HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
January 26, 2004
14 -15j. Park Northwestern, Lot 13A (V- 130 -03/ #03120023 and 04010013V)
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance:
V- 130 -03 #03120023 §25C.07 minimum tract size
04010013 V §23C.10.3.5.b parking lot perimeter planting
The site is located at the southwest corner of Michigan Rd Northwestern Dr.
The site is zoned I -1 /Industrial within the US 421 /Michigan Rd Overlay Zone.
Filed by Greg Ewing of Bingham McHale, LLP for Java Partners, Ltd.
g
g i t Z 8 y-
w 106T" ST
o X14 x
US 421 /MICHIGAN 5 z
Z y/ f S iii p
a MICHIGANRD^
I i 1 1 '#F 1 Nil ,';',,Iti' 2 c G PI
n F:4 1 6 1 ,5,.. ,..-......„--firt47:741---:. gr:c.. vzi ,7--
Wrailfn *3: .";,:.:444,,,,:,,,7t, 4 ,,P.)44 1•,, 1 t.
E :4:, F
General Information:
The petitioner requests a variance from the US 421 Overlay requirement that the minimum area
covered by a Development Plan must be 3 acres. The petitioner also seeks a development
standards variance from the US 421 Overly landscaping requirements. There is a 95 -ft wide area
along the north property line, due to the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company not allowing
installation of significant landscaping within this high pressure pipeline easement.
Background Information:
There has been a replat and DP /ADLS filed with the Department. The Replat shows a lot that is
1.319 acres The site will most likely host a coffee shop and a bank. The eastern part of the
lot was included in a larger parcel acquired by the current owner in 1986, while the current
owner acquired the western smaller portion of the lot in 2002.
Analysis:
The developer has created his own hardship by replatting a lot that is only 1.319 acres in area,
while the ordinance states that a Development plan must encumber 3 acres. There is a 1.681
-11-
1
acre deficit in the area for the required site plan in the US 421 Overlay Zone. Had the lot been
recorded prior to September 7, 1988, a development plan of 1.319 acres would be allowed today.
However, the site is planned with access via parcel to the south, meeting the intent of the
ordinance.
Findings of Fact: area of a Development Plan
1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of the community because: The reduced size of the
development plan will not be injurious to the community as long as the property is
maintained and built to compliment the US 421 Corridor.
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 use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner by allowing the less than required number of acres for a
development plan. The smaller site will still add to the character of the US 421 Corridor.
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 strict application of the Zoning Ordinance may result in practical difficulties in the
use of the property would not be able to build on the lot, until the petitioner acquired
enough adjacent land to submit a 3 -acre development plan to the Plan Commission.
Findings of Fact: landscape requirements
1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of the community because: The reduced size of the
landscape area on the north side of the lot will not be injurious to the community as long
as the property is maintained and built to compliment the US 421 Corridor, with
relocation of the required landscape plantings elsewhere on 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 use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner by allowing a reduced amount of landscape on the north
part of the lot. The amount of landscape plants and trees proposed would be an upgrade
to the area, where there might be less attractive landscaping on adjacent parcels.
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 strict application of the Zoning Ordinance may result in practical difficulties in the
use of the property, being that the petitioner would not be able to build on the lot because
the landscape requirements could not be met and a revised plan to remove the
improvements from the easement is not feasible.
Recommendation:
The department recommends positive consideration of Docket No. V- 130 -03 and 04010013 V.
12