HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
May 21, 2007
28-29h. Forest Glen, Lot 3 - Printing Plus
The applicant seeks the following use variance & development standards variance approvals for an office
use in a residential district:
Docket No. 07040009 UV Section 6.01 permitted uses
Docket No. 07040010 V Section 2.09 compliance with Thoroughfare Plan
The site is located at 2110 E 96th St. and is zoned S-2/Residence.
Filed by Rex Neal.
1- .
~ .-.
.~.~_.~~ '\. . - .... ~ : ~~ )'~~':"~'
Analysis:
The subject dwelling is located on 96th street, between Westfield and Haverstick Road. While this stretch
of 96th Street is heavily traveled, it is also predominantly residential. There is an office located on the
comer of Westfield and 96th, but there are no other home-based businesses until Haverstick Road, a half-
mile away. While home occupations may not generate much traffic, there is a concern with cumulative
conversions and the resulting increase in traffic and turns onto this busy street. The Comprehensive Plan
currently recommends low-density residential uses. Commercial uses should be greatly limited until 96th
Street has been widened to allow for the increased capacity. In addition, there are numerous examples of
primarily residential streets becoming commercialized through piece-meal conversions. This does not
represent good planning, as commercial uses should be typically located adjacent to one another, on roads
with sufficient capacity. Permitting an office use in one dwelling may lead to requests for similar uses
along 96th Street, increasing congestion and negatively affecting the quality oflife for adjacent residents.
Home occupations are permitted to utilize no more than 15% of the dwelling's gross floor area. The
proposed use would utilize the entire dwelling.
l\. . :
~..."..~'.........
. . .. . .
~ .,~
General Info:
The petitioner seeks variance
approval to have office uses in this
single-family dwelling. The dwelling
would not be used as a residence,
only a business, with an estimated
two employees. The petitioner is also
seeking the grant of a variance from
the Thoroughfare Plan. This portion
of 96th Street is intended to become a
secondary parkway, with a 120-foot
right-of-way. The distance from the
south property line to the proposed
right-of-way line is 27 feet.
Typically, a dedication of right- of-
way, and the construction of a
multiuse path, would be required.
Findings of Fact: non-residential uses
13.) The approval of this variance will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare of the community because: it may encourage similar residential-to-
commercial conversions in an area that is unsuitable for them, and negatively impact the quality of
life for adjoining residents.
14.) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will
be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: it may encourage similar residential-to-
commercial conversions in an area that is unsuitable for them, and negatively impact the quality of
life for adjoining residents.
15.) The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will not
result in a hardship in the use of the property because: the property may still be used as a
dwelling, according to the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and in keeping with
adjoining parcels.
Findings of Fact: compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan
4.) The approval of this variance will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community because: the proposed use has the potential to increase traffic, without
providing additional right-of-way or pedestrian walkways.
5.) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected
in a substantially adverse manner because: the proposed use has the potential to increase traffic,
without providing additional right-of-way or pedestrian walkways.
6.) The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will not result in a
hardship in the use of the property because: the property may continue to be used residentially,
with minimal impact on surrounding properties.
Recommendation:
The Dept. of Community Services recommends negative consideration of Docket Nos. 007040009 UV
and Docket No.07040010 V.