The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDept Report CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING OFFICER DEPARTMENT REPORT JANUARY 29,2013 5-6. (V) Ortho Indy -Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 13010001 V Ch.25.07.02-04 b)2. a.-Number of signs(4 proposed,3 allowed) Docket No. 13010002 V Ch.25.07.02-04 c)8. a.-Spandrel Panel Height(100% proposed, 70% allowed) The site is located at 13430 N. Meridian St. and is zoned B-6 within the US 31 Overlay Zone. Filed by Marci Reddick of Taft Stettinius&Hollister LLP on behalf of Ortho Indy. .f ' r ,' ' -,cam' I„- -.. ,� . . L 01.'; "g General Info: `_. iz - 4 >a sue -, r u -i a ,r y 7 The Petitioner requests variance i_ ; . -, ,0 rY( "'6',':. *:; s approval to add a wall sign to the { x ■ 4, , , r ? 7# ' 3, � ',' , , , west elevation of the southernmost {� *4 iii,�� bK 44, ,.. try ' r$ i 4: , g medical office building on the St...„ _., .,,.,ft ,,,,‘ . . ,,, � , � '4''' " �r.& Vincent Carmel Hospital campus. pt '.-4iR,�*°* 5t r tl '' =« This medical office building � � - _ currently has three wall signs facing �• z - �, . iro- ''i�' '-^ north. The campus has many other - -"1 '�° s�,� ' -t-04v4, ground and wall signs identifying � k i ' _ --- r ..4 ., n' ' �:: k other tenants and the hospital name. n∎3 erra"�" - , , 1- r. ; , `; Please refer to the petitioner's i •# ' :.- - , �,, ` ,* ` a :: �; ,/ '' information packet for more .\ ash 4 . rt4 1% b t- f.' . t'/ h; � � � , ' details. , B '�,,'° '.-r ` ` ;* Old Meridian St. � _- ate* Analysis: ' -�- �=� �` �—� - z � �`- �� M �� '° ' �� The Petitioner is opening an office in the St. Vincent Carmel campus and requires a sign to identify their new location. The Petitioner is re-using an existing sign from their previous location. The proposed sign is 69.5 sq. ft. and generally meets the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. This elevation of the building presents an interesting dilemma for any tenant that may want to have a sign on this facade. There is a heavy cornice feature,as well as windows with upper and lower architectural accent pieces.This leaves a very small area for a sign to be placed and to still meet the 70%height rule. This sign will actually cover part of the cornice feature of the building,which is part of the reason the Sign Ordinance was re-written to help prevent this kind of situation. However,the Department is in support of the height variance for a number of reasons: 1. The Petitioner is re-using an existing sign. The Department is glad to help a tenant reuse something they already own in order to save time,money and wasting materials to make a new one when the existing one functions fine. 2. The Petitioner has worked with the Department and has agreed to remove their logo"swoosh"component,which would further obscure and even damage the cornice feature on the building. 3. The sign will be placed on a raceway that will extend the sign out from the face of the building enough to not damage the cornice line at all. This way,if the tenant were to vacate the space at some time in the future,the sign will not have damaged the building's architectural features. 4. The placement of the sign in this location is necessary to help with visibility of patrons to find the entrance to the building.There are no other ground identification signs at the entrances to help delineate which entrance the patron should enter. The St.Vincent campus is at its capacity for allowable signage.Most of the signs on the building and site are there by variance approval.This additional tenant sign would put the building over what was previously allowed by those variances. Therefore,a new variance is needed for this additional sign to face west. The Dept. is in support of this sign due to its location and the fact that many of the other signs on the medical office building will be replaced with a singular St.Vincent sign when the new building addition is completed. This sign will most likely be most visible for the patrons that will be entering this portion of the building.Drivers on US 31 may see the sign,but it is over 300 feet away. Lastly,if another sign were to be requested by a different tenant in the future,this sign has been placed is in the correct location to allow another sign to be installed on the same facade. Findings of Fact: #13010001 V Number of signs 5 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's sign is necessary for patients to find its office at the St. Vincent Carmel Hospital campus. This additional sign for the building is the only proposed sign(at this time) for the west facade. The sign design and placement is consistent with existing building identification signs at the hospital campus and therefore will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variances will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: the sign design and placement is consistent with existing building identification signs at the St. Vincent Carmel Hospital campus, as well as medical office buildings in the surrounding area. The sign meets(all but one of)the standards of the Cannel Sign Ordinance. 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 is leasing office space at one of the medical office buildings on the 19+acre St. Vincent Cannel Hospital campus and a building identification sign is essential for patients to find the Petitioner's office space. Prohibiting an additional sign would result in increased difficult for the Petitioner to serve its patients. Findings of Fact: #13010002 V—Wall sign height exceeds 70% Spandrel Panel 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's sign is being re-used from another location where the Petitioner performed medical services. Therefore,it is unable to meet the 70%rule because it was not designed for this building in particular. The sign design and placement is however,consistent with existing building identification signs at the St. Vincent Carmel Hospital campus,as well as medical office buildings in the surrounding area. Therefore,the sign will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variances will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because:the sign design and placement is consistent with existing building identification signs at the St. Vincent Cannel Hospital campus,as well as medical office buildings in the surrounding area. The sign will not damage the building or cause any change in regular day to day business. Therefore,it would not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in an adverse manner. 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 is leasing office space at one of the medical office buildings on the 19+acre St. Vincent Carmel Hospital campus and a building identification sign is essential for patients to find Petitioner's office space. Six signs are permitted on the building and it has two,both of which are oriented to Meridian Street.Petitioner's sign is on a different facade,but is oriented to meridian Street and the parking lot serving the side of the medical office building where its office is located. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 13010001 V& 13010002 V. 6