Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 2-28-05CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT February 28, 2005 2-5h. Tom Wood Nissan The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals' Docket No. 05010026 V Chapter 26.04.05 buffer yard requirements Docket No. 05010027 V Chapter 25.07.02-08.b total number of signs Docket No. 05010028 V Chapter 25.07.02-08.b 5 signs oriented south Docket No. 05010029 V Chapter 14.04.09.03 maximum lot coverage The site is located at 4150 E 96th Street and is zoned B-3/Business. Filed by Larry Lawhead of Barnes & Thomburg for Tom Wood Nissan. General Info: i'l~l : 21 BAUER ~EST DR r~ I :t~]li US 421 ./-~ ~ : ~ I perimeter buffering requirement s along 96t" The petitioner is proposing to construct a new automobile sales facility. The petitioner is seeking relief from street and the east property line. The petitioner is also seeking relief to have 5 signs facing the 96th street frontage, when only 2 signs are allowed on the site due to two road frontages. The last variance request is for the maximum lot coverage of 88%, when the limit is 80%. Analysis'. It seems that the petitioner is trying to put too much use on the site. The variances for lot coverage and buffer yard show that there is not enough room to place the proper amount of vegetative buffer because the building and paved area exceed to maximum lot coverage. However, the Petitioner has worked with the Urban Forester in providing a landscape plan that is acceptable. The Nissan text and Logo are used multiple times, thus the need for a variance for signage. There is also a need for signage to identify the dealer, Tom Wood. If the petitioner reduced the sign size of "service" to three sq ft, that sign would be exempt. Findings of Fact: signage number and orientation 1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: the petitioner does not exceed the allowed total sign square footage; only the number of signs. 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 petitioner does not exceed the allowed total sign square footage; only the number of signs. 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 petitioner will only be allowed two signs on site, based on having two road frontages, which may not be enough signage to adequately identify the site. Findings of Fact: buffer yards 1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: the front and rear bugger yards will be reduced approximately 50% in width, but the number of plantings required will still be required. 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 front and rear buffer yards will be reduced approximately 50% in width, but the number of plantings required will still be required. 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' there may be a conflict with meeting the parking requirements and other setbacks if the buffer yard widths are enforced. Findings of Fact: max. lot coverage 1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because' the petitioner dedicated the necessary road fight of way to the City several years ago, where they would have been able to meet the 80% max lot cover; the proposed lot cover is a variance of 8% to have 88% lot cover. 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 petitioner dedicated the necessary road fight of way to the City several years ago, where they would have been able to meet the 80% max. lot cover; the proposed lot cover is a variance of 8% to have 88% lot cover. 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' thc variance o£ 8% lot cover allows the project to be built, otherwise thc project will not be able to be built as approved by the Plan Commission and may not be £¢asibl¢ to built at all. Recommendation: The Department recommends positive consideration of Docket Nos. 05010026 V, 05010027 V, 05010028 V, and 05010029 V with the following condition, That the petitioner provides the recorded copy of the dedication of additional road right of way requested by the Plan Commission.