HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report #2CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
HEARING OFFICER
DEPARTMENT REPORT (Amended 7-23-04)
July 26, 2004
1 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
The site is located southwest of 99th St and Michigan Rd. The site is zoned I-l/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 faces the north road frontage
and is over the number of allowed signs (2), based on the frontages the building has. 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 comply with the Sign Ordinance.
Analysis:
The petitioner is requesting a 'Service' sign so that patrons of the business will be able to find the
location of the service area. The petitioner is proposing a 13.3 square foot 'Service' sign. The Special
Studies Committee approved a smaller, 3 sq ft 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 fagade, 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.
Recommendation to the Hearing Officer:
The department recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 04060012-13 V. The Department
recommends these items be forwarded to the FULL Board of Zoning Appeals because a Hearing
Officer cannot suspend the roles, and these items made public notice 2 days late.