Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 11-26-07 CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT November 26, 2007 3-41. North Meridian Medical Pavilion - Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07080011 V Section 25.07.02-10 Number of signs facing ROW - Bldg. A. Docket No. 07080012 V Section 25.07.02-10 Number of signs facing RO\V - Bldg. B. The site is located at 12188 N. Meridian St., and is zoned B-6. Filed by Doug Staley, Jr. of Staley Signs. General Info: The variances requested are for two additional tenant signs on the west fal(ade of both Building A and B (under construction). The signs will each be 115 sq. ft. in area, have white faces that illuminate white at night and they may have logos that arc no more than 25% of the total sign arca but are not restricted in color. The Sign Ordinance permits one sign per building per street frontage. However, the applicant had previously requested a variance in 2004 (04110022 V) to relocate the SibJIlage that would be allowed for lllinois St. to face US 31. This request was approved. The applicant would now like to have the same amount of signage for Illinois St., thus doubling their allotted signage for the two buildings. Analysis: There has been much debate over the appropriateness of these signs between the applicant, the neighbors aT]d the City of CanneL The appl ieant feels this additional signage is necessary for both tenant identification and patient wayfinding. The site has been approved for two ground monument signs stating "North Meridian Medical Pavilion" and the address of both buildings. These signs are installed at the n1ain entrances on both the N. Frontage Rd. and Illinois S1. At the same time, the applicant was also approved tor three incidental directional signs to be placed at the other entrances to the site. However, these signs have not yet been installed due to construction of the second building. The construction of Illinois St. is now complete and patients may easily access thc site fi'om 1Ilinois S1. and the N. Frontage Rd. Because the site is a multi-tenant, multi-level building complex, each building is also pennitted a 20 sq. f1.directory sign to be placed in front of the entrance to each building. Drawings have been submitted for these signs; howeverthey have not been reviewed by the Plan Commission at the request of the applicant. That would make the total potential number of pennitted signs for this site 11. Four more signs would put the total at 15 and the Department feels that is too many signs for this site. .Instead of having an additional two tenant signs on both Building A and B to face Illinois St., the Department suggested the applicant consider a larger ground sign with tenant panels at the main entrance on Illinois St. We feel it would satisfy both needs ofthe applicant for tenant identification and patient wayfinding. The buildings are set back around 400 f1. fi'om Illinois St. The Department believes a patient driving either north or south along Illinois S1. would first see a large monument sign before they look back at the buildings to see their doctor's name on it. The Department was willing to support this request, however the applicant feels wall signage will better suit their needs. HO\vever, four 115 sq. ft. wall signs would not be appropriate immediately adjacent to the residential neighborhoods along f11inois St. The Department is concerned about light pollution for the nearby residents. It has also come to our attention that agreements were made with the residents that signage would be kept to a minimum: if at all on the western fayade when the project was first introduced. This proposal would violate those agreements. There is also the issue of preserving the vision and intent of the US 3] Corridor. What the applicant is proposing for the two medical buildings appears to be more retail in nature. The Sign Ordinancc allows for one sign per building per frontage. The US 31 Coni dol' Overlay Zone \vas established to provide a set of guidelines for development that are some\vhat "sterile" in naturc. Retail uses are allowed, but only a certain percentage of any site within the corridor may be retail. This site is not permitted any retail use; therefore the "need" to identify a majority of the tenants is not there. The Department has considered all options both for and against additional signage for the applicant. We have offered different signage scenarios to the applicant and all were rejected. Therefore, we have concluded that we are not able to suppOli the variance requests as submitted. Findings of Fact: Number of signs facing right-of-way - Bldg. A & B ]. The approval of this variance ,'viii be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: the proposed signs go against the al10wablc number of signs that the Sign Ordinance permits for this type of building/complex and compromises the intent and aesthetic quality of the US 31 Overlay Zone. 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: there are residential properties to the west that will look directly at the building:; where the signage is proposed. 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: by law, the site is currently allowed I] signs that will help direct patients to and throughout the site, as well as to identifY where their doctor's oftice is located. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends negative consideration of Docket Nos. 07080011 - 07080012 V.