Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 08-28-00There was discussion on the signage regarding the lettering, the logo, and the design proportionality. This particular Home Depot store does not have an orange roof- -it has been eliminated at this location. The nursery sign lettering is 2 feet in height, the overall sign is less than 40 square feet. The lettering height for the Indoor Lumberyard sign is 2 feet. The Home Depot Sign letters are 5 feet tall. There was further discussion as to the signage, what is proposed and what Mr. McKasson is authorized to commit to. Mr. Molitor suggested that the Board Table V- 100 -00, V- 101 -00 and V- 102 -00 until such time as a definitive package could come before the Board later in the evening. Otherwise, these items could be continued until the September meeting. Ms. Rice was in agreement with Mr. Molitor's suggestion and recommended the petitioner consider doing so. Kevin McKasson stated a willingness to commit to the Home Depot Sign lettering being no taller than 4 feet, and not to exceed 188 square feet. The public hearing was then closed on V- 100 -00. Pat Rice moved for the approval of V- 100 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, 3 signs. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed. The public hearing was then closed on V- 101 -00. Michael Mohr moved for the approval of V- 101 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, "The Home Depot" sign not to exceed 188 square feet and a maximum height of 4 feet, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed. The public hearing was then closed on V- 102 -00. Michael Mohr moved for the approval of V- 102 -00, West Carmel Center, Block F, "Indoor Lumberyard" sign not to exceed 72 square feet, seconded by Leo Dierckman. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed. 24h -25h. Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1 (V- 103 -00; V- 104-00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Sections 3.7: Vision Clearance on Corner Lots and 25.7.02- 11(e): Location to reduce the setback from right -of -way from ten feet to 0.93 feet on Old Meridian Street and 8.28 feet on West Carmel Drive. The site is located on the southeast corner of West Carmel Drive and Old Meridian Street. The site is zoned M- 3/Manufavturing. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Old Meridian Investments. s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 15 Paul Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, and Mark Monroe of The Reis Law Firm appeared before the Board representing the applicant. The center identification sign is located. The current right -of -way for Old Meridian Street is 50 feet from the center line. The existing pavement includes a through lane and a right -turn lane. The pavement is 27.66 feet from the closest point of the sign and substantial right -of -way exists between the pavement and the sign. The height of the sign is five feet, but because of the grade of the intersection, the vision perspective is approximately four feet. The sign went through an extensive approval process and was in advance of the Old Meridian Street Ordinance. The sign and fencing on the sign create a streetscape and also screen the parking area between the building and the right -of -way. Design of the sign: The aluminum, individual letters are back -lit; the "Old Meridian" portion of the sign is back -lit, the "Professional Center" portion is not back -lit. There is landscaping around the sign at the base. According to Mr. Reis, the sign does not interfere with motorist sight /vision. Except for the practical difficulties of dealing with how the site has been developed with the Old Meridian Street future improvements and the streetscape provided, the sign is in no way an adverse effect on the adjoining property owners or the area. The petitioner is requesting approval of the sign at this time. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. Charles Weinkauf asked the petitioner to address whether or not the sign was established without a permit. Mr. Reis responded that the sign was apparently established without a permit. Mr. Reis was asked to review the signage for his client and determined that the signage required a variance. Laurence Lillig reported that the Variance petitions were made for an existing sign established without a sign permit. If a site plan review had been done in conjunction with an application for the sign permit, there would be no need for the variances. The Department is recommending that the after the -fact Variance petitions be given negative consideration and that the sign be required to be re- located in accordance with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. For further clarification, Laurence Lillig explained that every sign permit application is required to be accompanied by a site plan that shows the distance of the sign from the right -of -way. The application is reviewed to determine whether or not it complies with s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 16 the Ordinance, and whether or not it is outside the "Vision Triangle." Since there was no application for a sign permit, the review was never accomplished. Mr. Weinkauf commented that he had visited the site and felt that this particular sign is aesthetically pleasing. In this particular case, Mr. Weinkauf felt that the sign was extremely setback, complements the fencing, and was not a problem with vision clearance. According to the Department, the sign has been in existence for at least two months, perhaps more. With respect to the right -of -way, there is currently a plan being considered for the entire corridor. Even though the streets, as currently designed, may not have a vision problem, the streets as they are proposed to be re- designed will be four lanes and at some points, a median, and the pavement widths will be extended out and may pose a vision obstacle at that time. Ms. Rice commented that the sign had been part of a package submission for the Plan Commission, and thought it had been approved some time ago. Mr. Lillig responded that in a lot of instances, the petitioner believes that ADLS approval is an approval for signage -it is not. Mr. Molitor commented that the City's plans for roadway improvements do not contemplate additional right -of -way acquisition. That may not be firm or definite, but additional right -of -way is not anticipated at this time. The Board may wish to consider granting a variance for a period of three years; this would allow the City time to complete the highway improvements -the issue could then be revisited. Mr. Weinkauf commented that the utility box, a fire hydrant, and two telephone poles at this site cause more obstruction to the line of sight than the sign does. Mr. Molitor stated that if the City is fairly certain that the street improvements will not require the sign to be moved, the Board could ask for a commitment from the petitioner that upon request from the City Engineer, if the City Engineer deems the sign to be an osbtruction, the petitioner would return to the Board of Zoning Appeals for review of the commitment and relocation of the sign. Pat Rice said she could not imagine the City would require right -of -way that the sign would interfere with, since the sidewalks are already in place. Laurence Lillig reported that the property was platted last year as part of the project under the Old Thoroughfare Plan. Many projects along Carmel Drive are currently being asked for an additional 10 feet of right -of -way. If it is needed on this particular property, 10 feet additional will bring it right to the sign. Mr. Reis volunteered that the applicant has already dedicated the additional 10 feet on Carmel Drive. It is believed that the sidewalk is relatively close to the streetscape being s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 17 proposed northward. The large utility box controls the traffic signal and is under the Street Department maintenance /control. When this site was platted, there was a lot of discussion between the developer and the Plan Commission. The signage went through the ADLS process and all of the issues were reviewed and discussed; however, a permit was never issued for the sign. If, at a future date, there is a need for additional right -of -way, the petitioner would have to relocate the sign and come into compliance with the Ordinance. As it exists now, Mr. Weinkauf did not see a problem. John Molitor recommended an additional commitment from the petitioner in the event the City would require additional right -of -way; the City would not pay for re- location of sign and would be done at expense of owner, since the sign was initially installed unlawfully. There were additional questions regarding the placement of the sign and the location on the plan of the signage. The location of the sign on the plan does not constitute an application for a sign permit at that location. Leo Dierckman suggested granting a variance for a period of 2 years, thereby allowing an opportunity for future roadway improvements. The petitioner can return to the Board. Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V- 103 -00; and V- 104 -00, Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1, for a period of two years with mandatory refiling at that time by the petitioner, seconded by Michael Mohr. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed. 26h -27h. Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1 (V- 105 -00; V- 106-00) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of Section 25.7.01 -2: Identification Sign in order to establish a sign with a logo totaling 45% of the sign area and Section 25.7.02 -9(b): Number Type to place two signs on one frontage. The site is located on the southeast corner of West Carmel Drive and Old Meridian Street. The site is zoned M- 3Manufacturing. Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Old Meridian Investments. Paul G. Reis, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel appeared before the Board representing Old Meridian Investments, limited partnership. As in the prior docket item, the buildings are in place. Currently, a tenant occupies most of the building and is seeking signage for an office suite. The building has frontage on Old Meridian Street as well as Carmel Drive, and would be allowed one wall sign per frontage under the Ordinance. The petitioner is requesting a variance for the placement of a second sign facing Carmel Drive. The first sign reads "American Health Network;" the second sign reads "Carmel Physicians" and is recessed in the doorway leading to the doctors' offices. The Sign Design: Aluminum letters, backlit for the American Health Network sign and s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 18 no illumination for the Carmel Physicians sign. It is important for those doctors practicing within the American Health Network to retain identity to Carmel and they have thus requested the second sign. The second variance is for the size of the logo on the American Health Network Sign from 25% to 45% of the sign area. The color of the logo is the same as the American Health Network, silvery appearance. The petitioner feels that the logo is proportionate to the size of the sign area and complements the sign package for this building in particular and the complex in general. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the petition, no one appeared. Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending negative consideration of Docket No. V- 105 -00 to increase the maximum sign area for the size of logo. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of Docket No. V- 106 -00 to establish two wall signs on the north facade. Paul Reis commented that the logo constitutes a part of the sign and the size of the logo is incorporated within the overall "American Health Network," who has dictated the size of the star. Pat Rice's opinion was that the Star is too big! Ms. Rice expressed support with the Department's recommendation. For informational purposes, the color of the star, per Mr. Reis, is white. Leo Dierckman moved for approval of V- 105 -00, Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1, for a logo totaling 45% of the sign area. MOTION DENIED 1 in favor 4 opposed. Earlene Plavchak moved for approval of V- 106 -00, Carmel Science Technology Park, Block 17, Lot 1, to place two signs on one frontage. APPROVED 5 in favor none opposed. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM. Charles W. Weinkauf, President Ramona Hancock, Secretary s:\BoardolZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000aug 19