HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 03-27-06
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
March 27, 2006
4h. Stonegate Apartments off-premise sign
The applicant seeks approval for the following development standards Variance:
Docket No. 06020018 V ZO Chapter 25.07.01-04 off-premise sign in road right of way
The site is located north of Meadow Lane & Main Street and is zoned R-4/Residence.
Filed by Larry Kemper of Nelson
& Frankenberger.
General Info:
The ground identification sign for the
Stonegate apartment complex is
located off site and within the road
right of way. The sign was located on
the street grass median illegally and
without a sign permit. It is illegal to
have a sign posted on a property other
than where the business is located, and
it is illegal to have a sign located
within the road right of way, where
that land is owned by the City.
Analysis:
There are several apartment
~ complexes located in the same area as
::s:::a ~ r:::JCClI ~ Stonegate. These other complexes do
not have signs off-site and in the road median. The Stone gate sign was placed within the road median, which is
city-owned property. The sign never had approval nor a sign permit for its location. The petitioner claims that
the prior sign was legal non-conforming, but if this were the case, it lost its legality when it was removed. The
sign is also located off-premise from the Stonegate Apartments. It could possibly be perceived as impeding
visibility of drivers. The sign needs Consent to Encroach approval by the City Engineering Dept. and the Board
of Public Wodes. If this sign is approved, the Department is concerned of the Board possibly setting a precedent
for having these signs in all street medians. On a side note, new street trees have been planted in that sane road
median since the illegal sign was removed a few months ago. Also, there are several sign violations on the
property, currently being resolved with the City Code Enforcement Officer.
Findings of Fact:
1.) The approval of this variance will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community because: The sign poses as a traffic hazard. This particular apartment in the
area should not get preferential treatment.
~
2.) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected in
a substantially adverse manner because: The property owners surrounding the sign are affected
negatively by its presence. This particular apartment in the area should not get preferential treatment.
3.) The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will not result in
practical difficulties in the use of the property because: The sign ordinance is applied to all
businesses so that there is a fair playing field. The apartment complex will still be able to have a sign, as
long as it is located on their property.
Recommendation: The Dept. recommends negative consideration of Docket No. 06020018 V.