Area Board approves variances for MGM Plaza hotel complex in Battle Ground

The Tippecanoe County Area Board of Zoning Appeals approved four variances May 28 to allow construction of a multi-hotel, banquet and conference complex at the former Holiday Inn site near State Road 43 and I‑65 in Battle Ground.

The variances approved would: reduce the rear setback from the required 15 feet to 0 feet; increase the maximum building height from 35 feet to 95 feet; reduce required parking from 587 spaces to 397; and lower the vegetative coverage requirement from 20% to 18.3%. Nathan McBurnett, APC staff, said staff recommended denial because the proposed subdivision creates the conditions requiring variances and therefore is a “self imposed” hardship under the Unified Zoning Ordinance. McBurnett told the board that “if it were not because of the proposed 5 lots, staff is of the opinion that none of these variances would be needed.”

The petitioner’s attorney, Joe Humberberg of Paul Eggleston, said the project is a single coordinated development of three hotel buildings with shared banquet and meeting spaces and that the Area Plan Commission gave preliminary plat approval last December by a 15‑0 vote. “There is also a provision in the staff reports of that night, and tonight even, that what they are asking to have done here will not substantially, adversely affect any of the neighbors at all,” Humberberg said. He and the petitioner committed to providing cross‑access easements and a parking agreement between lots if the variances were approved.

Greg Jones, representing the Battle Ground Redevelopment Commission, spoke in favor of redevelopment but asked for clarity on parking and stormwater. Jones asked, “Where are they gonna go?” when describing full banquet use and expressed concern about the adequacy of the proposed stormwater location shown on the plan. McBurnett and the petitioner said stormwater design will be reviewed by the town’s engineering consultant (Butler, Fairman & Seaford) during the development phase and that a revised site plan could return to the board if required.

Board members pressed the petitioner on phasing and parking. Mark Petty of MGM Plaza said phasing is the sole reason for creating separate lots: “The phasing is the sole reason for the subdivision. It is going to be an $80,000,000 project.” Staff explained some parking areas shown on renderings—particularly 74 spaces on Lot 5—were not counted as part of the variance requests because Lot 5 was excluded from the current filings; staff said additional variances for Lot 5 are likely once uses for the retail lots are identified.

The board voted by ballot on each variance. The rear setback, height and vegetative‑coverage variances passed unanimously; the parking variance passed 5–2. As conditions, staff recommended—and the record shows the petitioner committed to—cross‑access easements and a shared parking agreement to be recorded with the final plat or as a referenced document.

Because staff framed the hardship as created by the proposed lot lines, McBurnett reiterated the technical remedy: redesign the subdivision as fewer lots or a single lot to avoid most of the variances. The petitioner and several board members said the subdivision and phased construction are necessary for project feasibility and financing, and that further engineering review during permitting will address drainage, emergency access and detailed parking counts.

The board’s approvals allow the petitioner to proceed toward final platting and building permit submittals, subject to the cross‑access and parking commitments and standard permitting reviews.