Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 12020014-17, 12020022 CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HEARING OFFICER DEPARTMENT REPORT MARCH 6,2012 1-10. (V) The Centre. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals for partial redevelopment of the site: Docket No. 12020014 V ZO Chptr.23F.05 Building setbacks Docket No. 12020015 V ZO Chptr.23F.06 Building Orientation Docket No. 12020016 V ZO Chptr. 23F.07 Building Height Docket No. 12020017 V ZO Chptr.23F.08 Building Footprint TABLED to March 26: Docket No. 12020018 V ZO Chptr. 23F.09 Construction Materials TABLED to March 26:Docket No. 12020019 V ZO Chptr. 23F.10 Architectural Design TABLED to March 26: Docket No. 12020020 V ZO Chptr. 23E11 Landscaping TABLED to March 26: Docket No. 12020021 V ZO Chptr. 23F.12 L_gh„�ng Docket No. 12020022 V ZO Chptr.23F.14 Pedestrian Circulation TABLED to March 26: `; - • •. e e t ' '.• The site is located at 1342-1430 S.Range Line Rd,at the northwest corner of 116th St. and Rangeline Rd. It is zoned B- 3/Business,within the Cannel Dr.Rangeline Rd.Overlay Zone. Filed by Paul Reis of Krieg Devault,for Kite Realty Co. 't ' , h 1 1 , General Info&Analysis: ' T -. ow'- " The petitioner seeks the following variance approvals for Phase 1 of The ` '-° a ' ` ` Centre's redevelopment project, in order to rebuild the former Osco and CVS IV" � xr a { ,.� s tenant space, to bring in a grocery store tenant. Portions of the existing ''` 4.Jri' '' building will be removed permanently,portions will be rebuilt,and a few new � , I ' g P Y A \..,, 1: % f"= 51 r ,j,,, standalone buildings will be built as a part of this project. As this is a partial 47--iiitth7, 3, : , ;,,.1::,,,', redevelopment project and not a complete tear down, it is understood that �, '4 Y many variances will be needed. .d 1. ■a - `� '-_M . The Department is in support of the variances for the building orientation, .:. :,� s•-i,-.-i. the building height and the building footprint, and previous projects have ,- 1,1 received similar approvals. In these instances,the requirements in the overlay �' , r'' i i ,-. 1 -�.j i ! would be near impossible to meet since much of the existing building is 1 k 1 .. ,, ,4 remaining. However, the variance for building height should only apply to *' : t '"P '' "I ,, the new Old National Bank building. The Overlay requirement for height %` ;�»; Y '". and a 2nd floor that is occupiable should still be required for the proposed - new multi-tenant building along Range Line Rd and the new building at the -,,1 I z .+ corner of 116th and Range Line. Also it is understood that the tenant space for a 1 .' ---'--�'„ `4 '' ' the new grocery store will be built to appear as if it is two stories tall as part of 1„ ,; "• j f( ° - , `vim); the exterior remodel. E l �� , �� �� +:..,xi : ..� .4 :'�� ' �r�7 :' The department is not inclined to support the variance for building setbacks 7--- x r=-, as it relates to the new Old National Bank. If possible, the Department would , . ,.I like to see this building pulled up to 116th in a way that will continue the ff 'f ? 9 * streetscape that will be created by the new building at the corner of 116`h and '` `4 ; 11 I Range Line Road. The Department would also like clarification that, m 4 , .,: _., granted, this variance will not apply to the new building at the corner of 116 and Range Line nor the new multi-tenant building proposed to the north. The department is not in support of the variance for pedestrian circulation. Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility is an ' important goal of the City's and it has been for many years. In light of the many variances that the petitioner is seeking, the Department thinks that this minimum requirement is one they should strive to achieve. As this site is redeveloped, it will attract more users,including pedestrian &bicyclists and it is important that the project accommodates them as well as the automobile,especially considering the proximity of the site to the Monon Trail and the new trail connecting to Central Park. Please see the informational packet for more detail on this variance request. • f . Findings of Fact,Building Setback: 1. The approval of this variance will be injurious to the public health,safety,morals,and general welfare of the community because: it is not supportive of the City's goals for this important corridor and this important corner. Additional setbacks will detract from the character of this area and undermine the intent of the Carmel Drive—Range Line Road Overlay. 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: these variances will allow for partial redevelopment of this site. However,this variance is not supportive of the City's goals for this important corridor and this important corner. Additional setbacks will detract from the character of this area and undermine the intent of the Carmel Drive— Range Line Road Overlay. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: the department believes that all of the new buildings proposed can meet the setback requirements of the overlay,especially since many of the other requirements of the overlay will not have to be met. Findings of Fact,Building Orientation: 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals,and general welfare of the community because: this variance will allow for partial redevelopment of this site which will improve this area and will be an enhancement for the community. 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: this variance will allow for partial redevelopment of this site which will improve this area and will be an enhancement for 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: this is only a partial redevelopment. The existing buildings do not meet the current ordinance and by keeping many of them it makes it difficult to properly design and redevelop the other portions of the property. Findings of Fact,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: this variance will allow for partial redevelopment of this site which will improve this area and will be an enhancement for the community. 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: this variance will allow for partial redevelopment of this site which will improve this area and will be an enhancement for the community. 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:this is only a partial redevelopment. The existing buildings do not meet the current ordinance and by keeping many of them it makes it difficult to properly design and redevelop the other portions of the property,however the new buildings should be able to meet the building height requirement. Findings of Fact,Building Footprint: 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals,and general welfare of the community because: this variance will allow for partial redevelopment of this site which will improve this area and will be an enhancement for the community. 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: this variance will allow for partial redevelopment of this site which will improve this area and will be an enhancement for the community. 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:this is only a partial redevelopment. The existing buildings do not meet the current ordinance and by keeping many of them it makes it difficult to properly design and redevelop the other portions of the property. Findings of Fact,Pedestrian Circulation: 1. The approval of this variance will be injurious to the public health,safety,morals,and general welfare of the community because: it will make it more difficult for pedestrians to navigate this site which could pose a safety hazard. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: other projects in the area have been or will be required to provide adequate pedestrian circulation as they redevelop. If this property does not provide pedestrian circulation,then it will make it more difficult for other sites to connect to and properly transition to this project. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will not resultin practical difficulties in the use of the property because:pedestrian circulation;while important,is one small piece of this redevelopment project and compliance with this standard would not render this site unusable. In fact,it would enhance the site as it would make it easier for patrons to access and navigate the development. Recommendation: After all comments and concerns have been addressed,the Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket Nos. 12020015 V—12020017 V and negative consideration of Docket Nos. 12020014 and 12020022 V.