Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 4-28-08 CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT April 28, 2008 2-3h. United States Tennis Association - Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 08020006 V Section 25.07.01-04 (i) Sign located in street right of way Docket No. 08020018 V Section 25.07.01-04 (I) Sign located off premise The site is located at 1310 E. 96th St. and is not zoned - the sign would be locatcd in the right of way. Filed by Steve Granner of Bose McKinncy and Evans. General Info: The petitioner is requesting to place a sign located off the subject site, and in the street right-of-way, on a I ,037-square foot parcel. The site is located on 96th Street, adjacent to the United States Tennis Association site and the Monon Trail, in land previously dedicated to the City ofCanne! for right-of-way improvements. The sign would have panels tor UST A and two other tenants within the same building, and would bc intcrnally illuminated. Analysis: The site was part of the United States Tennis Association's property prior to 1995. At that time, it was granted to the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners for public right-of-way purposes, which removed its zoning. The site therefore has no zoned status. However, the Sign Ordinance is based on distances and uses, rather than zoning, except for specific Overlays. As such, it would apply to the subject parcel as it would to any other, zoned parcel within the City of Carmel's jurisdiction. Because the parcel is no longer part of the USTA's property and has been dedicated to the County for right-of-way, any sign placed there would be both ofT-premise, and in the right-of-way. The sign would actually be five feet behind the current right-of-way of 96th Street, if this parcel were to be excluded, and the Board of Public Works has granted a Consent to Encroach. While the building is oriented towards Interstate 465, it is easily visible from 96th Street. In addition, the entrance to the site is marked by two brick knee walls with the address and a gatehouse. The building's name is also visible on its upper fa<;:ade, facing 961h Street. The application indicates that the sign is necessary to guide visitors to the site from 961h Street, who have seen the building from 465. However, the building and its entrance are both clearly visible from 96th Street, as well as architecturally distinct from the adjacent Five Seasons fitness facility. It should also be noted that Five Seasons does not have a ground sign, and in fact does not have as much signagc as is proposed for the subject site. The Department has concerns with any sign located in the right-of-way, and ofT-premise. Rights-of-way are intended to be held open until such time as they are needed for road improvements or other civic improvements. This section of 96lh Street is listed on the Thoroughfare Plan as a Secondary Parkway, with a 120-foot right-of-way. At such time as the street is realigned and expanded, the sign, were it approved, would need to be relocated. The sign could be placed on the petitioner's property, near the right-of-way but not in it, and not off-premise, without a loss of visibility. Additionally, off-premise signs are discouraged because they may mislead passers-by, and lead to sign proliferation. Signs should be located on the premises of the businesses they are guiding clients to. There are no similarly-sited signs in the area, and placing the sign at the proposed location would have a negative visual impact, particularly with the Monon Trail immediately adjacent. Findings of Fact: Sign located in street right of way 4. The approval of this variance will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: the right-of-way should be retained until it is needed for road development; and there are no similarly-placed signs in proximity to this site. 5. The use and value ofthe area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected in a substantiaUy adverse manner because: placing the sign in the right-of-way, rather than in close proximity to the site, would have a negative visual impact on the site. 6. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property \lill not result in a hardship in tbe use oftbe property because: the petitioner may place the proposed sign on their property, with the same desired effect of increased visibility. Findings of Fact: Sign located off-premise 1. The approval of this variance wiII be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general wclfare of the community because: there arc no similarly-placed signs in proximity to this site. 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: placing the sign off-premise, rather than in close proximity to the site, would have a negative visual impact on the site. 3. . The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will not result in a hardship in the use of the property because: the petitioner may place the proposed sign on their property, with the same desired effect of increased visibility. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends negative consideration of Docket Nos. 08020006 V and 08020018 V after all concerns have been addressed.