HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING OFFICER
JULY 25, 2011 DEPARTMENT REPORT
2 -4. (V) Fidelity Keystone Signage
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 11070004 V Ch.25.07.02 -10 B Number of signs (6 proposed, 4 allowed)
Docket No. 11070005 V Ch.25.07.02 -10 B Sign not facing a public right -of -way: west (1
proposed, 0 allowed)
Docket No. 11070006 V Ch.25.07.02 -10 C Three signs facing one public right -of -way: east (3
proposed, 2 allowed)
The site is located at 650 E. Carmel Dr. and is zoned B -8 /Business. Filed by Joe Calderon of Bose
McKinney Evans on behalf of Equicor Development.
li r i?rz w P.'11 General Info Analysis:
The applicant seeks variance approval to add two new wall signs
I Waco �x '19 pp pp ns
g
4 0 W� 4- t' r t o this building. The building currently has three wall signs and
4 TAP x one ground sign that were approved through other variance
t A.f x requests and by right. The a applicant is proposing one new wall
a ""u 4_ 14 f q Y pp p p g
si gn to face west. This would be the first and only sign approved
t t on the west elevation. The applicant is also proposing one new
ail. V j g'{ 1 j x� 04.,%0;‘:',;:.r .4 wall sin to face east. The east elevation alread has two sign
a i +uv ,t a z a a S '`k F g Y signs,
Ai A t 1 t r z� one at the top of the building, and one over the lower level
k' a a c 0 0r4: it entrance to the building.
*516-riffxg:,, _i' r 4 4 6 This is not an uncommon request to ask for more signage for a
u� is t' mutli- tenant multi -level building. Because of the size of the -is !�t� Carmel Dr. e l&- building, and the ability to spread the signs out so they are
s i kF balanced, the request is justified and therefore is supported by
w the Department. The applicant will be coming to the Plan
fit F v o Pr i T Co Special Studies Committee meeting on August 2nd
ate e i f i to get approval for placement and to discuss size, color, lighting,
y t z jai v v y i N ete,,, V ,it i
4 F 1 a t etc. The p lan is for the new signs to match the existing signs.
I A. t s, »AN tr Please see the petitioner's informational packet for more
detail.
Findings of Fact:
I. The approval of these variances will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare
of the community because: one of the proposed signs would be the only sign on the west facade of an existing
building, so there would be no sign clutter. There is ample room on the roof bank of the building of the east facade
for an additional wall sign such that the building sip's would be in balance with the length of the facade. Became the
building is adequately set back, neither of the proposed signs would create a traffic issue.
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 because: the adjacent properties are all commercial and have signs. The proposed
signs, being, wall signs, will not interfere with the use or visibility of, or access to or from any of the adjacent
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 because: the building would not be able to have a sign on one of the three facades which
is clearly visible from a public street, nor`would the east facade be able to have an additional sign where there is
room for one, which could discourage tenants from leasing available space.
Recommendation: After all concerns have been addressed, the Dept. of Community Services recommends positive
consideration of Docket Nos. 11070004 11070006 V.