The Board of Zoning Appeals met on Monday, October 18, 2004 at
7:30 p.m. In attendance were Mr. Haase, Mr. Cavanaugh, Mr. Monnett,
Mr. Blevins and Mr. Matrana.
ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Mr. Higbee administered the roll call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve the September 20, 2004 minutes of the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals as submitted. Second by Mr. Monnett. 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 matter before the BZA tonight is BZA-04-024 concerning a sign permit.
Mr. Higbee said this is a Variance of Development Standards to permit a wall sign specifically on the south facade of the north building at the Main Street Crossing. The building set empty for a long time, as you are all probably aware until recently when the Cord Camera shop moved in. Recently we received some sign requests from them for putting a panel in at the pylon sign along Main Street, which was fine and is permitted by our ordinances. As well as signs on the
front facade, which would be the east facade facing Perry Road and then on the south facade. But apparently from what I was told there was a misunderstanding between Ms. Payne, who is no longer here, and some of the sign people about which size signs were permitted on which facade of the building. However, what our ordinances say is a front facade would be permitted up to 10% of the facade area. That is a facade facing a street that has access to the site. Any other facade side or rear would only be permitted a maximum 5% of the facade area of the tenant space. They have the whole building so in this case the tenant space is the entire side facade. It is a large facade. It’s a 10,000 square foot building. However, what they wanted to do is put very similar signs on the two facades and when you did the sign calculations on the south facade, they could only accommodate one of the two signs they wanted to put up. So, initially they felt they were going to be able to do that after having discussion with Ms. Payne. I got a hold of the sign permit request and had to tell them that they were not going to be able to put up the signs on the south facade as large as they wanted to and be in compliance with the ordinance and that is why they are here tonight.
Mr. Matrana asked, what percentage of sign area are they allowed to have and what are they requesting?
Mr. Higbee said the percentage on the south facade can be up to 5%. I didn’t give you the percentage that they requested but if you go to table “A” on page 2, they are permitted up to 188.8 square feet and they are asking 180.1 for the two signs together.
Mr. Casey Hartman at 3374 Chetwood Place, Dublin, Ohio said first I just wanted to say that we really appreciate all of the conversations
that Mr. Higbee has had with us. He has been very accurate with us
since the whole incident with your assistant. I have some business
cards for each of you so that you know who we are. I brought photos
that we have taken of the building so that you can see where we are
going. These are all of the current signs that are up. The one picture you can actually see both sides of the tower as well as the front of the building. We feel due to the orientation of the building and how Perry Road curves back through as well as the visibility of our building from Main Street that the scrapbooking sign would be vital to that business. This store is one of our prototype stores where the majority is a scrapbooking store with a camera store as part of it. So, we are not forgetting where our core roots are. We are still a camera store and still do photo processing but there is a large portion of our store that is scrapbooking. We don’t want to put the full scrapbooking center on the side but we would like for the size of the letters to match scrapbooking from the front of the building for that side. I think with discussions that Mr. Higbee has had with the sign folks I think the sign that would be in compliance would be 20-inch letters whereas we are asking for 36-inch letters. Due to that misunderstanding that Mr. Higbee spoke of it was already built. We would like to just use the word scrapbooking on that side that you can see from Main Street.
Mr. Matrana asked, if you used just the sign that said scrapbooking, would that be 180 square feet?
Mr. Hartman said right because part of the tower sign that says Cord Cameras figured into that square footage also.
Mr. Higbee said this sign here that is up that says Cord Camera does fit and complies with the ordinance but as soon as they add that
additional word “scrapbooking”, they are not going to comply anymore.
Mr. Hartman said I think from what the sign people have told me the letters were 20 inches by the length, it would still be within
compliance also.
Mr. Higbee said I wasn’t aware of that but that is very possible.
Mr. Hartman said we are just looking at the sign that they had already built due to the conversations.
Mr. Matrana asked, do all of the other letters, Cord Camera and
scrapbooking, are they all 36 inches?
Mr. Hartman said yes. We would like for them to all match to look pleasant.
Mr. Haase asked, what do you think you were told?
Mr. Hartman said a lot of the conversations took place with Mr. Higbee’s assistance and with our sign folks.
Mr. Haase asked, what was your understanding?
Mr. Hartman said my perception was that he had been given a verbal approval to begin the sign process. So, they began the manufacturing of the sign because we were keeping them on a tight deadline to get the store opened when we did. Since we kept them on the tight deadline then they began their manufacturing process from a verbal only to find out we had a problem.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, do I understand correctly that you are leasing the entire facility there?
Mr. Hartman said yes we purchased the building. We purchased the
entire building and we are going to use it all for Cord Camera.
Mr. Cavanaugh said I haven’t been in the store but I have driven past it a few times. Are you occupying the space of the entire east side?
Mr. Hartman said yes we are occupying the entire building. We will be applying for a building permit down the road to finish off what we want to do with the rest of the building. When the previous owners were in there, it was all wide opened anyway. There were restrooms and we decided to move in as is and put down carpet.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, are you asking for a permit for the interior
work?
Mr. Hartman said we will in the future.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, had you thought about signage for the north side of the building?
Mr. Hartman said not at this specific time. I know from discussions with Mr. Higbee that it would be permitted in the future because there is going to be a lot more development back there and that is fantastic to hear. But right now for the best purpose, what we are saying on the front or the east side or the south side, would be the best use.
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, do I understand correctly that the determination is at the east side of this frontage and the north side of this frontage and to the south side is basically the normal five percent?
Mr. Higbee said right. The south would be a side and then the west would be rear facade there. We felt like because of the way Perry Road curves around and encloses that lot on the north side that we should be able to count that as frontage. So, it gets the full 10%
credit.
Mr. Hartman said in the one photograph it is taken from the same side of the street that we are on. But if you were on the opposite side of the street driving north, you would be able to see that whole side of that building. The other sign would kind of be running parallel to the road and be harder to see.
Mr. Haase asked, is this your first venture into scrapbooking?
Mr. Hartman said no. We have quite a few stores that are in
scrapbooking in Ohio.
Mr. Haase asked, is this your first combination?
Mr. Hartman said it is our first combination in Indiana. We have I believe five stores in Ohio and Cleveland that are these combination
stores. Quite frankly they are doing bang busters. We are very excited about the store that is up there because it is in a great area and the combination is amazing. We just unlock the doors and they are doing quite well. I guess that is just a sign of how well that area is developed.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care
about this matter? Being no one coming forward I would like to close
the public portion of this meeting and open this matter up for
discussion by board members with a possible motion.
Mr. Haase made a motion to approve BZA-04-024 subject to the
following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the sign location plan and wall sign elevations file dated September 24, 2004.
An accurate scaled building elevation shall be provided for
compliance review.
Sign area not to exceed 185 square feet as requested in the
variance.
Second by Mr. Blevins. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the next matter before the board is BZA-04-025
concerning a residence’ house by Mary Hannah.
Mr. Higbee said this is a Variance of Use request for a singlefamily
residence on East Main Street. It is in the annexation area from a few areas ago where I believe approximately 136 acres was annexed and later it was rezoned to commercial at the behest of most of the property owners out there who wanted it rezoned to commercial at the time. However, there were several single-family residences out there in that general area. You may or may not remember subsequent to that we had one man who had a house out there come in to ask to put in a carport addition to his house and we granted that because any time you have a change to commercial zoning like this all residential uses become legal non-conforming automatically. You can’t build onto the residence or rebuild a residence when the zoning is commercial. You can only build a commercial building. Our legal non-conforming use provisions of our ordinance also say that if the house completely burns down, you would not be able to rebuild a residential house. The
petitioner I guess for purposes of working with its lender wanted to be able to have the Town write them a letter saying that they could
rebuild a house if it were to burn down and I was unable to do that
because it is a legal non-conforming use. The only way around that
would be for them to get a variance to permit the residential use to
continue to go on there even if the house was completely burned down.
Some of the questions that I asked were talking about whether or not a time limit should be there because obviously the zoning anticipates that the area would redevelop commercial. There is reason to believe that things that are happening might keep that up in the next few years. Or if you do choose to grant the variance, do you want to limit the ability to do expansion of the home at all?
Mr. Cavanaugh asked, the legal non-conforming now if the owner wanted to do a building addition, am I understanding correctly he would not be able to do that?
Mr. Higbee said correct. An expansion of a legal non-conforming use would still require a variance.
Ms. Mary Hannah at 7881 Fox Run Path, Plainfield said let me pass the picture of the residence to have a visual. I have been a realtor among other things, for about 17-18 years now. I have been in the
community that long. What I foresee is exactly what is in the
Comprehensive Plan is commercial development expanding in that area,
which is ideal along the corridor, the parkway. I don’t have any
crystal ball when that might happen when this development is going to
occur. For me financially to obtain some financing would be a
residential loan for a rental. This would be within my realm
financially. There are other options but that does not fit into my
budget so the reason I’m coming is the lender is asking to provide a
100% rebuild letter, which I didn’t know what that was initially so now I do. It is not my intent down the road to rebuild. I would like to rebuild commercially. I was delighted as well as many of the community residents around as I spoke with them as the rezoning had taken place a few years ago. So, it is the intent to get my financing and pursue with an investment.
Mr. Matrana asked, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this matter? Being no one coming forward I will open it up for discussion among the board members with a possible motion.
Mr. Monnett asked, is the time limit a concern to Mr. Higbee?
Mr. Higbee said it was a suggestion because variances that are
limited in either time or extent, if there is concern on the part of
the board, they are obviously usually seen as more palatable. The
likelihood is that somebody out there who is going to develop
commercial is not going to be stopped by the presence of a residential structure there. They are just going to demolish it and move forward.
Mr. Matrana asked, if we did put a time limit on it, would that affect her to getting a mortgage?
Mr. Higbee said I’m not sure about that. I don’t know.
Mr. Daniel said it depends on the length of the mortgage that you are applying for.
Ms. Hannah said that is correct. I did ask that with the loan officer just to get some information on that to see if we were even going to go with restrictions and it would be declined, that is correct.
Mr. Daniel asked, even if it extended to the length of your mortgage?
Ms. Hannah said I can’t answer that because I didn’t ask that.
Mr. Daniel said my guess is her mortgage would be longer than what the board might want to put a limit on that. I assume this is in
event of a casualty loss.
Ms. Hannah said that is right, if a tornado comes through, can that be rebuilt?
Mr. Daniel said if the board granted you a variance to allow the
residence to be rebuilt in the event of a casualty loss without any
time limit on it to satisfy your mortgage requirements that might work better for your mortgage company than trying to put some arbitrary time limit on it.
Mr. Haase asked, is the variance going to run with her or is the
variance going to run with the land?
Mr. Higbee said the land unless you limit it.
Ms. Hannah said that is correct.
Mr. Haase said the best might be to limit it to her. That satisfies her mortgage needs and if she sells it, it would just be back here.
Ms. Hannah said that is the purpose of the investment. I feel it is in an ideal place. Just as I-70 and Quaker Boulevard there were only three gas stations there at once and I took someone at the fourth corner that didn’t listen and you can see what happened. I’m not a big developer as many that I have seen come in here. To me I see this is exactly what is going to happen along Ronald Reagan Parkway and I’m excited really. I’m anxious to see what is coming in the future.
Mr. Daniel said that would work.
Mr. Monnett asked, how many homes are out there?
Mr. Higbee said I don’t know how many but I would say several. There are large lots.
Mr. Monnett said they sit back from U.S. 40.
Mr. Higbee said yes they are long narrow lots and they are large lots so there aren’t a lot of homes but there are several.
Ms. Hannah said they are an acre plus. To the east if you have the document that I prepared that borders Earlham, that is a little over an acre. Then you come towards the diner to the west and this property is a little over an acre. The one west of this property is an acre and a quarter. The property next to that is over an acre. Then you run into the motel, the all Bedford stone, and then west of that to the diner. So, I’m looking at an overall picture in investment of this property in hopes that sometime in the future to take and work something as an individual investor from Earlham and using four to five acres to put one possibly big development in just as long as I get the money to start.
Mr. Higbee said if you use your map and you count the number of lots, it is possible that there could be one or two double lots in there but there are less than a dozen lots there.
Mr. Haase made a motion to approve BZA-04-025 subject to the following conditions:
A plot plan of the existing improvements shall be provided for the file.
This grant is for the existing improvements only and shall not apply to an expansion of the residential use.
This variance would run with the future landowner, which would be Mary Hannah.
Second by Mr. Monnett. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
Mr. Matrana said the next matter to come before the board concerns Calvary Baptist Church, BZA-04-026.
Mr. Higbee said this is a Special Exception request for a church or what we classify as a religious use in our Zoning Ordinance. Anytime you build either a new religious use or expand or add any improvements that requires an additional Special Exception. This
particular church is in a R-1 Zoning District, which prevails in that
area with the parks, etc. As you saw in the plans in your packets, the addition proposed is 30 by 50 feet. It would be a brick addition that would match the existing building. We have always had a policy to have a religious meet our Office District standards because that is normally considered compatible with surrounding residential development. These plans did meet that kind of a standard after I reviewed them. I did have one question just based on having looked at an aerial photograph I put it in my Staff Comments, Questions and Concerns and I have an actual aerial here if any of you want to look at it. This could be something that I’m in error on and it is hard to look at an aerial and really know what distances are. But what you saw is this building addition being bumped out toward a parking area and you can see the stripes on the parking spots. So, you can take a pretty good guess about the length of the parking spot and then compare it to, in this case, the building addition that is being erected and the planting area next to the building addition. My concern was just to verify that the dimensions there were correct, and they may indeed be correct, but I just want to verify that to be sure that there was enough area to provide the foundation plantings that would be expected with this type of development. They show appropriate types of foundation plantings and if there is a wide enough landscape strip when they build this, then that would be fine.
Mr. Craig Brighton at 7416 South 825 East Plainfield said I’m a
member of Calvary Baptist Church and assisting with the planning with
the church expansion. The dimensions that you see on the plan I
believe is a 20 scale and I actually took a tape measure and measured
from the edge of the pavement to the front of the existing building and came to 18 feet. So, that would leave a 10-foot strip from the edge of pavement to the new addition along Center Street. It does not have a dimension actually on the print but again I would like to reinforce the fact that it does scale to that. There is a dimension of the eightfoot projection from the face of the building. This addition comes following the recent addition of the sanctuary and all parking and calculation of spaces is determined on that sanctuary. This is merely an addition of two classrooms that would be actually catching up the support area for the church in order to carry on Sunday School classes and other educational purposes. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Higbee said I was comparing the length of those parking spaces that are shown on the photo.
Mr. Brighton said that is bus parking.
Mr. Higbee said maybe you have extra long parking spaces in which
case that would throw me off but on the other hand there can be some
visual deception if you look at the aerial photograph depending on the angles. I was never saying that I was certain that I was right but I was just saying to verify this rather than build the thing and find out that we have a problem later
Mr. Matrana 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 the meeting and open this matter up to the board for discussion and possible motion concerning the Calvary Baptist Church expansion.
Mr. Monnett made a motion to approve BZA-04-026 subject to the
following conditions:
Subject to substantial compliance with the site plan and landscape plan, building elevation and wal-pac lighting cut sheet file dated October 11, 2004.
Second by Mr. Cavanaugh. Roll call vote called.
Mr. Haase – yes
Mr. Cavanaugh – yes
Mr. Blevins – yes
Mr. Monnett – yes
Mr. Matrana – yes
5-ayes, 0-opposed, 0-absent. Motion carried.
OLD BUSIENSS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Haase made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Matrana. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned.
_____________________________
Mr. Rick Matrana, President
