Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report ." City of Carmel DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY SERVICES Division ofPJgnning & Zoning ~- ."" July 18, 2001 Department Report To: Bo~dofZorungAppe~sMembe~ From: Department of Community Services Re: Projects scheduled to be he~d July 23,2001 H. Public HeariD!~: 1h-9h. These Items Currently Tabled: Lakes at Hazel Dell, Section 1 (UV-133-00; UV-134-00; UV-135-00; UV-136-00; V- 153-00; V-154-00; V-155-00; V-156-00; V-157-00) 10-12h. Donatos Pizza (V-66-01; V-67-01; V-68-01) Petitioner seeks Deve10pment~ Stan~ds Variances of the following Sections of the Sign Ordinance: 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign 5-square-foot direction~ sign 25. 7.02-8(b): Number & Type 2 Identification Signs 25. 7. 02-8 (b): Number & Type 2 w~l signs on the east fayade The site is located at 1422 Keystone Way East. The site is zoned B-8/Business and is located partially within the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone. V-66-01- Section 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign - Petition to ~low a five-sq~e- foot Traffic Direction~ Sign. In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance of development stan~ds, the Board s~l determine in writing that: 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; Insof~ as the general welfare of the community is defmed by the Sign Ordinance (20 Section 25.7; Z-302), the appropriate size for a traffic directional sign is four sq~e feet. Injury to the general welf~e would be sustained through the granting of a larger sign ~ea without practical difficulty being demonstrated. Furthermore, injury would be done Page 1 Department Report - Board of Zoning Appeals July 23,2001 Page 10 ofl8 .. 18-30h. Dan Young Chevrolet (V-77-01; V-78-01; V-79-01; V-80-01; V-81-01; V-81- 01; V-83-01; V-84-01; V-85-01; V-86-01; V-87-01; V-88-01; V-89-01) Petitioner seeks Developmental Standards Variances of the following Sections of the Sign Ordinance: V-77-0l 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-78-0l 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-79-0l 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-80-0l 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-8J-OJ 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-82-0l 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-83-0l 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-84-0l 25.7.01-2: Traffic Directional Sign V-8S-0l 25. 7.01-4(i): Prohibited Signs East 96th Street right-of-way V-86-0l 25. 7.02-7(b): Number & Type 9 Identification Signs V-87-0l 25. 7.02-7(c)(ii): Maximum Sign Area 105-[1] Identification Sign V-88-0l 25.7. 02-7(c)(ii): Maximum Sign Area 105-[1] Identification Sign V-89-0l 25.7. 02-7(c)(ii): Maximum Sign Area 72-[1] Identification Sign The site is located at 3210 East 96th Street. The site is zoned B-3/Business and is located partially within the SR 431/Keystone Avenue Overlay Zone. 18.11-[1] traffic directional sign 4'10" traffic directional sign 18.11-[1] traffic directional sign 4'10" traffic directional sign 14.40-[1] traffic directional sign 4'0" traffic directional sign 14.40-[1] traffic directional sign 4'0" traffic directional sign Identification Sign encroaching In Findings-of-Fact pertaining to Docket Nos. V-77-01; V-79-01; V-81-01; and V-83-01 the requests for Traffic Directional Signs larger than 3 square feet in area: In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance of development standards, the Board shall determine in writing that: 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; Insofar as the general welfare of the community is defined by the Sign Ordinance (ZO Section 25.7; Z-302), the appropriate size for a Traffic Directional Sign is three (3) square feet. Injury would be done through the granting to the property owner the ability to establish signage of a size that is not permitted to other business owners in the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and Due to the positioning of the signs amid a substantial parking area, they will be rendered effectively invisible from the adjoining rights-of-way and from neighboring properties. Furthermore, the petitioner has not proposed illuminating the signs in question. Therefore, it is the Department's opinion that the grant of these Developmental Standards Variances will not have a negative impact on the use and value of the neighboring properties. Page 10 Department Report - Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2001 Page 11 of 18 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. No practical difficulties would result from the denial of these petitions. The site could still function effectively and profitably as an automobile dealership without Traffic Directional Signs of the area proposed. Findings-of-Fact pertaining to Docket Nos. V-78-01; V-80-01; V-82-01; and V-84-01 the requests for Traffic Directional Signs taller than three (3) feet: In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance of development standards, the Board shall determine in writing that: 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, moraIs and general welfare of the community; Insofar as the general welfare of the community is defmed by the Sign Ordinance (ZO Section 25.7; Z-302), the appropriate height for a Traffic Directional Sign is three (3) feet. Injury would be done through the granting to the property owner the ability to establish signage of a height that is not permitted to other business owners in the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and Due to the positioning of the signs amid a substantial parking area, they will be rendered effectively invisible from the adjoining rights-of-way and from neighboring properties. Furthermore, the petitioner has not proposed illuminating the signs in question. Therefore, it is the Department's opinion that the grant of these Developmental Standards Variances will not have a negative impact on the use and value of the neighboring properties. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. No practical difficulties would result from the denial of these petitions. The site could still function effectively and profitably as an automobile dealership without Traffic Directional Signs of the height proposed. Page 11 Department Report - Board of Zoning Appeals July 23,2001 Page 12 of 18 .; Findings-of-Fact pertaining to Docket No. V-85-01 the request to allow the Center Identification Sign to encroach into the East 96th Street right-of-way: In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance of development standards, the Board shall determine in writing that: 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; Insofar as the general welfare of the community is defined by the Sign Ordinance (ZO Section 25.7; Z-302), the appropriate location for a sign of this type is a minimum of five (5) feet from the right-of-way line. Injury would be done through the granting to the property owner the ability to establish signage in a location that is not permitted to other business owners in the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and The proposed sign is consistent with signage currently established on a number of neighboring properties in the East 96th Street corridor. The sign does not interfere with vision clearance on any adjoining property. Therefore, it is the Department's opinion that the grant of these Developmental Standards Variances will not have a negative impact on the use and value of the neighboring properties. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. No practical difficulties would result from the denial of this petition. The site could still function effectively and profitably as an automobile dealership without the Identification Sign encroaching into the East 96th Street right-of-way. Findings-of-Fact pertaining to Docket No. V-86-01 the request to allow mne (9) Identification Signs: In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance of development standards, the Board shall determine in writing that: 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; Insofar as the general welfare of the community is defmed by the Sign Ordinance (ZO Section 25.7; Z-302), the appropriate number of signs for a Special Use located on a parcel five acres in size or larger is one (1), forty-square-foot Identification Sign. Page 12 Department Report - Board of Zoning Appeals July 23,2001 Page 13 oflS The appropriate number of signs for a single-tenant building, however, is prescribed as one Identification Sign per frontage on a public street. The Dan Young site has frontage on East 96th Street and North Keystone Avenue; therefore, if it were not a Special Use, each structure would be permitted two Identification Signs. Injury to the general welfare would be sustained through the granting of more than two Identification Signs to each structure (a total of six) without practical difficulty being demonstrated. Furthermore, injury would be done through the granting to the property owner the ability to establish signage that is not permitted other occupants of single-tenant buildings in the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and It is the Department's opinion that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner by the establishing of nine (9) Identification Signs on three free-standing buildings. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. As observed previously, injury would be done through the granting to the property owner the ability to establish signage that is not permitted other occupants of single-tenant buildings in the community. The opposite is also true - injury would be done through denying to the property owner the ability to establish signage that is permitted other occupants of single-tenant buildings in the community. That being the case, the Department believes practical difficulty does exist on this site. Findings-of-Fact pertaining to Docket Nos. V-87-01; V-88-01; and V-89-01 the requests for Identification Signs larger than 40 square feet in area: In deciding whether or not the applicant has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance of development standards, the Board shall determine in writing that: I. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; Insofar as the general welfare of the community is defined by the Sign Ordinance (ZO Section 25.7; Z-302), the appropriate size of a sign for a Special Use located on a parcel five acres in size or larger is one (1), forty-square-foot Identification Sign. The appropriate size for signs on a single-tenant building, however, is prescribed by Sign Charts A & B in the Sign Ordinance. Sign size is a function of building frontage and distance from right-of-way. The Dan Young site has frontage on Page 13 Department Report - Board of Zoning Appeals July 23,2001 Page 14 of 18 East 96th Street (non-freeway) and North Keystone Avenue (freeway). Injury to the general welfare would be sustained through the granting of Identification Signs of a size not permitted other Special Use businesses in the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and It is the Department's opinion that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner by the establishing of Identification Signs of the sizes proposed on two free-standing buildings. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. As observed previously, injury would be done through the granting to the property owner the ability to establish signage that is not permitted other occupants of single-tenant buildings in the community. The opposite is also true - injury would be done through denying to the property owner the ability to establish signage that is permitted other occupants of single-tenant buildings in the community. That being the case, the Department believes practical difficulty does exist on this site. There currently exist on site a number of sign violations that must be remedied before the Department can issue Sign Permits for any signage approved bv the Board at this meeting. With respect to the petitions for the Traffic Directional Signs (Docket Nos. V-77- 01: V-78-01: V-79-01: V-80-01: V-81-01: V-82-01: V-83-01: and V-84-01). the Department recommends favorable consideration. This recommendation runs contrary to the Findings-of-Fact expressed above for the following reason: Though the Directional Signs are larger than permitted under Ordinance. they are located on site in such a manner that thev will only be readily visible on the subject property: in other words. their impact on the community is negligible due to their practical invisibility. With respect to the encroachment of the Center Identification Sign into the East 96th Street right-of-way (Docket No. V-85-01)' the Department recommends favorable consideration conditioned upon the petitioner's committing that. if in the future the sign is required to be moved. that the relocation of the sign will be accomplished at the property owner's expense. and that the City or any successor unit of government will not be held liable. With respect to the petition for nine (9) Identification Signs(Docket No. V-86- 01). the Department recommends that the petitioner be limited to six Identification Signs. With respect to the petitions for signs larger than permitted for Special Uses (Docket Nos. V-87-01: V-88-01: and V-89-01). the Department recommends favorable consideration. Page 14