Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES April 1, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Stires stated this property is located at 6720 South Scatterfield and is the site of the Rudy Williams, Chairperson new four story, 104 unit Holiday Inn Express Greg Spencer, Vice Chairperson hotel in Anderson. This property contains Connie Klungness, Member 4.685 acres, is zoned B-3 Neighborhood Willie Rayford, Member Shopping Center and is part of the Eagle Pointe Subdivision. Mr. Stires added this MEMBERS ABSENT: hotel project received special exception approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals on Harold Smith, Member September 3, 2008. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Stires stated the petitioner received initial variance approval from the Board in Michael Widing, Development Director September 2008 to construct a 27.66 ft. high Tim Stires, Assistant Development Director pylon / pole sign on the far western edge of the Dave Wilbur Sr. Zoning Administrator Holiday Inn Express site, west of the Stephanie George, Board Secretary; and detention pond. The City Ordinance specifies William Kreegar, Attorney pole signs in a B-3 zone class not exceed 20 ft. in height. Mr. Stires added the petitioner is ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A requesting a second variance from the pole QUORUM: sign height allowance to raise the height of the pylon / pole sign five (5) additional feet to Mr. Williams called the meeting to order at 32.66 ft. because the taller sign will give 4:31 p.m. Ms. George took roll call and Holiday Inn Express greater visibility and declared a quorum with four members in exposure to the Interstate 69 (I-69) traffic. attendance. Mr. Spencer performed the The I-69 interchange is approximately 2,330 Invocation and Mr. Williams led the Pledge of ft. or .44 of a mile from the Holiday Inn Allegiance. Express hotel. Mr. Stires stated the hotel’s distance away from the interstate does cause MINUTES: it to suffer from lack of visibility which means the hotel is at a competitive disadvantage The March 4, 2009 minutes were approved as with other nearby motels with better presented. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, interstate visibility and taller motel signs. 0 no. Mr. Stires stated other motel or hotel sign BUSINESS: heights range from 20 to 65 ft. Clarion Inn sign height is 47 ft. and was approved on PETITION #07-09 3/14/96. The sign at Baymont Inn is 45 ft. and was approved by a variance on 9/17/98. Mr. Submitted by Rose Hill, LLC for a Stires added Lee’s Inn sign is at 62 ft. and was Variance from the Maximum Allowable approved 3/21/88. The Comfort Inn sign is at Pole Sign Height Requirement located at 50 ft. and was approved 9/7/90. Mr. Stires 6720 South Scatterfield Road. (Holiday stated Super 8 has a sign of 45 ft., Best Inns Inn Express) sign is at 40 ft. and Quality Inn their sign is at 40 ft. and was approved on 3/6/02. 1 Mr. Stires stated the petitioner notes the Mrs. Klungness asked when did Holiday Inn proposed 32.66 ft. high pylon / pole sign is the change their logo? Dr. Chaudhry answered standard size franchise pole sign erected at they announced it in October of 2007 and then new Holiday Inn hotels across the country. last year they started changing all of the Staff notes taller motel signs are instrumental signs. All the hotels have until January 2010 in assisting motorists with hotel / motel to change all the signs to the new logo. reservations find their hotels / motel destinations, plus attract drive-in or walk-in Mrs. Klungness asked would all the new hotel traffic. signs be this same height like this one? Dr. Chaudhry it depends on the location and how Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending many stories the hotels are. approval of the pole sign height variance because the taller hotel sign will allow Mrs. Klungness asked do Holiday Inn Holiday Inn Express to increase the proposed Expresses get taller than four (4) stories? Dr. hotel’s exposure or visibility from Interstate Chaudhry answered yes they get taller 69 and allow the hotel to erect the standard depending on where they are located, bigger franchise pole sign. Staff would add the city the bigger the hotel. approval of the taller sign will also allow the Holiday Inn Express to have a sign around the Mrs. Klungness asked if she ventured to average height of its competitors whose signs another Holiday Inn Express of the same size, are closer to the interstate. the sign would be the 32.66 ft.? Dr. Chaudhry stated yes. Mr. Widing stated as with any variance we have to ask ourselves, how will this affect us Mrs. Klungness asked what problems would when other petitioners come before this Board happen if the Board does not grant this and ask for a similar variance. This is a hotel variance? Dr. Chaudhry stated they would and most of our other hotels already have tall have a disadvantage compared to the other pole signs. Mr. Widing added by looking at hotels around the interstate in that area. Dr. this situation here, at exit 26 and see that the Chauhdry added with this hotel being new, other hotels already have taller signs and they need to establish clientele. make a judgment call on this variance. Mrs. Klungness asked would you be able to Dr. Sajid Chaudhry, 303 S. Main St., see the sign from the interstate? Dr. Mishawaka, Indiana stated he is the manager Chaudhry stated a 65 ft. sign would be nice, of Rose Hill Hotels, LLC. Dr. Chaudhry stated but then the way they would dress it up, it when they came before the Board last year, would cost a great deal of money. the Holiday Inn had not given them the pole sign yet, so they used the height from an older Mrs. Klungness asked would there be any sign when applying for the first variance. problem with the Holiday Inn franchise if this Dr. Chaudhry added the taller sign would variance was not granted? Could this sign be help his business since it is a distance away made at the size the Board granted before at from the interstate. 27.66 ft.? Dr. Chauhdry stated it could be, but it would be at a disadvantage. Mr. Williams stated he was concerned about the location where the hotel was going to be Mr. Rayford asked would this facility have placed at, and the height of the sign not be tall banquet rooms? Dr. Chaudhry answered they enough. Mr. Williams asked would the whole have a room that would fit about 50 people, sign be lit? but no food because Holiday Inn Express does not allow outside food. Dr. Chaudhry answered the whole sign would be lit up. Mr. Williams asked what is the difference between Holiday Inn and Holiday Inn Express? Dr. Chauhdry stated Express means 2 free breakfast, free internet and free local Mr. Widing stated as the traffic counts calls. Holiday Inn the customer pays for the increase, the State should be forced to food, pays for internet and pays for the eventually do something. That is up to the internet. State to determine whether a stoplight would be put in. Austin Walls, Walls Furniture, 2439 E. 67th Street, Anderson stated he is the manager of Mrs. Klungness made the motion to approve Walls Furniture and they don’t have any Petition #07-09 based on the following issues with the sign, but they want to voice an findings of fact. The approval of the proposed opinion or a question about his business. Mr. variance would not be injurious to the public Walls stated they are now tucked behind their health, safety, morals and general welfare of building and the sign they originally had on the community because the Board previously the front is no longer visible unless you are in granted a sign variance for this location, the front of the building. Mr. Walls asked is there new sign will be a little bit bigger and it would any possibility of having some type of signage not affect in any additional way. The approval of their own closer to Scatterfield Road? of the proposed variance would not affect the surrounding properties because the sign is Mr. Widing stated that is against our Sign going to be five (5) feet higher and the sign Ordinance because that would be considered aesthetically is very nice and should improve an off-premise sign. There is a pylon sign at that whole look of that area. The strict the entrance of the private drive, that allows application of the terms of the zoning for projects that are in that development to ordinance would result in practical difficulties advertise. in the use of the property, if the proposed variance were denied because the petitioner Tim Walls, Walls Furniture, 2439 E. 67th has indicated that the height of other Street, Anderson stated there is a sign there competitor’s signs might put his business at a now for Eagle Pointe and has the signage for disadvantage; however Mrs. Klungness looks Tractor Supply and one of his signs. Mr. Walls at it more from a consumer point of view to be added if that sign were staying, it would help. able to locate where you are going and this sign will help and Holiday Inn was converting Mr. Walls stated when he first put up the signs over and didn’t get the right signs on the front of his building, he paid for specifications to them when they originally them, but with the hotel blocking the signs in asked for the sign variance. Mr. Rayford the front, could he relocate the sign to the side seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. facing 67th Street? PETITION #08-09 Mr. Widing stated again the Ordinance Submitted by Anderson Board of Public disallows off-premise signs. Works and Anderson Water Pollution Mr. Williams stated he appreciated Mr. Wall’s Control Department for a Special concern by having a business there, but that is Exception for a Municipal Building something you would have to take up with the located at 2801 Gene Gustin Way. Director on a private basis and see what you can come up with. Mr. Stires stated this property is located at 2801 Gene Gustin Way and is the site of Mrs. Klungness asked could something be Anderson’s Water Pollution Control utility done to the intersection of 67th Street and which is zoned R-1 Residential. The Water Scatterfield Road? Could we petition the State Pollution Control utility is located on to get a light there? It is a dangerous approximately 68 acres along with the Central intersection now, but when you add the hotel’s Services Building which houses the Street traffic it would be worse. Department and Municipal Light and Power. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is seeking special exception approval for the construction 3 of a Municipal Building (a new administrative Mr. Stires stated the landscaping plan is very building and future laboratory) on a two (2) modest and consists of just grass around the acre site. The proposed site plan shows a 50.9 building and one Tulip tree at the rear. The ft. by 82.81 ft. by 20.83 ft. high, two story project will add more landscaping as funding administration building and future 54.6 ft. by becomes available. 118.5 ft. by 20.83 ft. high laboratory to be built east of the “chlorination building.” Mr. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner submitted Stires added the proposed buildings easily drainage plans to the City Engineer for review meet all minimum setback requirements and and they understand if this project is maximum height allowance (125 ft.) approved by the Board, no permits will be issued until a drainage permit has been issued Mr. Stires stated the submitted site plan by the City Engineer. shows a total of 11 curbed and asphalted parking spaces (10 ft. by 18 ft.) located along Mr. Stires stated signage for this development the east and south sides of the proposed includes one ground sign. The 4 ft. by 8 ft. by administration building. The Figure 9 5 ft. high ground sign will be located on the Requirements call for one parking space per west side of the western access drive off the employee, plus one space per each six seats in south side of Gene Gustin Way. Mr. Stires the main auditorium inside the new building. added the sign would state “City of Anderson Mr. Stires added the new administration Waste Water Treatment Facility.” building would house a total of seven employees, so the 11 parking spaces will Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is requesting exceed the parking requirement and there is waivers from the Board’s parking lot concrete no auditorium in the new building. curbing requirement, sidewalks and utilizing a landscaping architect on projects costing Mr. Stires stated the municipal building more than $100,000 Design Standards. The project does not abut or adjoin a residential petitioner is installing concrete curbing along use; therefore, minimum distance to a parking portions of the access drive and along the area from a residential use and screen parking spaces by the building, but not along plantings are not applicable. The site plan the half circle driveway due to drainage shows two (2) ingress / egress or access drives concerns. Mr. Stires added the sidewalk to the administration building site. Mr. Stires waiver is being requested because there are no added the western drive has a 38.3 ft. wide nearby or adjoining sidewalks. The waiver entrance, while the eastern drive has a 28 ft. from using a landscape architect is being wide entrance. The two driveways will access requested because the landscaping being the existing 29.98 ft. by 30.72 ft. lift station proposed consists of mainly grass and one and the 22 ft. by 40 ft. in ground septage tree. receiving station. Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending Mr. Stires stated the submitted lighting plan approval of special exception and three shows exterior lighting around the east and waivers (concrete curbing, sidewalks and south sides of the new building, along the using a landscape architect) because the sidewalks to the north and around the proposed Water Pollution Control flagpole. The three (3) 400 watt metal halide Administration building and laboratory meets lights are mounted on a 20 ft. high poles along all of the Figure 9 Requirements for a the two sides of the building. Mr. Stires added Municipal Building and easily exceeds the a total of nine (9) 26 watt compact fluorescent minimum setbacks and the majority of the bollard lights are noted along the walkway. Board’s Design Standards. The proposed The flagpole lights are 39 watt metal halide building would also provide upgraded offices recessed fixtures. A satisfactory isolume plan for Water Pollution Control staff and is on file. employees because their present facilities are cramped and antiquated. 4 Mike McKinley, Assistant Supt. Water in the ground would make its way to the Pollution Control 2801 Gene Gustin Way, White River. Anderson, Indiana. Mrs. Klungness asked where are you going to Gui DeReamer, of Greeley and Hansen, 6640 put concrete curbing, up near the building? Intech Boulevard Suite 180, Indianapolis, Mr. DeReamer answered yes around the Indiana building. Mr. Williams stated the landscaping plan was Mrs. Klungness asked concrete curbing, do pretty pathetic with just grass and one tree to you mean the individual curbing things? Mr. be planted. DeReamer stated no concrete curbing for the sidewalks. Mr. Widing stated the City does have a tree farm and can help out with more trees to get Mrs. Klungness asked could curbing be made planted and we have a landscape architect for out of asphalt? Mr. DeReamer answered yes, the City. but it would be more economical to use concrete. Mr. Spencer stated the City has a Horticulturist and Arborist. Mr. Widing stated asphalt curbing tends to get broken a lot easier than concrete. Mr. Mrs. Klungness asked will the trees already Widing added the City Ordinance does not out there, would they stay? allow asphalt curbing, the Ordinance requires if we require the curb, it has to be a concrete Mr. DeReamer stated the focus has been the curb. plans and what the contractor would provide. Mrs. Klungness stated curbing is needed but Mr. Williams has the soil been tested to make the excuse of funding is not a good reason. sure the ground could sustain a building? Mr. DeReamer stated there is limestone just a few Mr. Spencer asked Mr. DeReamer how much a feet underneath the ground. landscape architect cost approximately? Mr. DeReamer answered they did not inquire into Mr. Williams asked what is the reason for the that, probably in the order of $5,000 to new building, where are the employees located $10,000 for an architect. at now? Mr. DeReamer stated it is a requirement of the Federal Consent Decree, Mr. Spencer asked could you put maybe that the City entered into for the facility $2,500 into landscaping if the Board granted space. Currently the Superintendent and staff the waiver? Mr. DeReamer stated sure. are located in the laboratory building on top of the filter building. Mr. DeReamer added part Mr. Spencer stated he doesn’t believe they of the reason for moving those people out is for need a landscape architect, we have City the laboratory to expand into that space. people that can do it, but they need to commit to spending the funds to do a better landscape Mr. Williams asked is the Chlorination in his opinion. Building there now? Mr. DeReamer stated that is where the building exists right now Mr. Widing stated the City owns a tree farm. and the offices would be vacated to expand the laboratory. Mr. Spencer stated the Park Department is broke too, so the money is going to have come Mrs. Klungness asked why are the petitioners from somewhere it can’t come from the Park asking for a waiver from concrete curbing? Department. Mr. DeReamer answered all the drives out there do not have curbing, what does soak up 5 Mr. Widing stated Water Pollution Control PETITION #09A-09 could go to the tree farm and gets trees to Submitted by Dave Cravens for a plant at the new building. Variance from the Lot Coverage Mr. Williams asked if the new building will be Requirement located at 2309 Charles two-stories? Mr. DeReamer stated it would be Street. a single story building but has the appearance of a two story. Mr. Stires stated this property is located at 2309 Charles Street and is presently vacant, Mr. Spencer asked has the lab done some consisting of .518 of an acre and is zoned B-4 work for other communities? Mr. McKinley Community Shopping Center. This property is stated it is an award-winning lab. part of a three-lot plat (Charles Street Addition, First Continuation) which Mr. Spencer stated it is a revenue source. Mr. eventually led to the construction of the McKinley added it generated $90,000 last year Wal-Mart Super Center. Mr. Stires added this in the laboratory. property is on the northwest corner of the Wal-Mart parking lot. This lot (Lot #9) was Mr. Williams asked would the future previously platted for a gas station which was laboratory be adequate for the coming years? never built. Mr. Stires stated this lot (Lot #9) Mr. DeReamer stated yes. received special exception approval in August 2008 for the construction of a B-4 development Mr. Rayford made the motion to approve consisting of a multi-tenant commercial Petition #08-09 based on the following building (B Shoppes) on the eastern half of the findings of fact and waivers of concrete lot. curbing, sidewalks and utilizing a landscaping architect. The proposed special exception is in Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is back before a proper zone district. The requirements of the Board at staff’s suggestion, because in Figure 9 have been met or variances been recent weeks the design of the B-4 granted. The proposed special exception will development has been revised and the number serve a public need and convenience because of tenants reduced. The petitioner is seeking the proposed building would provide upgraded special exception for an amended B-4 offices for the Water Pollution Control staff development plan for the construction of a and employees and the present facilities are two-tenant building on the eastern half of the cramped and antiquated. The proposed special lot. Mr. Stires added the proposed building exception will not injure the appropriate use measures 56 ft. by 70.91 ft. by 19.66 ft. high of the surrounding properties because the and contains 3,915 sq. ft. The site plan proposed building will be built on land that indicates the northern tenant (GNC) will houses Central Service Building, Street occupy 1,440 sq. ft., while the southern tenant Department and Municipal Power and Light. (Madison County Credit Union) will occupy The proposed special exception is consistent 2,475 sq. ft. with the spirit, intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance because it meets all the Mr. Stires stated the site plan shows a total of Figure 9 Requirement for the Municipal 23 asphalted and curbed parking spaces (10 ft. Building, exceed minimum setbacks and the by 18 ft.) located on the north and west sides majority of the Board’s Design Standards. of the proposed businesses. The Figure 9 Mr. Spencer seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 Requirements call for one parking space for no. every 60 sq. ft. of sales area. Mr. Stires added the proposed amended building contains 2,400 PETITION #09-09 sq. ft. of sales area which would require 40 parking spaces. The revised site plan falls Submitted by Dave Cravens for a Special short of the parking requirement, but staff Exception for a B-4 Amended notes the parking requirements are out-of- Development Plan. date and are in the process of being amended. Mr. Stires added the petitioner already 6 received variance approval from the parking petitioner sought a waiver from cross access requirement back in August 2008. for the initial multi-tenant building in August 2008, but the revised site plan shows cross Mr. Stires stated the submitted lighting plan access to the surrounding properties. shows exterior lighting around the perimeter of the parking lot. The lighting plan indicated Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending there are three (3) existing 35 ft. high steel approval of this special exception, variance light poles with 250-watt metal halide lamps. (lot coverage) because the proposed project A satisfactory isolume plan is on file. meets all of the applicable Figure 9 Requirements, Design Standards and Mr. Stires stated the petitioner has again setbacks. Staff notes approval of the project indicated he does not plan to utilize any pole will also allow two existing Anderson business or ground signage. The original plan approved to relocate and continue to grow and expand. in August 2008 also did not include a pole or ground sign. Mr. Stires added the signage will Jim Dauss, Dauss Architects, 227 W. 11th meet the requirements of the City’s Sign Street, Anderson Ordinance. Mr. Williams asked is that location going to be Mr. Stires stated the submitted revised site a little tight for the two tenants? Mr. Dauss plan shows the credit union or south side of stated no, they have reduced the size of the the development will have a three (3) lane building from just less than 5,000 sq. ft. to less drive up, with a stacking capacity of 21 than 4,000 sq. ft. to accommodate the drive vehicles. Staff notes two of the drive up lanes thru. will be for the credit union transactions, while the third lane will service ATM customers. Mr. Williams asked Madison County Credit Union has already said they would be a tenant Mr. Stires stated the submitted landscaping in this development? Mr. Dauss stated that is plan indicates 80 percent lot coverage for the why they are here before the Board. development. The maximum allowable lot coverage in a B-4 zone class is 75 percent. Mr. Mr. Williams asked are the 23 parking spaces Stires added the proposed project exceeds the going to be enough? Mr. Dauss stated when lot coverage allowance by five (5) percent and we reduced the building size they increased the petitioner is requesting a variance from the parking ratio. the lot coverage requirement. They have landscaping along the outside of the parking Mr. Dauss stated they helped out the parking lot and around the building on the east and lot because the Board requested Mr. Cravens west sides. Mr. Stires added the Board has to get cross access agreement and he asked approved other project with the similar lot and they gave it. coverage including Rickers at 9th and Scatterfield Road, Nick and B’s on Broadway Mrs. Klungness asked when Wal-Mart came and the Payless Supermarket at 29th and to the Board, didn’t they use this area as their Main Street. green space numbers? Mr. Widing stated a very small amount of this property was Mr. Stires stated the petitioner has submitted considered as green space. The large portion of drainage plans for this project to the City green space came from the property behind Engineer for review. If approved, no permits what is now the Wal-Mart building. Mr. for the project will be issued until a drainage Widing added the whole lot was not calculated permit has been issued by the City Engineer. as green space. Mr. Stires stated the project meets all of the Dave Cravens, 6389 Pheasant Court, applicable Design Standards required by the Pendleton, Indiana Board including curbing, a 5 ft. landscaping strip, sidewalks, signage and cross access. The 7 Mr. Spencer asked with Mr. Craven’s Klungness seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 development how would you anticipate that no. impacting surrounding properties such as Wal-Mart? Mr. Cravens stated it would help his business (GNC) that he’s owned since 1994 Meeting adjourned at 5:43 pm and with it would be a great partner with Madison County Credit Union. Mr. Cravens BY: ______________________________ added he could of gotten any national tenant, Rudy Williams, Chairperson but chose to get a local tenant, and the community support. ATTEST: ___________________________ Stephanie George, Board Mr. Spencer made the motion to approve Secretary Petition #09A-09 based on the following findings of fact. The approval of the proposed variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because the development is within a business district that is an extension of an existing shopping type center. The approval of the proposed variance would not affect the surrounding properties because the site meshes well with the surrounding business, part of a larger shopping type center. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, if the proposed variance were denied because there is not enough space to adhere to the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance. Mrs. Klungness seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. Mr. Spencer made the motion to approve Petition #09-09 based on the following findings of fact. The proposed special exception is in a proper zone district. The requirements of Figure 9 have been met or variances have been granted. The proposed special exception will serve a public need and convenience because it will provide the citizens of Anderson with convenient access to goods and services by the development. The proposed special exception will not injure the appropriate use of the surrounding properties because the surrounding properties are retail type businesses that would probably benefit from the increased traffic brought by this development. The proposed special exception is consistent with the spirit, intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance because the zoning ordinance allows for development to bring needed job opportunities and additional economic activity to this community. Mrs. 8