The Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, April 21, 2008. In attendance were Ms. Duffer, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Monnett.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Carlucci administered the Roll Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Monnett made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 17, 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals with the correction when it indicated Mr. Gibbs was doing the speaking, it should have been Mr. Monnett’s name and vice versa in several instances. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Cavanaugh nominated Mr. Monnett as chairperson for the Board of Zoning Appeals for 2008.
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to close the nominations. Second by Ms. Duffer. Motion carried.
Mr. Monnett nominated Ms. Duffer as vice chairperson for the Board of Zoning Appeals for 2008. Second by Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs made a motion to close the nominations. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
Mr. Carlucci said all those in favor of approving Ms. Duffer for vice chairperson for the Board of Zoning Appeals for 2008 say aye. None opposed. Motion carried.
OATH OF TESTIMONY
Mr. Daniel administered the Oath of Testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Monnett reviewed the Guidelines Governing the Conduct of Public Hearings. Our first petition tonight is BZA-08-005.
Ms. Sprague said this petition is to allow a gymnastics facility, which might sound familiar to some of you. They asked for a Variance of Use in 2006 for the building next-door to run a gymnastic facility. The facility was previously being run on this lot here; there is a building there and the same owner just recently constructed two new buildings that is outlined there and she has decided to move into one of those buildings and is actually taking over the entire square footage where she had half of the building before. It is going to add about 4,000 square feet to the footage that she had before.
It is zoned I-2 and after that petition in 2006 we added the gymnastics facilities as a Special Exception to the I-2 District. This is because the buildings for this type of facility need more square footage and often a higher ceiling. Industrial buildings provide a better opportunity for that than most General Commercial.
Staff Comments: The zoning in this part of Town, Andico Road and Tower Road is a little less intense than most of our industrial districts with the smaller buildings and less traffic. And then also the site plan just like the last time has been revised to add parking, which would be required by this use and then the site plans there. I think I counted about 48 parking spaces. I suspect if we had a slightly more accurate version, we could probably fit a little more. I know the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Ms. Stephanie Strout at 880 Andico Road said I’m here to request a Special Exception for the gymnastics center. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Monnett asked, what is all in the building now?
Ms. Strout said a gymnastics facility and we do have (inaudible).
Mr. Monnett asked, is there or is there not any type of day care or preschool?
Ms. Strout said there is not a day care; it is a three hour class that we have three times a week.
Mr. Monnett asked, that is gymnastics?
Ms. Strout said gymnastics.
Mr. Carlucci asked, how old do you have to be?
Ms. Strout said two – two and a half. (Inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
(Inaudible).
Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and entertain a motion.
Mr. Gibbs said I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA-08-005 as filed by Stephanie J. Strout requesting a Special Exception to allow a gymnastics center in the I-2 District subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan file dated April 16, 2008.
2. All proposed signs shall meet the standards of the I-2 District and the two buildings shall share a ground sign as approved with an ILP.
Second by Ms. Duffer. Roll call vote called.
Ms. Duffer – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Ms. Sprague said BZA-08-004 is a request for a Variance of the Development Standards to allow an increase in the lot coverage in the R-2 District. This particular lot is in Providence Estates; it is along Providence Pass. I believe it is relatively a new structure out there. On the site I have shown where there was a previous approval. I will talk about that a little bit later and will come back to that.
They are requesting to be allowed 33% instead of the 25% coverage that is permitted by the R-2 District. The covenants in lots in Providence Estates allow in ground pools and obviously our Zoning Ordinance allows pools. They are requesting a 16’ x 36’ pool with some concrete around the edges and that total would bring the coverage to 33%. The home itself comes really close to covering the 25% that is allowed already, which is why they are asking for the variance. The pool is near a drainage easement at the back of the lot but it does not encroach according to their site plan.
And then just as a note in 2005 I believe I had a typo in my Staff Report to you; there was one variance that was approved in 2005 and that one was also for an in ground pool and they requested a 36% coverage. Just to show you the site it is kind of in the southern area and the other one was on the southwest border of the subdivision.
I think I have a picture of their site plan. The pool is going to be back here and then the drainage easement is at that dotted line there. Here is a photograph of the site just by eyeballing it and seeing where the slope starts is where I thought maybe the 10 foot was. I know the petitioner is here if you have any questions.
Mr. Jeremy Holt at 1247 Providence Pass said I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Monnett asked, is it going to be 16’ x 32’, is that correct?
Mr. Holt said it is a 16’ x 32’ pool but the end is a full step so the pool dimension is actually 16’ x 36’ because the full end is a step as opposed to just an eight foot step.
Mr. Monnett asked, does it require fencing?
Mr. Holt said it will have an automatic cover.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Holt said I do have paperwork back here on the cover and you can actually walk on top of that cover.
Ms. Duffer asked, did you say that the 16’ x 32’ is the standard size pool?
Mr. Holt said a standard pool would be 16’ x 32’ and then on one end, the shallow end, you would have the little step that jets out the extra four feet. But the pool that I’m wanting the whole end is a step so you have to go 16’ x 36’.
Mr. Monnett asked, do you have covenants in the neighborhood?
Mr. Holt asked, opposing pools?
Mr. Monnett said no.
Mr. Holt said yes there is.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Holt said there are several pools in the subdivision.
Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing.
Ms. Sprague said there was one person who had come in and I put that letter in your packets.
Mr. Monnett said I will entertain a motion from the board.
Ms. Duffer made a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals grant BZA-08-004 as filed by Jeremy Holt requesting a Variance to the Development Standards to allow a 16’ x 36’ in ground swimming pool to increase the maximum lot coverage to 33% rather than the allowed 25% subject to:
1. Substantial compliance with the plans file dated March 17, 2008.
2. All applicable building permits and improvement location permits shall be obtained within 30 days of granting this request.
Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
Ms. Duffer – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. James said BZA-08-006 is a sign variance request to reduce the setback for a ground sign from 10 feet to zero feet on SR267 right-of-way for the Woodfire Grill at 5020 Cambridge Way. For outlots along SR267 the ordinance does allow two ground signs but they are restricted to a sign surface area of 48 square feet and the standard six foot height. They are proposing a changeable copy sign so they can advertise specials for traffic going along SR267. The proposed ground sign does comply with the 48 square feet and the six foot height even as a changeable copy sign. Forty percent of the sign will be changeable copy; it will have a message board.
It is in a 20 foot utility and drainage easement, which has restricted signs along SR267. Here is the site; SR267 is the right-of-way; all of these are outlots; the Plainfield Park zoned General Commercial. Here is the site plan; the west end of the site; this is the property line and the SR267 right-of-way and they want to put it right at the edge of the property line. They feel they have some sight distance issues if the sign is placed back for the required 10’ setback or it would even be further restricted if it is placed out of the 20’ utility and drainage easement. Here is the drainage easement right here.
Mr. Monnett asked, is that telephone?
Mr. James said there is also a 50’ telephone easement in there as well that is separate from the utility and drainage easement.
Land improvements were just done on SR267; just completed this past summer of 2007. INDOT does not plan anymore lane additions on SR267 and even at the property line they would still be set back 60’ from the edge of the new curb.
Here is the schematic of the sign; it is 48 square feet and a six foot height and then the 40% message board. So, the lane improvements have already been done. INDOT will not do anymore lane additions. The sign will still be 60’ from the curb and does the utility and drainage easement create any unnecessary hardships for locating a ground sign near the SR267 right-of-way? To place a sign within the utility and drainage easement an encroachment agreement executed by the Town Council and with the telephone company is required in order to locate the ground sign within these easements. In the Staff Report I said the ground sign cannot be placed over the water main. They did meet with Jason Castetter out there on the site last week and they were able to locate the water main and the easement and the water main is about 15 feet east of the property line. So, they will be able to place the sign away from the water main and they would have about a four foot setback to the water main and Public Works was okay with that four foot setback.
I have some photos. There are existing ground signs with message boards on them along SR267. Here is on the west side of SR267 where they have a greater setback on the east side. And then White Castle just down from the Woodfire Grill site have a sign with a message board that is almost at the property line. I did a little bit of research and couldn’t find if a variance was granted for that or not. I’m sure that is within the utility and drainage easement as well. So, there are some existing signs out there with these outlots and the owner of the restaurant is here and I’m sure he would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Ms. Jennifer Lawrence said I’m representing Hendricks Adventures Company. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Monnett asked, is the owner of the business aware if this does get approved, what they are going to need to go through?
Ms. Lawrence said we have already signed the encroachment agreement for the drainage and utility easement. The owner is aware of the encroachment agreement with the telephone company. We will be more than happy to sign that and turn it in right away. We just need to put that paperwork together and he is aware that if there is a water main break out there, that there could be damage to his sign.
Mr. Monnett said four feet is not a lot. As long as they are aware of that because they will need room to dig that if something should ever happen.
Ms. Lawrence said he feels that taking that chance is worth it so he can advertise his business and receive more traffic.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Ms. Lawrence said I don’t believe anyone has a parking arrangement quite like ours but we actually have parking along the west property that is perpendicular to SR267.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said I don’t know what happened with White Castle but it seems to me when it was Dogs ‘N Suds, that they did have a reader board up there at one time; does anybody recall that?
Mr. Cavanaugh said they had a reader board on the facade of the building.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Mr. James said it is within the drainage and utility easement, which is 20 feet from the property line. Then also there is a 15 foot (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci asked, are those easements on SR267 right-of-way?
Mr. James said right.
Mr. Carlucci asked, are they on the right-of-way of the building?
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. Lawrence said they are on our property.
Mr. Carlucci said they are part of the easement of their property.
Mr. James said the right-of-way is right here. (Inaudible). It would be right at the edge of the right-of-way (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said (inaudible).
Ms. Lawrence said I think the owner’s main concern was he actually did step out on the property and visualized and stepped back 10 feet off where the property line would be because that is actually the sign setback. We would still be located within the drainage and utility easement and telephone easement if we did meet the 10 foot setback but we are right behind a line of bushes that are blocking our parking. And if there are actually cars lined up in that parking, you wouldn’t be able to see that sign at all.
Mr. Monnett asked, who do the bushes belong to?
Ms. Lawrence said they are ours; they are used for parking screening along the west property line.
Mr. Carlucci said it is probably a condition on the Development Plan Approval. It may be that you can move some of those bushes up. Mr. James could they put some landscaping somewhere else and then put their sign where the landscaping was?
Mr. James said these are screening the parking spaces.
Mr. Carlucci said if you go back to that picture, I’m not sure they are screening very much because they are pretty low. I don’t think you are going to hide a car behind those.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said the problem is I’m not sure even if he could put the sign farther back to where those bushes are, that you don’t have a lot of places on that site where you can put other landscaping; it is just a small site.
Ms. Lawrence said the trees are in the vicinity if you go north of where we want to put the sign. So, it’s not only the bushes along the parking but there are actually trees farther back as well.
Mr. Carlucci asked, that do what?
Ms. Lawrence said that are part of the landscaping plan that was part of the development plan for the site. So, if we move the sign off the drainage and utility easement, we would be in the middle of those trees, which are fairly substantial today; they are not small trees. But the owner of the business is doing well right now but wants to do better and Dog ‘N Suds may have had a sign there but obviously they didn’t flourish as well as we would like to do in this community. So, he is concerned about the location of the sign; he wants people along SR267 to see it coming from both directions and want to come in there.
Mr. Monnett said if the sign would go where some of those shrubs are, would that be in line with Thornton’s?
Mr. James said Thornton’s is back.
Mr. Gibbs asked, does the Thornton’s meet the requirements?
Mr. Carlucci said I think they got a variance for the size of the sign.
Ms. Lawrence said they are also on a corner; they have a roadway.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Ms. Lawrence asked, would they be on top of the utility and drainage easement as well?
Mr. Carlucci said the issue is not where they are but where you are.
Mr. Monnett said I was just wanting a reference point.
Mr. Carlucci said if my memory serves me right, I think that may be a 64 square foot sign because we were approving several of those and I think there were sign ordinance changes so where it started out here it is something different 10 years later.
Ms. Duffer asked, is there anything that we did when we structured SR267, to cause this issue with the easements?
Mr. Carlucci said they stayed within their right-of-way. The State didn’t have to buy any right-of-way whatsoever to do the project that they did.
Mr. James said (inaudible).
Mr. Gibbs said looking at this drawing up there amongst those trees (inaudible) on the drawing it says there is a sign base there. Is that where Dog ‘N Suds was?
Ms. Lawrence said yes it is.
Mr. Carlucci said I thought at one time as part of that roof they had a little reader board up on top.
Ms. Lawrence said I believe at the time the Woodfire Grill came through the development plan I’m not sure that was allowed for us because I know we tried to put as much signage on it to advertise as possible. But it says Woodfire Grill on each side of the canopy area.
Mr. James said they could have had (inaudible).
Ms. Lawrence said and there is a ground sign along Cambridge Way; it is very small.
Mr. James said 48 square feet, which is smaller than allowed.
Mr. Cavanaugh said for the changeable copy board do they still have other alternatives?
Mr. James said (inaudible). They would have to replace an existing sign (inaudible).
Mr. Carlucci said Dogs ‘N Suds and the Sonic were very specific. It is a hard building because at one time they were looking at this on U.S. 40 for Dog ‘N Suds. They thought it was out of character for that area but normally when you build a restaurant business, you are trying to get the main building the closest to the road and have your parking on the side or the back. This is just because of the nature of a business. You can’t pull up; you may sit there for awhile and realize you have to go in but it is not a drive-up anymore so that is just the nature of what they have done. The canopy is actually smaller than it was before because they have expanded the building again towards SR267; at least I think they did. So, it is a tough site and I know they are trying like everybody else make to their best efforts here. If you grant this approval, it might be just specific to this business so that if someone else came in, that doesn’t mean that they will necessarily get that sign. When Dog ‘N Suds bought this, they bought the tightest lot that they could get; there is no room; there is no extra room to make any adjustments.
Mr. Monnett asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and entertain a motion from the board.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I don’t think this demonstrates a hardship. I believe there are alternative locations and alternative ways for obtaining a sign to this site. As much as we would wish otherwise, for the need to increase business or receive more traffic is not a valid backing for a variance. With that I’m going to move that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny BZA-08-006 as filed by Hendricks Adventures Co., LLC requesting a variance to allow a ground sign to have a zero foot setback from the SR267 right-of-way at 5020 Cambridge Way. Second by Ms. Duffer. Roll call vote called.
Ms. Duffer – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Gibbs – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
4-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Monnett said I had a question about the billboards along SR267 out there; what is our status?
Mr. James said we got a rendering last week for the Town’s message. I believe they are about ready to go on line. Have you seen them?
Mr. Monnett said I saw the one in Greenwood.
Mr. James said there is an article in the APA Zoning Board specifically about these new LED signs and the way other communities are allowing them or regulating them. It was funny that a lot of communities have allowed these new digital billboards with the similar condition that they have to take some existing ones down and do an exchange. I also read where the old standard static billboard generates about $300,000.00 per year revenue and these new digitals will general three million.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Duffer made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
__________________________________________
Mr. Gregory K. Monnett, President
