Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT August 25, 2008 6-11h. Old Meridian Plaza Bldg 2 The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 08070006 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(1)(a) Bldg height/occupiable floor reduction from required 28'/2 stories Docket No. 08070007 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(2)(b) Reduction of required front yard setback Docket No. 08070008 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(4) Reduction of minimum side yard setback Docket No. 08070009 V Section 20G.05.04(B)(5) Reduction of minimum rear yard setback Docket No. 08070010 V Section 20G.05.04©(3) Reduction of 75% minimum street frontage Docket No. 08070011 V Section 20G.05.04(G)(3) Location of parking in front of building The site is located at 12863 Old Meridian Street and is zoned Old Meridian/Mixed Use within the Old Meridian District. Filed by Charles Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger for Old Meridian, LLC. a k o o General Info: This request, if approved, would permit the construction of i 3©'`4 a p ri ma ril y one -story office building to the rear of Old Meridian Plaza's r 0 f Building One, which was approved earlier this year The proposed +�*ca. •0 1. r; i 7 Building Two would house the veterinary office which was originally R' k• 4; A proposed in Building One 1 J 7.,- r ,r .04: b Analysis: Because of the requirements of the Old Meridian District, and Q c i` s J 4 a the unique siting proposed, several variances have been requested. The r es u `-:za r��� o���• S subject site is within the Old Meridian District, and is zoned Old w, requirements regarding re ar Meridia Use The District has several re din g T' Ti t" c st r p' bu s scale, and design. The proposed structure would be to the rear of another, taller building, which would help screen it from the street, and would meet the building design requirements and intent of the District. Because the building would be set at the back of the lot, it would not be able to meet required setbacks or locate parking to the rear. Parking would be shared with the building to the front, in a central lot with shared parking access easements, and would meet the needs of both buildings. A variance for a reduction of street frontage is also requested, as the building would have no street frontage on any public right -of- way. Building Two would have one tenant, the veterinary office, and would be a destination use, so high visibility would not be necessary. Extensive landscaping and screening is proposed around the perimeter of the entire site, so while setbacks would be reduced around the subject parcel, overall landscaping would not be impacted. Findings of Fact: Reduced height /setbacks 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: Building Two would be largely screened by Building One and landscaping, and would also meet the design intent of the District. 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: Building Two would be largely screened by Building One and landscaping, and would also meet the design intent of the District. 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: Building Two could not be built as proposed on the site, without the grant of variances and significant reconfiguration of both buildings. Findings of Fact: Parking location 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: Building Two would be largely screened by Building One and landscaping, and would share parking with that building through a cross access easement. 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: Building Two would be largely screened by Building One and landscaping, and would share parking with that building through a cross access easement. 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: Building Two could not be built as proposed on the site, without the grant of variances and significant reconfiguration of both buildings. Findings of Fact: Street frontage reduction 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: Building Two would be largely screened by Building One and landscaping, and would also meet the design intent of the District, and the proposed use would not require high visibility. 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: Building Two would be largely screened by Building One and landscaping, and would also meet the design intent of the District, and the proposed use would not require high visibility. 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: Building Two could not be built as proposed on the site, without the grant of variances and significant reconfiguration of both buildings. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket Nos. 08070006 -11 V after all concerns have been addressed.