Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept ReportCARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING OFFICER DEPARTMENT REPORT July 26, 2004 l d. Mayflower Park, Blk 6, Lot 2 - Ed Martin The applicant seeks the following development standards variances: Docket No. 04060012 V Chapter 25.7.02-8(c) east wall sign area Docket No. 04060013 V Chapter 25.7.02-8 (b) number of' signs Docket No. 04060019 V Chapter 25.7.02-8 (b) sign not facing frontage The site is located southwest of 99th St and Michigan Rd. The site is zoned I-I/Industrial within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by John Bennett of A/E Technologies for Ed Martin Pontiac GMC. General Information: The petitioner would like to erect a wall sign that is larger than required by the ordinance. This is due to the fact that the 3 elements of the sign will be spaced around the arched window, so that it looks more architecturally appealing. The petitioner would also like to erect a 'Service' sign, which does not face a road frontage and is over the number of allowed signs (2), based on the frontages the building has. The "Service" sign would have been considered an exempt sign if it were to stay under 3 sq ft, but the petitioner would like a 13.3 sq ft sign. The site is located in an industrially zoned area, along Michigan Road. Background Information: This item has appeared before the Special Studies Committee on June 1, 2004 and was approved with a vote of 4 to 0 with the conditions of: staggering the east elevation wall sign logos around the arched window with a maximum of 3-inch deep letters, the monument sign would have a maximum of 2-inch deep letters, and the 'Service' sign would be 3 sq. ft. Analysis: The petitioner is requesting a larger 'Service' sign so that patrons of the business will be able to find the location of the service area. The petitioner feels that 3 sq. ft. of sign area is too small and is proposing a 13.3 square foot 'Service' sign. The Special Studies Committee approved a 3 square foot wall sign, which would have been considered exempt under the Sign Ordinance. Now that the petitioner would like a sign larger than 3 square feet, it cannot be considered an exempt sign. The east elevation wall sign, consisting of three components will be considered one sign. This sign area is greater than what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. However, the proposed sign will fit better on the faCade, rather than what was previously proposed. The petitioner has worked with the Plan Commission committee on the sign design/layout. The petitioner should verify the conditions made at the Special Studies meeting. Findings of Fact: East faqade wall sign 1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: The approved design of the proposed sign better fits the building fagade design than what was proposed initially. The Plan Commission has approved this design with the greater sign area. 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 approved sign design will look more aesthetically pleasing and compliment the building design. 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 strict application of the Zoning Ordinance may result in practical difficulties in the use of the property due to fact that the sign will have to be much smaller in size. It will also be difficult to produce a smaller sign with the design that was approved by the Plan Commission Committee, due to scale. Findings of Fact: number of signs/sign not facing a frontage 1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because' The "Service" sign is on the building so that patrons can find their way easily to the service area. It is not facing a road frontage because it does not cater to off-site drivers. 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 sign may affect the property value of the property to the south, but the whole area is zoned industrial and integral signs are necessary to mn a business. The "service" sign will direct patrons on-site to the correct car service area. 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 strict application of the Zoning Ordinance may result in practical difficulties in the use of the property due to fact that "Service" sign will have to be smaller (3 sq. ft.) rather than the proposed 13.3 sq ft and that the sign could not be on the south building fagade, which does not face a road frontage. Recommendation to the Hearing Officer: The department recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 04060012 V. The department recommends negative consideration of Docket Nos. 04060013 V and 04060019 V because the 'Service' sign size approved by the Special Studies Committee sign was 3 sq ft. The Department recommends these two items be withdrawn by the petitioner or forwarded to the FULL Board of Zoning Appeals.