Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

We'll call the March Plymouth Planning Commission meeting to order, please. I'll start with the roll call. Eat here. Gibly here. Longer is absent. Milner here. Pinkerton's absent. Republic Schaer is absent. Sequort here. Sellers here. Western here. Wendle here. Here. Here. Have to excuse my attire. Excuse. Are you working or what? Yeah, I have to work. Haven't quit yet. Um, we need to approve the minutes of the last meeting.

Make a motion. We approve the minutes of the last meeting. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor uh signify by saying I. I. Those opposed. Motion carries. All right. We have to do a first case is PC 20 26-04. Go ahead. I would note for the record that uh um Mr. Commissioner Ees is representing the disher. Okay. So he is abstaining from the discussion and a vote. All right.

All right. So our first case PC2026-04 um Arthur G and Lisa J code trustees of 13268 N trail Plymouth Indiana 46563. A request for a two lot minor subdivision of a 29.742 acre property located at 122 Elm Street, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as parcel 5032080039000018 zoned R2 rural residential district. So for this request, the applicant is seeking to subdivide approval and creation of additional lots. The name of the proposed subdivision is Jacob's Estate. Uh, as you can see on the right hand side, there's a picture and it highlights the L-shaped parcel and he's looking to subdivide the northwest corner of that property. Essentially cutting off the house and the accessory structure. Went out, took pictures, identifying the property, and panning across uh the front of it. You have the house in the barns. It's very bright out yesterday. It's nice to see the blue skies, but it does not make for great pictures. Um, as you can see, we've received the plat uh for the property. We've had it under review. We've had a few comments outstanding. Um, awaiting those to come back in so we can get signatures uh set up and those sorts. Um, and this is the 3.32 acre lot that's being subdivided uh off of that 27 acre parcel. And there will be a residual 25.05 acres uh left at the rear. uh it'll still maintain uh 50 foot egress as required under the zoning ordinance. Uh so for the procedure for this, the sketch plan was brought and reviewed by the technical review committee August 26, 2025 and I believe our following meeting in September. We had a brief discussion about it. Um and then they

are brought before the primary and secondary plat uh for 10 review uh last week. Yeah, last week 20 February 24th and now it's coming before the planning commission for final approval for the creation of that subdivision itself. So for the analysis under the subdivision control ordinance, the plan commission shall determine whether or not the proposal has met requirements and standards of the ordinance and has been substantially met before having a public hearing. And that's where we're here tonight is to have that public hearing. So based on the review of the proposal to create two lots, lot A being 3.32 acres and lot B being 25.05 acres, the technical review committee did not see any issue with the intent.

The project would create one new lot with an easement for access to the residual parcel. The new parcel would then be annexed into the city while the residual would remain in the county under the TRC will still continue to review the project and be in conformance with the below decision criteria which those five factors include the minimum lot standards, coordination of future streets, coordination with comprehensive plan, fair allocation of resources and health and safety and harmonious development. So for criteria number one, the minimum lot standards are met based on the R2 rural residential zoning requirements. For criteria number two, there are no new roadways being created, but an easement for residential property is being created and the minimum required width has been provided. For criteria number three, the facilities have only been extended to the new lot. Uh no extensions have been included for residential development. Uh for criteria number four, for a two lot subdivision, there was no additional area set aside and the lots are immediately adjacent to a school and this is in part in association with parks, schools, uh other business set aside areas for usually large subdivisions. Criteria number five, for a two lot subdivision and understanding the intentions for the amount of development sought, uh there would be minimal additional traffic generated. So for recommendation based on the minor subdivision plat provided and reviewed by the technical review committee staff would recommend approval of the proposal as meeting the intent of the sub subdivision ordinance and other associated requirements. Now it is up for the planning commission decision. You have the final decision in this case. It does not go anywhere else. Staff's recommendation of approval. Any questions for staff? I don't have any. There are none. Okay. Do we have a motion to open it up for a public hearing?

Make a motion we open it up for public hearing. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Anyone from the audience have a say of yay or nay or any questions? Make a motion we close public hearings. Been moved. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor was there anybody on the line, Jeff? I'm saying no. I'm sorry. Nobody is on the line. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

We do have a representative of the applicant in attendance if you have any questions for them. If not with my commission, do we have a recommendation move? Anybody? I guess I have one question. Sure. Is the owner going to sell the the L-shaped part, the residual anytime soon? There's been no indicated uh interest in selling in the future, at least the near future.

All right. Well, I guess I move to approve the plaid as or make a recommendation of approval. Do I make a recommendation? You're deciding. So, it's not a recommendation. Okay. So I guess I am. If you are you moving to approve it? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? There being none, we will vote by roll call. Oh, you have to abstain. Dley, yes. Milner, yes. Seor, yes. Sellers, yes. Webster, yes. Wendell.

Yes. Beast. Yes. Uh, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary, we'll coordinate with you when that plaque comes in and meets the rest of our criteria. Leave it in the office and get your signatures. Yeah. Call us or tell us. He knows what to do.

Um, next up is building commissioner update. I believe Mr. Eids is going to join you back on. Michigan shar uh conference of plan update. Um we continue to make great progress within our uh 2040 comprehensive plan. Um and as well as last week we held our public input session for the Ball State addition to our comprehensive plan uh which includes the northeast neighborhood. Uh we had a full room here that evening uh with several chairs kind of being spread out amongst the back just filling it in. Um so it's very exciting to see. Uh thank you very much for those of you that were able to be in attendance. Uh no matter how long or short uh you were here. Um it's always great to see all the public input and see what those next steps begin to uh showcase uh from their research that they've done and the input that they were able to receive that night. uh as well as the survey. So, we're very much looking forward to that piece and uh going through those next steps and we're still projecting that to wrap up here about May. So, couple months out, we should have a finished product that'll end up coming back before this board uh for recommendation to go to the council for adoption as an amendment to the existing comprehensive plan. Uh I have no other business this evening. Um, your next item would essentially be adjournment. Um, with anticipation of any applications being for the April 7th meeting, we've got about two weeks left before that comes. That's everything I have.

Anyone else have anything for them? And I have one thing that's been under my crop for a little while and it was taken care of before. Um Dennis went out and the the guy's parking he made a parking place at his house to park a car out in the city right away or a truck. All right. And Dennis got it moved, but now he's storing construction materials out there in that spot. And There's other things that are encroaching into the city right away. The city rideway south of town uh across from about where Delps lived in that area.

It's not city. It's the county rideway. Excuse me. But the city had is on one side and the county's on the other side. So, is there anything that can be done about that? I feel sorry for the people that live around. I drive by it every day and it just upsets me to think that those people have to look at that all the time instead of looking at a house out there. They're looking at at a they're looking at a business is the way it looks to me. So, is there anything that can be done? I'm just voicing my opinion. I'm sorry. Is it in the two-mile or is it in the city limit? It is in the two-mile. It's in the two-mile. City limits is across the street

on that side of the street. On the on the opposite side. Is that the same place Stan Claus went out and talked to? Yes, that is. The property owner actually just came into my office earlier this week because he was looking potentially at building a pole barn at the back of his property. I told him with where he's wanting to place it, he would have to come before the BZA board to get setback variance. But yeah, Stan went out there and talked to them. Um, okay. So, he he did what Stan asked him to do

and way sounds I I was kind of hoping Stan would be here to speak on it. Uh, I'm not sure if he's our leazison anymore. Now, Stan is no longer Deb Johnson is now county leazison. She is the chairman of the of the county planning commission now. Okay. Well, apparently Stan went out there and talked to the property owner and asked him not to park there. So, but he said he did have permission from the county apparently to put that parking space there. Yeah. Did he have to have a driveway cut? I do not get driveway permits from the county.

I know you don't do the driveway permits. and I don't get notified when they do issue driveway permits from the county. So the conversation with Jason Peters Highway. Yeah. All right. All right. Thank you. Yep.

Make a motion to adjourn. Second. It's been moved and second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Post. Thank you.

like to call the meeting March 3rd, 2026 board of zoning appeals meeting. Can we have a roll call? Garner here. Gley here. Seore here. Record here. Wendell here. Has anyone looked over the minutes from the December meeting? I move we approve the minutes as presented. Second that. Got a motion in a second. I'll approve. I I We need to do a reorganization of the officers of the board this year.

I'd move that we nominate as a group m renominate Mr. Jacobs as president, Mr. Wendell as vice president and as a new officer, Mr. Garner as secretary. I'd make that as a motion. You guys hear that? Yeah. Second. Yeah. Motion. Second. Roll call vote. Garner. Yes. Gley. Yes. Sequel. Yes. You want to take over? You're dead.

You're good.

You can. There we go. Awesome. So, we already done the roll call minutes and reorganization. That's going to bring us to 2026 uh BCA01 Savana Ball. Savon Ball 849 Leak Lincoln Leaken Way East, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. a variance of development standard to allow for an increase in number of signs to three and to permit a less than 28 in diameter perpendicular hanging sign in the C2 district at the property located at 215 Water Street, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as partial 5032 93104 936 trip 003 019 zone C2 downtown commercial district. So the request um is a variance of development standard allowing to increase the number of signs and to permit a less than 28 inch diameter perpendicular hanging sign at 215 Water Street, Plymouth, Indiana. Um as you can see here is a satellite image of the property prior to construction. Um the subject property is the commercial at the water street town homes here on the corner of water and go street. We went out and took a picture of the property. Looks significantly different than what the satellite imagery shows. Yep.

Um but she was able to provide additional uh signage uh design for us. Just to give you an idea, the ordinance permits two. Here is sign one. the 28 it's I want say it's 27 inches and change more or less uh for the circular sign that be hanging and then this is the uh second sign third sign would be the hanging sign so for the request where's the hanging sign on the building the hanging sign I believe is going to go on the north side or not north sorry east side by the front door by the front Okay.

So for the analysis applicant seeking to open a new business at the recently constructed water street town homes commercial corner. They are seeking to allow for three signs when the current limit is two. The other portion is to request is the for the third sign to be a hanging sign that is less than 28 in in diameter. when reviewing their request with the applicant, the total number of units was going to be significantly under uh what was going to be permitted even with the inclusion of the third sign. So, when you add up uh sign calculations, it's based on the linear footage of that structure being on a corner gives you more signing opportunity. Uh when you add all those together and you add three signs that she's proposing, she's well under that threshold, about 50%. So the hanging sign is a traditional type in an urban sign uh that is geared towards the pedestrians is not currently addressed uh clearly in the ordinance. Staff has it uh set aside to work on amendments to the sign regulations for the city which will amend how sign regulation is calculated for size and number and also to allow for hanging signs also called blade signs. Um so for the decision criteria when you're making your decision this evening is going to be based on three items. It's going to be the general welfare, the adjacent property and practical difficulty. So for criteria number one, the proposal should not be interest to the public health, safety and general welfare. For criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should remain mainly uh minimally impacted uh because of the number and type of signs. And criteria number three, the strict application of the ordinance would not fit the proposal but also is in the process of being amended which would then support the proposal itself. Uh so for recommendation based on the information provided and general description of the proposal staff would recommend approval. Now it's going to be up for board's determination with staff's recommendation of approval. Any questions for staff,

right? And I know the applicants in attendance. Okay. Can the applicant come up? Just state your name and address again. Lana Ball. My business address is 849 Lincolnway East, Plymouth, Indiana. Home address 634 South Michigan Street, Plymouth, Indiana. Any questions? What are Go ahead. I don't have any questions about sign.

What's the sign facing south? Is that Is that vinyl sign? I'm just wondering. It's It's a um It's in the process of getting made and I think it's like a metal material. Are you talking the flat? Yeah. Squares. Yes. Okay. Let's just And they're not internally lit. They're lit from the fixtures over the top. Correct. Okay. How low is the one on the corner going to be? The one by the front door? Yeah. I think there Ty can help me with this, but I think we have to have the lowest part of the circular part of the sign cannot be any lower than 8 feet. Ty, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I I believe that 8 foot is correct. Okay. It'll have to meet the standards that we have laid out in the ordinance and it includes that one, especially when you get into canopies. But unfortunately, this sign isn't very well called out within the ordinance. So, we're going to seek that clarification through a future amendment. But unfortunately her time frame is not necessarily going to meet our time frame. Okay. Any other questions? I move we open it to a public hearing. Second motion seconded. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone like to speak for or against this project?

Hearing none, I move we close the public hearing. Second motion second made. All in favor? I I

entertain a motion to approve or I move that we approve uh BZA 2026-01. Um favorable to approve it. Any additional language on second. Second. Okay. Roll call. Garner. Yes. Gley. Yes. Se yes. Record. Yes, Wendle. Yes. Okay. Approved. Is all your applications approved? Thank you. I'm going to take it for just one second.

Okay. Okay. Moving on to case number two. We have BCA 2026-02, Drive and Shine, Brandy Lintz, uh for Drive and Shine. on Inc. Uh 16 915 Cleveland Road, Granger, Indiana 46530 variance of development standard to allow for an increase in number signs to 14 at 2155 North Oak Drive and 2131 North Oak Drive, Bloommouth, Indiana 46563 identified as parcels 504231 2022 04 triple 019 5042 31 2028 triple 019 50 42 231202007 000019 50-42 31202009 triple 000019 all zone C3 corridor commercial district. So the request in short is a variance of development standard to allow for increase in sign count to 14 signs at 2155 Oak Drive, Plymouth, Indiana. Those will be the four parcels highlighted in yellow on your page on your screen where the old Sherwood Tire is, the old residence, and then the green lot behind it. Here are the pictures from this morning uh from the corner of the property.

And then as we pan around, you can see different signs across the street. We're zoomed out a little bit. As we kind of pan around, you get to Walmart and some of the other outdoor uh signs. Um the sign application that was provided to us as a part of a drawing indicates all the associated signs that they're looking to put on the property. Uh there is a long list, but um the only ones that we're interested in are the freestanding signs in green. Uh one of which is on 30 and the other one is on Oak. And then we have a series of additional signs that are on the buildings themselves. Uh the blue signs, directional signs are not a part of this request because directional signs do not require that additional approval or anything along those lines. Um we took the different pages uh from this application and to give you an idea of what signs are a part of this request and what signs are not. On this page here, you can see on the glass portion of the building, they're going to have in in amp and% out clean on that section as well as their logo and car wash. Those total up to three signs. And then the exit only sign is a directional sign. So that one would not be. The remaining would be a part of that sign count to 14. Likewise, car wash, in and out, uh clean, oil change. Um again, you continue to rotate across the building. There's directional signs. The enters would not count towards that 14 signs, whereas car wash on the glass would. Um the advertisement for free car wash with oil change as well as car wash and oil change on the building, those all count as signs towards that 14 request. Um oil change exit uh oil change enter. You have a sign of interest within the 14. The other two being directional oil

change again being one of the 14. The kiosk and the um canopy all those are in association with the directional request or the directional portion not a part of the 14 sign request. Here is freestanding sign one and freestanding sign two. Those are part of the 14 sign request. Can you can you call out the dimensions of the drive-in sign shining the width at the top? The width in total at the very top at its widest is 12t wide or 144 in 20t tall. And is that

that's not a part of this request. That's the next one. We'll get into that specifically later. This is going to be purely in number of signs. I just wanted to share the whole request just to make it as simple as possible. Again, um you got the oil change, car wash, and car wash signs for the directional to help guide individuals through their project. So, getting into the analysis portion of the request, the applicant is seeking to increase the number of signs on the property from four signs within the C3 corridor commercial district. They're requesting a to permit 14 signs uh not including internal traffic control signs. Uh as the ordinance currently reads, a business is allotted three square foot of signage for every one linear foot of building face for wall/b buildingild signs. When all of that area is added up, uh, the applicant shares that it would allow them 1,740 square ft of signage on the car wash and vacuum facility and an additional 690 ft of signage on the oil oil change facility totaling uh 2,430 ft. They're requesting a total of 1,183.5 ft uh split between the two buildings which is totaling 49% of the total amount of signage. uh permitted by the square foot. The applicant believes it would be uh better having more signs that are proportionately smaller uh and is more attractive. Um of the signs that were shared from the nearby businesses, uh there are Wendy's has three signs, two wall, one pole. Bob Evans, two signs, one wall, one pole are these three signs, two wall, one pole. existing Sherwood signage. Um, whole sign was previously to ordinance requirements is constructed in the middle of an access easement. So, end up having to come down to the re due to the redevelopment. Aldi had five signs, four wall, one pole. Uh, Superwash had four

signs, two wall, two pole, and the commercial strip is a poor comparison as it's a multi-unit building that comp accompanies four businesses on the property. and Valvalene and its uh business has been consolidated into best one also which makes it a poor comparison but the 14 signs that are proposed by the applicant include two freestanding signs and 12 wall/building signs. Uh there was mention of a multi-tenant proposal but the total amount of signage is for four units. uh the same amount of signage uh if it were a standalone total proposal. Um of the 12 signs that are uh for the wall building uh 10 of which would be found on the car wash/vacuum structure uh staff has it set aside to work on the amendments to the signing regulation for the city uh which will amend how sign regulation is calculated in size and number. We just have unfortunately not been able to get to that point just yet. So for the decision criteria for you to make your decision tonight, it's based on general welfare, adjacent property, and practical difficulty. When looking into that, the proposal for criteria one may not be injurous to the public health, safety, and general welfare, but the increase in signs and muddying of the traveling viewshed promotes an increase in time of attention that is drawn away from the road. Another motoring public, which in short may uh result in additional safety hazard. Uh for criteria two, the use and value of adjacent property should remain minimally impacted because of the increase in signage. And criteria number three, the strict application of the ordinance would not permit the proposal. A proportional increase in signage for a corner lot would be appropriate due to the amount and increase of linear footage of available sign space. Uh but for recommendation based on the information provided and general description of the proposal, staff would reluctantly recommend approval of the 14

signs because the reduction that would have been proposed to counter the 14 signs would have likely been addressed through a series of cluster signs. um that proport that portion of the amendment would also be coupled with the reallocation of how the number and size of signs would be calculated which would be more based on a total square footage of signs rather than a greater limitation on the number of signs themselves. Uh so staff would recommend as a condition that the signed sizes be approved based on the drawings provided by the applicant from van code dated 12926 as you can see from the request uh that was shared with you tonight. So for you it's up for board determination uh with staff's recommendation of approval with a condition of conformance with the submitted drawings from VAT code dated 12926. Any questions for staff? Any questions?

The applicant's not talked about adding additional services to that facility that would require more signage. Not to my knowledge, but I know the applicants in attendance uh this evening. Uh they'll have three sectors of business uh on that property being the car wash, the airvac, and cleaning. And then the oil change. Okay.

Uh we'll may have future plans, but I'm I'm not anticipating so and I'll let her better speak to that. And I believe we have the owner on the line as well. And he could also speak to the matter. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ty. And thank you. Uh thank you members of the board. Uh good evening. Uh I'm out of town um in a hotel room right now. So I apologize for not being in person, but Brandy um my uh project leader uh for Drive and Shine, who's been through all of our project uh locations, is is in presence. Brandy, would you please hand out to the to the board a copy of uh what we've done at the other locations that Drive and Shine has built like in Fort Wayne or whatever it is that you've brought with you. And by the way, Chani, I'm the CEO of uh of the corporation. You've met me before. And um I live in I my uh address is 16915 Cleveland Road, Granger, Indiana 46530. So, uh, because we have multiple businesses, uh, on a same property, very unusual, like if you look at just about any car wash, some in your community, of course, many, you know, elsewhere, um, none of them really in certainly in the state of Indiana combine all the offerings that we have on one property. So, generally, you have like what we call an express car wash, which is just a car wash tunnel itself. you have three of those in your uh in your uh city or they're um you know not the same as the current models that are being built. Uh but they offer the outdoor self vacuum and then they have a tunnel that the car goes through. So that's usually one one business. Then the second business is detailing and u you know they exist. We have one in Mishawaka um on um on McKinley um that I know of. There's probably more uh but they basically detail cars, do interior cleaning, things like that which we offer in our green glass building, the big building. And then there's the old

change that basically also is a completely unrelated business to the car washing. But we as a convenience to our customers offer all three of them under, you know, in the same area to make it so you could, you know, make one trip and, you know, you could do all three of those things simultaneously. And so as a result uh we need to number one identify that we provide those services and number two given the level of investment that we're making. So the typical uh facilities that you have that have signage near us you know anywhere from I don't know 3,000 to 5,000 square foot buildings. Um and they have you know large pool signs they have multiple signs on their buildings. Um, and we we don't really like the pole sign and we'll talk about that. I think it's the next chapter of what we the next section that we're going to talk about the p the pole sign. We prefer it to be masonary. It matches our building. It's more attractive. We put it far back enough from the road so it's not a obstruction to view when you try to come in or exit. Um and so um with that said um like if you look at and I and your ordinance actually as far as square footage is fairly comparable to other ordinances like the ones in Fort Wayne. Uh the one thing you have that most ordinance almost I I've never actually seen it is the limitation on the physical number of signs which is really the one that we're bumping against is the physical number that not the size or dimension. We're actually way below what we can put on, you know, according to your ordinance or the Fort Wayne ordinance. Um, as far as square footage, I think we're below half of it. Uh, but it's just a number that we're bumping against. And I know uh Tai spoke to that briefly. And I think that there's hopefully plans to to rectify that because it's just it's a very unusual forgive me I I don't mean to say bad things about your ordinance, but

it's just unusual measure to put you know like the number of physical signs you can put on a multi- service oper you know operation. Um generally speaking it's always about square footage. So with that, uh, Brandy, did you, um, you know, maybe you want to come up and introduce yourself and, um, talk about some other stuff that I know you've prepared.

Thank you. Um, as Mr. has already stated, um, the size of our building and the number of services that we offer really do require a distinctive um, level of signage. Um, the square footage of this building alone is more than 20,000 square ft. And again, as Tai had pointed out previously, the amount of square footage of our signs is significantly less than what we are allowed. And it is because that we are doing this proportionately that we have resulted in these smaller signs, but a higher number. But as pictures show you, what we are providing is more aesthetically pleasing. We would rather have something like this than to have, as I believe Tayaso stated, a larger cluster of signs, which would be very unattractive. Um, another thing to take into account is that where we are located on the US30 and North Oak Drive area, we would prefer to have the visibility necessary in order to allow travelers on US30 to make adequate changes and lanes at an appropriate time. We really feel that this signage is a um factor for safety and we believe that it would improve the overall visual of the building. Um this is about not about visual impact. It's about balance. Basically, if you look at the pictures that were provided, you will see that what we do is very good. We use good materials. Everything is very pretty and there will be a lot of landscaping. So, um everything about our building, our developments are beautiful to look at despite the fact it's a car wash. You wouldn't expect that, but they are. They're very nice to look at. We don't you have any questions?

Any questions? Not in this case. Being none. Um, thank you. Um, also if you guys needed them, I did have the site plan signed plans so that you can get a better scale portion which is for This is for the next case. Thank you. Yeah, this is just for sure. I move that we open a public hearing on this second motion and second. Is there anybody in the audience like

Sorry. All in favor? I I There's anyone in the office uh audience like before or against this project? Please make your way to the podium. State your name and address. Move to close public hearing. Second. All in favor?

I. To entertain a motion for or against? I move we approve the case as presented with the reduced number as presented. Is that how did I word that right? I don't think I did. No, there was a staff recommendation. I move I move we approve we approve the case as with the staff's recommendations. Okay, that's pretty. Yeah, I'll second. Motion made and seconded. Roll call vote. Garner, yes. Gibling, yes.

Seport, yes. Recker, yes. Wendle, yes. Motion passed. Thank you. Haj just for brief clarification that's approval of the 14 signs using Venadico uh drawings that were presented from the January case or the January uh file that we've discussed previously. That's great. Thank you.

Yeah. Mentioned So we have BCA 2026-03 driving shy for with Brandy Lince uh Brandy Lince Driving Shine Development Inc. uh 16915 Cleveland Road in Indiana 46530 a variance development standards to allow for an increase in height of sign to 20 ft and an increase in face area to 160 ft at 2155 North Oak Drive and 2131 North Oak Drive, Plymouth, Indiana 46563 identified as parcels

504231 2022004 4 triple 019 50 42 31 2022 08 triple 019 50 42 31 2022 07 triple 0 019 and 504231 2022 09000019 zone C3 corridor commercial district in short the request is variance development standard to increase the height and square footage of the freestander monument sign at 2155 Oak road, Plymouth, Indiana. Uh again, we're at the highlighted yellow um properties. Uh taking pictures of from this morning. Um this building would be removed, but there would be a freestanding sign on this side of the property for US30. And then we spin and there would be another one in association with Oak uh as well. And then we took some additional pictures of signs as we spin around the intersection of Oak and 30. Again, here's the um as Miss L passed out to you previously, this is the site plan. Uh should be page one. Um the two signs in question on the northand side of the property on the eastand side of the bailout lane is uh the first uh freestanding sign. That'll be between the wraparound lane. When individuals would come out of the car wash heading east, they're able to wrap around the structure heading north and then west. Um, and should they have taken a wrong turn, there's a bailout lane uh that they designed for. That design goes into that shared ingress ingress easement with the property owner to the west. Um on that corner there they're proposing

to put this freestanding sign. The second freestanding sign is the south side of the existing or not the existing the proposed entrance uh to the facility on the south side of the uh exit. Just so you have an idea of where those two signs are located. I trimmed down the number of pictures to showcase the it should be the last two sheets within the packet. um for all the sockets. Last night I could have the last few three something like that.

Um one of the last very last pages at the very end of that package. Um so we went ahead and put up on the board for you. These signs are uh three piece components. You have the D and Shine logo is 72 in tall, 144 in wide on an oval. Then you have below that two 48 by 120 inch wide signs. One of which the bottom is a stagnant plate based sign bas

and then the middle one is a electronic message board. So when you add all of those together you're getting closer and closer to about 160 shot. But that's freestanding sign one. And then again, the same thing. The only difference between the two pages is truly the graphic that's within the electronic message sign. The top one is still 72 in tall, 144 wide, and the uh two bottom portions are 120 wide by 48 in tall. Um both signs themselves are projected at 20 ft or 240 in. And that's from the bottom of the base to the top of the drive and shine logo. So for the analysis, the applicant is seeking to construct two freestanding monument signs, one on each roadside of the development. Monument signs are limited in height to 8 ft tall and 32 square feet of science area. The proposal is for 20 feet in height and 160 square feet in total signage. is sign. The square footage that was included within the drawings discussed with staff totaled 152 ft. Uh 40 ft standard sign, 40 ft electronic message board sign and 72 square ft of logo sign. Monument signs are designed to be short signs that are typically built with matching materials to the principal structure. As the sign ordinance currently sits, taller signs uh aka pole signs are limited in design aesthetics and can be better amended to allow creativity into city character. So from the design the decision criteria for you tonight when you're making your decision is based on these three factors including general welfare, adjacent property and practical difficulty. For criteria number one, the proposal may be interest or may not be interest to the public health, safety, and general welfare, but the increase in signage and budding of the travel view shed promotes

an increase in time of attention that is drawn away from the road and other lettering public, which in short may result in additional safety hazard. Uh for criteria number two, the use and value of adjacent property should be should remain minimally impacted because of the increase in signage. And then criteria number three, the strict application of the ordinance would not permit the proposal. that proportional increase in the signage for a corner lot would be appropriate due to the amount increase of linear footage of the business. Um but based on the information provided and general description of the proposal staff would recommend approval as proposal increases the sign area is accounted for in the calculations found under case 26 BZA2. The case would just uh heard and you approved. Uh staff would recommend as a condition that the signed sizes be approved based on the drawings provided by the applicant from Vanadco dated 12926. Any questions for staff?

Um can you point out the actual location along 30 where that one sign's going to be? Yes, I can. I'll do that again for you. Can I have my back? at all.

So, north is up being oak or being 30. So, if you look at the very top right hand corner of the subject property, you'll see that there's an entrance that enters from Oak heading northwest and then it makes a 45ish turn to go due west. As you travel along that, just past about the halfway point, there's going to be a bailout location and then there's a green circle. Um, okay. That's located on the east hand side of that bailout curve before you get to the end of the building.

So, is it and if I can't if you're if I can't I'm going to ask this question if you can't answer or if it's not pertinent. Has the access easement for the property to the west, has that issue been settled? Issue. There was some question about at that last meeting whether or not they building to the west, okay, if their access was going to continue to be permitted. So their access is within that easement. Okay, that space that's where they're permitted to be and that's where it's going.

That's going to I think I think there was no question about whether as I recall that had not been uh there's been multiple conversations that led up to the previous meeting. Um and I believe there's been a couple conversations between the perspective landowner drive and shine and the existing rear property owner. Okay. Um, and from my understanding, having not always been a part of their conversations, that this is where that is going to be.

The city knows no changes have been made and any changes that could be made in the future would be a private matter between those two property owners. But as of right now, we've not been informed of any changes to that easement. Right. And it won't necessarily have anything to do with tonight. worry. I'm just only only thing I'm trying to assess is will the location of that sign Mhm. impact that easement the uh adversely that sign no

okay so they I just don't want to grant an approval for that sign and then find out that that approval causes a problem that sign is outside of the eastment space okay there so it would be on assuming drive sign purchases and property they haven't at this point it would be wholly on individual property and outside of that eastbound. Okay. Just for content. Yes. The Bowen Health Megatron Jumbotron. It's further west. Yes. How does that size in comparison to this sign? This is much smaller. I was not here with the Bowen. Yeah. But you know what talking about? I know exactly which one you're talking. I think some of us regret that boat.

Yeah. If I known you could see it from space, I probably would have voted no. So, I do not know what size that is. I would project it's probably closer to a standard billboard. Uh, which you're getting, man, you're you're probably looking anywhere between 8 and 12t tall. So, it's a lot it's bigger than this substantially. Okay. Dennis, were you here here? I do not remember the size. Just would you think it's higher than 20 feet in height? I don't think I don't think 40 foot wide is higher,

but the width is the area is the area significantly bigger. Signite is significant larger. Nerd uses it for scoreboards once in a while. Mass takes directions. Yeah. Any other questions? We'll talk. Oh, thank you. Thank you. And again, the applicant owner is online. Okay. And the applicant is also in attendance. Again, thank you so much. Uh I greatly appreciate it. I think I can answer that question about the Johnron versus this.

Um so a typical billboard is around 700 square ft and this sign is 40. Okay. So roughly maybe 120th and maybe give or take 115th or 120th of the size of them. Um we don't believe in something that big. It just be so disproportional. We just don't think it would be it would just make things look not attractive.

And the reason we don't like pole signs because we could make this a pole sign like almost every other sign in that neighborhood. It's cheaper to put up far cheaper. And uh it's just not as attractive. You know, we want to have things look beautiful. We spend all this money on the building and landscaping and everything else that we do. So to try to cheapen it with a you know just like a physical um you know like a 12in pool in the center of it, it's just not that that great. And other than that uh you know it's not it's it's very proportional in size and dimension and everything else to existing signs that are around it. And again, this serves multiple, you know, honestly almost like multiple businesses on the same site as opposed to some of the other ones that are just basically single purpose. I don't even know how big the sign that's on the property right now is in terms of square footage. I know it's at least 20 foot tall, but I don't really know the physical square footage on it. I would be surprised if it's not bigger or at least the same as what we're proposing for this sign. Uh the two, you cannot see them. um simult like if you were on um on 30 traveling east, you would see the sign as you're coming to us. As Brandy said, one of the reasons we'd like to put it there is to give you enough time to change lanes and be able to be in the right place to be able to make that right turn instead of last last second, you know, try to do something like that and be dangerous. And uh and the one on Oak is actually at the entrance/exit of our business which is what we always do is we always put one at the entrance and exit. Uh in Kalamazoo we have in Portage actually we have a situation just like this where we have two sites two signs. We have multiple locations that have two signs like this and generally they're not visible from each other because they're serve different purpose. Um, and then that's really all I I don't know if there's any questions you might have, but either Brandy or I could could answer that for you. Um,

any other questions? We feel good that the sign on Oak is far enough back from the street that when you're trying to exit out of there, you'll be able to see traffic either tie or applicant. Feel good about that?

100%. Because by the time the front of the car gets to u like where they want to make a turn or get out, the the driver sits only about maybe 7 ft back from the front of the car. And the the front of our sign, let me see if it's dimensioned. I don't have that page. Um Ty, do you have that? Um actually, no, I do. Let me see if I can tell you. I would say from the edge of the curb, our sign is probably well, you got the sidewalk that's 5T and then you got the green space. I'd say probably 30 feet maybe. Would that be about right time? I'm just estimating it based on just visually. You're talking about the estimated distance uh from

from sign number two like the like the east edge of it. Exactly. The east edge of it. I think you had it outside of the setback space. I think it was set in far enough that we would be able to accommodate it or we've worked on that location with the engineer and we can definitely have that verified when we go through the building permit approval and make sure that that's all marked in there.

That would be great and and we will be sure certainly to to stay behind there and there is a reason for the setback is for that exact reason you mentioned for safety so that you don't you can see before you drive out. And and I just wanted to add to that. I I don't know what the uh rightway is there. I know it's pretty minimal, but if you recall when the same applicant applied for a variance from the sidewalk requirement, uh the agreement was that they would not have to install the sidewalk in exchange for agreeing to a 10-ft um uh easement for the future trail project, which you hopefully you all know that the city was awarded a federal grant to complete the Oak Drive pedestrian improvements. So that project will be moving forward, but the sign has to be set back at least far enough for that 10 foot easement.

And we're completely supportive of providing that easement to the city. Any questions? I entertain a motion to open the public meeting. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. There's any in the audience that'd like to speak for or against this project. Please come forward. State your name and address being we have a close public hearing. Second. All in favor? I moved.

I'd like to entertain a motion to or against I move we approve BCA 20263 with the staff recommendation and the uh condition on that as well. So moved. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor the roll call. Garner. Yes. Gidley. Yes. Seabour. Yes. record. Yes. Wendell. Yes.

Mrony, your sust has been approved um in accordance with that uh January document from Vanco that we talked about in the previous case. So everything's been approved um and we'll work with you on the building permit and coordinate that sign permit location and association with the sidewalk and a potential waiver depending on which way you go forward uh in the future. We so greatly appreciate all your assistance and help and and your time tonight. Um, yeah. Thank you so much. Have an amazing rest of your evening. Thanks. Thank you. Dennis, do you have anything?

I just looked it up. Um, just to inform you guys, the Bowen Center sign is 35 ft tall. The electronic message portion of it is 24 by 12 ft. That sounds Hey, stay there. Stay there. You're not getting away that easy. Uh, and I think it was this board. There's a business on South Michigan Street that we required to pave a handicap parking spot. Florist. Florist. Y I wasn't going to name it, but has that happened? Did we actually say that it had to be paved? I thought we didn't we say we time. Didn't we give a time? to look back in the records.

I was asked by a citizen to if that had been done. No, it has not been paved. Okay. I think I I'm pretty sure we said I think we gave him a year to get that done. Seems to make a year's obs records or Kyle can look because Kyle has magic fingers and find anything. So, well, that was done before I joined the board. It was. It's been a year and two before winters. You put it out. Yeah. Hello. Anything new with our uh welcome to city group north of town? That's has this big beautiful plot of land and it's lush green and

Well, if you drove past, they did make a a little a little headway. Little little bit. It looks terrible. They actually did go to the county and ask about the drainage that they're issue having issues with. Um, county commissioner said they would have to wait till spring to actually address to see if there's anything going on. I watched the replay of that uh drainage board meeting. They actually they actually referred that back to Plymouth. It is we're playing pingpong with that issue. blank. Well, I I do know between you and Jeff and the county,

I do know that when I was out there, there is definitely some kind of drainage issue because it's in the back lot, doesn't it? Oh, it's it's the entire lot. Okay. I mean, my 200 plus pounds walks across the surface of the ground. You can hear it squish underneath you. And that property was used to have cranes on it.

Yeah. That's probably the same thing that's across the street at the golf course. He's got that big area that they've never been able to get drained. Yeah. Um I did speak with the one brother now that he is retired. He he wants access into the building. So he's putting pressure on the other brother as well. So we're working on it. Yep. That's all you can do. Thank you.

Any other business? Your next meeting pending application will be April 7th. I move we journ. Second. All in favor?