No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT January 26, 2010 8 -10h. College Park Church Expansion The applicant seeks the following development standards and special use amend approvals: Docket No. 09120017 V 05.04.01 Increase in building height Docket No. 09120018 V 05.04.03.F Increase in lot coverage Docket No. 09120023 SUA Appendix A Addition to existing acreage The site is located at 2606 West 96` Street on 32 acres and is zoned S1 /Single Family Residential. Filed by Gregory P. Cafouros of .Kroger Gardis Regis, LLP for College Park Church, Inc. J I. General Info: The petitioner is requesting permission to l,—'` expand the Special Use grant on their property, to include an ‘41: additional three acres, and construct a church addition and q1 k enlarged parking lot. Adjacent uses include residential, l• s agricultural, and a rr .,-)11 ;A Anal sis: The church has develo ed and own since x x Y p 4 a i construction in 1990, and recently added three acres to its 29- 3 1 ki r df acre site The grant of the Special Use Amend would recognize d t A .r that three -acre parcel for additional church related uses and I a consolidate the permitted uses of all 32 acres. The building 9 o :14,!,4 expansion would approximately double the size of the existing facility, with a corresponding increase in parking spaces, and 6,� 1 1 iiiit lot coverage. Because the site is in the S1 District, only 35% f. lot coverage is permitted, but up to 90% lot coverage is permitted in business districts. The petitioner is proposing 49% lot coverage. A previous plan, filed under 03050023, requested 60% lot coverage, but due in part to the addition of three acres, that total has been reduced. A height variance was also approved, per V- 69 -03, and the proposed building addition would be 6.2 feet taller. Since the site is residentially zoned, height is limited to 35 feet, which is unrealistic for a church this size. The site is large enough and well buffered enough by existing trees and landscaping that the proposed height will not impact adjacent uses. Findings of Fact: Special Use Amendment 1. The premises in question is particularly physically suitable for the proposed Special Use because: it has been developed as a church site for twenty years. 2. The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect economic factors, such as cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding property values because: it is an expansion of an existing use. 3. The Special Use will be consistent with social/neighborhood factors, such as compatibility with existing uses and those permitted under current zoning in the vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the proposed Special Use will affect neighborhood integrity because: it is an expansion of an existing use. 4. The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect the adequacy and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage facilities and police and fire protection because: utilities are in place at this site, and it will not require additional infrastructure. 5. The Special Use will not adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Use is proposed because: it is an expansion of an existing use, and the petitioner has proposed expanding the existing pedestrian network. 6. The Board has reviewed the requirements of Ordinance Z -160, Section 21.03 (1 -26) as they relate to this Special Use, and does not find that those criteria prevent the granting of the Special Use: the church site addition complies with all criteria. Findings of Fact: Increased 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 increase is significantly less than what is permitted in business districts, and what was approved in 2003 for the site. 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 increase is significantly less than what is permitted in business districts, and what was approved in 2003 for the site. 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 church would not be able to continue to grow as planned. Findings of Fact: Increased building height 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: the building would only be 7.8 feet taller than what is permitted, and would be comparable to other, similar facilities in the 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 building would only be 7.8 feet taller than what is permitted, and would be comparable to other, similar facilities in the 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: a different, and potentially less attractive design which would likely result in greater lot coverage would be necessary Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket Nos. 09120017- 18 V and 09120023 SUA after all concerns have been addressed.