The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, August 16, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Monnett, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Haase and Mr. Matrana.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Monnett made a motion to approve the July 19, 2004 minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals as submitted. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
Mr. Matrana reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. The first matter before the board tonight is BZA-04-21, Hendricks Regional Health.
Mr. Higbee said this is some variances of development standards request for a couple of pylon signs to be placed on this site. I think you all know it is out at Stanley Road and SR267. It has three street frontages, Southfield Drive, Stanley Road and SR267. This would be considered an outlot because it was platted with additional acreage to the north that hasn’t been developed yet. But the reason that I mention that is because the prior sign approvals that were in place a couple of years ago, as well as the ones that are being proposed that require variances, are effected by the outlot status. Outlots are permitted different signage than what we call single use sites. I put a table on the second page of your report showing what was requested, what is permitted and what could be permitted under some new amendments that we are going to look at at the Plan Commission in September. I just want to caution you that the third column is not adopted yet. We think it will be but that is not certain at this point but for comparison sake I wanted you to understand that the size of the signs is not way out of whack either with what you could do today or what could be permitted under the new ordinance. Some of the issues relate back to the outlot status because what the ordinance says now and what will continue to say is that when you have large pylon signs or pole signs on an outlot, they should be what we call an integrated center sign that identify the name of the entire center and not just the name of the outlot user. So, that is really one of the variance requests that is before you is whether or not you want to permit those signs to not identify the overall center, which would include the outlots to the north that would develop in the future. Or if you want to permit it but allow that the signs could be converted to identify that later when the lots to the north develop. So, that is something that I pointed out in my Staff Report.
In addition to the pylon signs for the overall integrated center that are permitted an outlot ground sign is permitted. They are not requesting a ground sign but they are just requesting two pylon signs. I put some notes in there about the size of the signs too and we can talk about that if you are interested. I won’t get into those details but will just let you read that unless you have questions.
I did put on the back of your report sketches that try to give you a picture of what they are proposing verses what they could have under the new ordinance that hasn’t been adopted yet. As you can see, what they are proposing is relatively simple, a large pylon on SR267 and a pylon on Stanley Road. A couple of options that they could have chosen to avail themselves of if the new ordinance is adopted, would actually allow more signs but they would be smaller than what is being requested here. You could say overall if you were to look at the area of all of these signs that they are actually requesting is less than what they could get if that new ordinance is adopted. They are requesting more than they can get today but less than they could get in the future. Having said that, obviously, we have to be guarded when that ordinance hasn’t been adopted yet. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mr. Monnett said you mention businesses to the north right?
Mr. Higbee said correct. There is acreage to the north that has not been developed.
Mr. Monnett said so that road will go through there.
Mr. Higbee said yes. Southfield Drive is going to extend and connect up all the way through.
Mr. Monnett said there will be Lincoln Bank and then whatever is in that empty lot.
Mr. Higbee said in between south of where Lincoln Bank is and north of where this is there is several acres that they platted with this that hasn’t been developed yet.
Mr. Monnett said and this sign could have those other ones on it at a later date.
Mr. Higbee said if they chose to convert to an integrated center sign, yes.
Mr. Carlucci said the Council took bids at the last Council meeting and they will more than likely approve a bid come next Monday to extend Southfield Drive now all the way to Stanley Road. So, that is going to happen irregardless of what goes on with signage.
Mr. Don Miller with A Sign by Design said this is Pat and Jack with Hendricks Regional Health. The reason for the change is they are being consistent with the other Regional Health Centers in Danville, Brownsburg and Avon. They are changing the name and color scheme to be consistent throughout the whole County. The reason for the height that we would like to have on SR267 is because of the tree line. That is a wetland area that cannot be disturbed and has to be put back away from that. The other sign that goes right along Stanley is identification into the area also. There is an existing sign that will be removed there and this one will go up in its place.
I brought some samples of what the logo would look like. It is a backlit, which is the “A” on the ground which only halos around the outside of the logo itself. The letters are a push through letter, which then have vinyl on the front so that it gives you a soft lighting around the outside of the edge of that, being that is the same thing being proposed at the other sites. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Ms. Pat Craig said I’m the Chief Operating Officer at the Hendricks Regional Health. The board of trustees went through a name change about a year plus ago so we are getting ready to make those changes. I think in terms of the location of the pylon sign on SR267 currently we do not have a sign at that location. We operate an immediate care center at this location. It is not an emergency department but it does render urgent care to people who have walk-in appointments. So, we feel like it is important to have that information out to the public. I think we picked a location, and I don’t know if this will begin to address some of the question that Mr. Higbee brought up concerning the outlot, but this particular plat has the capability in our master facility plan for expansion, 10 acres to the north. We also have a right-of-way, I believe, from the State so that we could have a southbound turning lane into the property at some point off of SR267. So, we have tried to place this particular pylon sign, the large pylon sign on SR267, with those kinds of factors in mind.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience have anything either for or against this proposal? Being no one coming forward, I’m going to close the public portion of this meeting and open this proposal up for discussion or a possible motion.
Mr. Carlucci said I talked to Mr. Higbee about this variance request and a sign request under the ordinance always causes great turmoil sometimes. As a matter of fact, we are in court on one right now but one thing that I would say at least, and I don’t know if they claim this on their petition, is there any kind of hardship? One thing that I would contend is what is somewhat out of their control is that they have land that they own that they cannot along that creek clear any of those trees. They can’t relocate that watershed so I know where the Hendricks Regional Health Care Center is in Plainfield but if you come up SR267 going north, it is very difficult to see that building. If you are coming even south on SR267, again you are looking through a tree line at some point. So, more than some of the other ones that we have done for the other automobile dealerships you can point to a hardship here that you couldn’t point to in maybe some of these other cases or not as clearly as I think as in this case. The other part is the type of use that it is. They are not selling cars. They are providing a service that is necessary so it is a little bit different. Someone could say a business is a business but I think it is important to be able to locate that facility for people. The other thing it is not just people in Plainfield go to this facility. It is people outside the Town that have to find it.
Mr. Haase made a motion to approve BZA-04-021 subject to the following conditions:
Subject to substantial compliance with the sign renderings and site plan filed dated June 8, 2004 and the sign base landscape plan file dated June 20, 2004.
The subject pylons would be converted to contain the name of the center at such time as the first future outlot to the north develops.
Any further pylon or pole sign approvals would require Plan Commission approval.
Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – absent
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 1-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Carlucci asked, does these signs have to go through the Plan Commission?
Mr. Higbee said I really hadn’t thought about it but I guess the answer would be no because those ordinance amendments that were just passed gave me authority to approve freestanding signs. So, all we need to do is talk to Mr. Miller about making sure the ILP gets filled out properly and then I can go ahead and approve it. I have already analyzed wall signs too so I can just go ahead and approve it all in one shot.
Mr. Haase made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Monnett. Motion carried.
Mr. Rick Matrana, President