Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Area board grants parking and height variances for Genoa Salami multifamily project
Summary
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals approved two variances for a proposed multifamily building at 3595 Genoa Drive, allowing a reduced parking minimum and increased building height after staff recommended approval.
The Area Board of Zoning Appeals of Tippecanoe County granted two variances for a proposed multifamily building on Genoa Drive, allowing a reduction in required parking and an increase in maximum building height.
Staff recommended approval, and the board approved the parking variance by a 6–1 vote and the height variance by a 6–1 vote. The petitions were heard as BZA 21‑86, petitioner Genoa Salami LLC, represented by attorney Chris Schellman of Gutwein Law.
The board considered a request to reduce minimum parking from 280 spaces to 149 spaces (UZO 2‑8‑11) and to increase the maximum building height from 35 feet to up to 60 feet (UZO 2‑8‑20). Nathan McBurnett, Area Plan Commission (APC) staff, described the site as a R‑3 transition area surrounded by multifamily development and noted two existing bus stops and pedestrian access along Genoa Drive. McBurnett said the project sits in a multimodal corridor and that other nearby multifamily developments had received parking variances.
Chris Schellman, attorney for the petitioner, described the building as ‘‘technically’’ five stories with the first floor used for parking and entrance and four floors of residential units above it, and asked the board to approve the variances. Schellman and staff both said the predominance of one‑bedroom units in the building contributed to the request to reduce parking.
Board members asked about several numerical details recorded in the hearing. Staff and the petitioner gave inconsistent unit and parking counts during the discussion; however, both parties stated the petition seeks 149 total parking spaces, including five accessible spaces, and that staff recommended approval. Staff also said other recent projects in the area were approved with parking ratios of about 1.48 and 1.5 spaces per unit, while this request equates to roughly 1.1 spaces per unit according to staff statements.
The board cast seven ballots for each variance. On the parking variance the tally was 6 in favor, 1 opposed; on the height variance the tally was 6 in favor, 1 opposed. The board announced both variances were granted.
The record includes the Unified Zoning Ordinance, the Unified Subdivision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the board’s bylaws as evidence; those documents were incorporated into the public‑hearing record before testimony.
Votes at the hearing reflected only the tallies recorded on the official ballots; individual board members’ votes were not read aloud during the announcement of results.
The board moved on to other agenda items after announcing the grants.
