Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report I i CA EL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I DEPARTMENT REPORT I June 27, 2005 I I 5-10h. Fidelityon lerldian The applicant seeks the Illqwing development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 05050037 V i Chapter 23B.08.06.A percent parcel coverage Docket No. 05050038 V i Chapter 25.07.02-10b signage oriented west Docket No. 05050039 V I Chapter 25.07.02-10b number of signs per tenant Docket No. 05050040 V . Chapter 23B.05.02 percent of retail use Docket No. 05050041 V Chapter 23B.I0.02.C plantings adjacent to building Docket No. 05050042 V : Chapter 23B.12.A parking requirements The site is located at 114 iO ~ Meridian and is zoned B-6/Business within the US 31 Overlay. Filed by Charlie Franken erger of Nelson & Frankenberger for JRR Meridian, LLC. .. I i General Info: The building is being razed and rebuilt with a new design. The petitioner is seeking multiple variances: 85% lot coverage (instead of 65%), signage oriented west toward a private drive & US 31 totaling 2 wall signs per tenant on the building, an increase in % retail use within the building to 30%, reduced plantings adjacent to the building, and parking spaces located between the building and US 31. The Plan Commission has approved the design of the site and the building. Analysis: There are 6 variance requests. The site is and was small when it was originally developed; that is why the site layout and traffic pattern is se~ up th I. why it i,s. The lot coverage percenta?e ,inc1ude~ the building footpri~t ~nd the pavement. VehIcular ccess wIll be from the back of the bUIldIng, whIle the front of the bUIldIng faces US 31. That is why the~e is a need for signage on both sides of the building; there is access from the private drive to the w b ~nd visibility from the US 31 highway. Regarding the variance Ii t plrcentage of retail space: Originally, the petitioner proposed 9,125 sf retail, representing 30% f the 30,984 sf for the entire building. After receiving Plan Commission Committee comments an I DpCS recommendations, the petitioner increased the retail to 12,185 sf of the 15,474 1st floor sf, re resenting about 39% of the 30,984 sf for the entire building. Findings of Fact: % parcel coverage 1. . The approval of hiS variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare f t~e community because: the site, as it exists today, has a high percentage of lot cover, whi ~ ipcluded building footprint and pavement. The redevelopment of the site may improve the haJ;"acter and quality of the site, perhaps contributing to the US 31 Corridor. 2. 2. I ! The use and val e df the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a su IstJntiaUy adverse manner because: the site, as it exists today, has a high percentage of lot Go~er, which included building footprint and pavement. The redevelopment of the site may imp bv~ the character and quality of the site, perhaps contributing to the US 31 Corridor. : I The strict appli ati9n of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficu ties in the use of the property because: the petitioner may be prohibited from redevelopi b the site, possibly losing an opportunity to upgrade the site, which contributes to theguality and character of the US 31 Overlay. F- d- f F t · I i In Ings o. ac: SI nage . 1. The approval of thi~ variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare bf tl he community because: signage is important along US 31, as well as within Fidelity Pl<ka, to help potential patrons of the site find it more easily. The use and val ~ ~f the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a su ~t~ntiaUy adverse manner because: signage is important along US 31, as well as within Fi bli~y Plaza, to help potential patrons of the site find it more easily. The strict appli lti~n of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficu tie$ in the use of the property because: there may not be adequate signage, possibly causing I d~crease in the ease of locating a business on the site, whether it be fro US 31 or once within the Fidelity Plaza complex. Findings of Fact: % ~etail use 1. The approval of ~his variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare if the community because: the amount of retail use within the building and within the comp ~x :will still be less than 30% overall, as required by the US 31 Corridor Overlay. I The use and val e o( the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a su I stantiaUy adverse manner because: the amount of retail use within the building and wit ~n .he complex will still be less than 30% overall, as required by the US 31 Corridor Overlay. I The strict applicatiqn of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficu ~ies in the use of the property because: the redevelopment of the site may not be possible w ~hobt the adequate percentage of retail use within the building. Findings of Fact: pi ~t~ng adjacent to building 1. The approval of bi~ variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare bf the community because: the petitioner will be providing landscaping comparable to the bverall Fidelity Plaza development. The use and val ~ of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a s bstantially adverse manner because: the petitioner will be providing landscaping com Jrable to the overall Fidelity Plaza development. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. I The strict appli ati~n of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficu he~ in the use of the property because: the redevelopment of the site may not be possible w'lli~ut the reduction in with ofthe planting strip. Fe, de. fF t lid' In lngs 0 ac: par ng , 1. The approval of thi~ variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare ~f the community because: the petitioner will be providing parking space locations compar bl~ to the overall Fidelity Plaza development. The use and val ~ Jf the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a su JtahtiaUy adverse manner because: the petitioner will be providing parking space locations c in~arable to the overall Fidelity Plaza development. The strict appli lti~n of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficu tieJ in the use of the property because: the redevelopment of the site may not be possible w thdut the location of parking spaces in front of the building, facing US 31. I ! 3. 3. Recommendation: I The department recomm nd~ positive consideration of Docket Nos. 05050037 V, 05050038 V, 05050039, 05050040 V, 150~0041 V and 05050042 V.