. Higbee said probably my guess is whatever ends up being the mall sign will actually be larger than this sign. So, again that’s why 3
I’m saying we have a technical issue with the size of the sign. But in reality the size is really not the big issue in my mind. It is whether or not you can deal with the sign being there on a temporary basis because of that prevision that it was supposed to have been torn down.
Mr. Haase asked, as long as there are no other tenants and structures on this property, are you fairly much obligated to J.C. Penney to have signage on U.S. 40?
Mr. Cronk said we are required to pursue that signage yes and to do everything in our power to get signage approved.
Mr. Haase asked, where are you on the sign package?
Mr. Cronk said it is tough to design the signs when you don’t know exactly how the architecture is going to look because it ties in so much. We have some things on paper conceptually where we want the sign placement on more of a sign locator map, where we want signs, key points on the property. But as far as identifying this sign at this entry is going to be a ground level sign, it will be a very low key wall sign. And the main entry will have a 30-foot or 25, we are not there at all. I think our architects start getting more involved at that point in identifying where they will be and we are involved with wanting the people in the shopping center and how that sign should work accordingly. We are just not there yet. From the J.C. Penney standpoint they view it as important because they are not buried but with them and Kohl’s and Target and everybody else having signs on the road and comparable anchor sized stores is why they are adamant about it while they are back there by themselves.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this public hearing? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion and open it up to the board for discussion and a possible motion.
Mr. Monnett asked, say another anchor store or other stores come in there, this one letter that I’m looking at that has the landscaping, will that all change too?
Mr. Higbee asked, what does the letter say?
Mr. Monnett said it is to Ms. Payne. The last received details for the landscaping for J.C. Penney/Metropolis pylon sign propose the following items and it lists landscaping.
Mr. Higbee said it probably corresponds with this landscape plan with the 108 square feet. This amount of landscaping under today’s ordinance is technically undersized. However, if this sign goes away in a year and is replaced by another sign at some future point, then at that point the amount of landscaping appropriate for the new sign will be put in there. It may or may not be in the same precise location even I’m not sure but that would come with the new plan.
Mr. Haase made a motion to approve BZA-04-001 subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site, sign location, sign landscape plan and sign elevation and rendering submitted file dated 12/5/03.
That it be a temporary approval, a temporary variance to run through calendar year 2005.
Second by Mr. Shrum. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Shrum – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Haase made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Shrum. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
__________________________________
Rick Matrana, President
