I. The meeting was called to order with the following members present: Ardean Friesen, Angela McKenna, Karen Fairfield, and Laura Coyne. Also present were City Planner Joe Hauflaire and City Attorney Jim Kolbus.
II. Approval of Minutes from 01-24-06 –McKenna/Fairfield, 4-0 unanimous
III. The Zoning/Subdivision Ordinances were unanimously filed into Record – Fairfield/Coyne 4-0.
Mr. Friesen said that for those people who may be here for the first time, he would go over the procedures of the Board meeting. Mr. Friesen stated that first, he reads the petition, and then the petitioner comes up to speak. Mr. Friesen said that anyone who came up to speak must first state his or her name and address. Mr. Friesen stated that after the petitioner's presentation, any supporters could come up to speak, and after that people with questions, concerns or in remonstrance will be able to speak. Mr. Friesen said that the Board would do their best to find the answers. Mr. Friesen said that after people with questions or concerns, then the petitioner can speak again and then Mr. Hauflaire presents his staff report, and the Board may have further questions of the petitioner. Mr. Friesen stated that the public hearing will be closed after that and once the public hearing is closed, there will be no further audience comment. Mr. Friesen said that if there are any remaining questions, they should be directed to the Planning Office.
IV. Withdrawals/Postponements – none
V. Developmental Variances – (Tabled from January 24, 2006 meeting)
06-03DV Matthew and Kari Katzer request a variance to permit an accessory building up to the Hackett Road right-of-way where a setback of 25' is required. The subject property is generally located at 1107 Highland Drive and zoned residential R-1.
Mr. Kolbus said that last month there was a public hearing on this item and it was heard in general and the Board should focus on the new info, such as overall height, distance from right of way and square footage of the accessory structure.
Petitioner Presentation
Kari Katzer, 1107 Highland Drive, stated that her husband couldn't be here due to teaching and coaching commitments and that she was here in his place.
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire said the shed is 10' x 12' in area and the overall height is 17' and the Zoning Ordinance allows a height of 14', so depending on the way the board is leaning, it is likely they will have to go back and advertise if they think it should remain. He stated it is the staff's opinion that the shed should be removed from the setback area. Mr. Hauflaire said the request was to build up to the right of way and he recommends the shed to be used for the storage of household items.
Mr. Kolbus asked if the Board had a question about the area on top.
Mrs. Katzer stated the door doesn't have to be there, but there is storage on top where they keep bicycles and other things.
Ms. McKenna asked if Mr. Hauflaire knew the exact distance the shed was from the road.
Mr. Hauflaire said he doesn't think so, but he believes that would be splitting hairs because they are asking for 1-2' from the right of way but he doesn't have the exact distance.
Mr. Friesen asked if there were any other questions.
Mrs. Katzer said the shed is located against the woods, it's not sticking out, it's just kind of hidden. She said she thought her husband had presented everything, and that there is just no other good place for the shed on the property.
06-02UV Oaklawn Psychiatric Center, Inc. requests a use variance to permit the construction of an educational wing to be attached to the existing Oaklawn facilities and to allow the construction of a roadway that connects to Michigan Avenue. The subject property is generally located at 330 Lakeview Drive and zoned residential R-1.
Petitioner Presentation
Greg Hartzler, 130 N. Main Street, said he filed quite a bit of paperwork and the drawings should give you a picture of what it will look like. He said this was annexed into the city and treated like a PUD, although it isn’t. Mr. Hartzler said they come to the Board when they want to add a building. Mr. Hartzler stated there are several modular buildings on the site being used for educational purposes and they would like to add an educational wing. Mr. Hartzler said they have education programs that are taught by Goshen Community Schools for residents in their facilities, and they need an adequate facility for that and to meet their current needs. Mr. Hartzler stated they have identified the location and the Board has pictures and floorplan of what the building will look like. He said they have been working with the neighbor to use Michigan Avenue when it goes through and have met with various staff including zoning and engineering and they understand that part of this involved a replat by the neighborhood, but they plan on doing that. Mr. Hartzler said they are 130' from their closest neighbor and this request is consistent with the use in the past and this shouldn't infringe on their neighbors and it will enhance the services at Oaklawn.
Mr. Kolbus said this is all within a special use area.
Mr. Hartzler said this will replace what is there and should be finished by the time school starts.
Ms. McKenna asked if the modular units would be removed.
Mr. Hartzler said they would be.
Ms. Fairfield asked what was going on at the end of Michigan Avenue and stated she doesn't think the road is in.
Mr. Hartzler said he would have Barry Pharis speak about that.
Barry Pharis, 1009 S. 9th Street said that if you look at the shaded area on the map, there's a large white area at the intersection of Johnston Street and Michigan Avenue that is unplatted. He said it needs to go to the north and west to be completed but that it is under construction now.
Ms. McKenna asked if there would be lighting around the gate.
Mr. Hartzler said they would do whatever they needed to do and this is an emergency and maintenance access point, it's not for the public.
Mr. Hauflaire stated he would like to advise the Board that the extension of Michigan Avenue into Oaklawn would be decided by Plan Commission. He said that the Board's decision may allow it, but they will need Plan Commission approval to get right of way and suggested that maybe the lights could be part of that approval.
Ms. McKenna said she just wanted to know the intentions.
Ms. Fairfield asked if the decision was two-fold.
Mr. Hauflaire said that it was, and they were being asked to decide if the addition was ok and if the commercial complex can exit on a residential street.
Ms. Fairfield asked if the Board's decision goes to Plan Commission.
Mr. Kolbus said conditions 4, 5, and 6 address that.
Audience Comments – there was no one to speak to the petition.
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire stated that although the Board may say yes, Plan Commission may still say no. He said that the staff recommends approval of the two matters and there are pretty stiff conditions as to who can access through this point and they have been told that there will be about 5-6 individuals using this entrance during business hours and there are enough conditions placed on the approval that they would have good management of the site.
The public hearing was closed.
Action
A motion was made and seconded, Coyne/McKenna, to adopt the staff analysis and recommendations as amended as the findings and conclusions of the Board, and based on these findings and conclusions, approve 06-02UV with staff conditions as written. The motion passed 4-0
VII. Developmental & Use Variances - public hearing items
06-05DV & 06-04UV LaCasa of Goshen, Inc. requests a use variance to change the use from a boarding house to permit a total of approximately 14 apartments consisting of a combination of one and two bedrooms, and efficiency units and a developmental variance to allow no on-site parking where 18 on-site parking spaces are required. The subject property is generally located at 210 E. Lincoln Avenue and zoned commercial B-2.
Petitioner Presentation
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire stated he would ask the Board to support the request and at the last City Council meeting, the parking pass area was reconfigured and now includes this property. Mr. Hauflaire stated this would require individuals in the building to purchase parking passes which allow an individual to park in lots the city owns or runs without restriction and the closest lot is on 5th Street, about 2 doors down, which resolves the parking issue. He said this was a wonderful thing, and if you are familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and the Hyett-Palma study, both of those encourage reducing the density and mixed use in the neighborhoods. He said this was quality housing and he encourages the Board to approve this petition as submitted.
06-06DV & 06-05UV LaCasa of Goshen, Inc requests a use variance to change the use from a boarding house to an apartment building with 16 apartments consisting of a combination of one and two bedroom units and developmental variance to allow no on-site parking where 24 on-site parking spaces are required. The subject property is generally located at 112-114 E. Lincoln Avenue and zoned commercial B-2.
Petitioner Presentation
Larry Gautsche, 601 S. 7th Street stated this request is similar to the previous one, but different because the current use already has the parking passes. He said this is just to reduce the resident density and he believes the Board has the site and floor plans.
Audience Comments – there was no one to speak to the petition.
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire said on the 27th the Planning Office received a letter in opposition. He said the Board has a copy of the letter from Nyal Weaver who is a property owner at 117 S. Main Street who thought it was a bad idea as it applies to relaxing the parking requirements. Mr. Hauflaire said he supports the request for reasons similar to the previous case.
The public hearing was closed.
Action
A motion was made and seconded, Coyne/Fairfield, to adopt the staff analysis and recommendations as amended as the findings and conclusions of the Board, and based on these findings and conclusions approve 06-06DV and 06-05UV. The motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Coyne said this is a big idea that was little for a very long time. She said that LaCasa is very visionary and the neighborhood will be so much better for that is going to be happening.
VIII. Developmental Variances – public hearing items
06-04DV Keystone RV requests a developmental variance to permit a driving aisle to within 3' Davis Drive where 30' is required. The subject property is generally located at 2420 Davis Drive and zoned industrial M-1.
Petitioner Presentation
Randy Huffman, 1502 Canton Drive said this is a new facility immediately west of the 2 existing ones and the parking lot is the same as the other 2 to the east. He stated that Davis Drive is currently private and has not been dedicated, but it was required south for the length of Davis Drive and Davis Drive is totally surrounded by Keystone property and this is the last development within.
Mr. Friesen asked if the building just to the north is the same distance.
Mr. Huffman said it is the same from Dierdorff and definitely within the setback on Dierdorff.
Mr. Friesen asked if there were any others.
Mr. Kolbus said it appears to be further away on the map.
Mr. Huffman said the parking lots are the same and that beyond the cul-de-sac is all Keystone property.
Ms. Coyne said that Mr. Huffman states he is trying to be consistent with what is there, but the denial cited that it is not consistent with the developmental standards of the surrounding property.
Mr. Hauflaire said that in public right of way, 20' is a standard setback, rather than the 3' they are asking for. Mr. Hauflaire stated 3' from the right of way seems too close and across the street the setback is at least 50' for parking. He said that to the east is a private easement, which is never likely to be dedicated and Davis Drive is not dedicated today but he knows it will be. Mr. Hauflaire stated he would amend the request to permit 20', which is typical of what they have done in many cases.
Mr. Friesen asked Mr. Huffman is he was familiar with the recommendation of 20'.
Mr. Huffman said he was not and that 20' would not allow for the drive, they would lose 40 spaces. Mr. Huffman said they wanted to keep it consistent with the others.
Mr. Kolbus asked Mr. Hauflaire how deep the parking area was and what they would lose with these recommendations.
Mr. Hauflaire stated its 107' deep and what he is suggesting will take it to 90'. Mr. Hauflaire stated that they will have to reconfigure the parking lot, or they can shift it. He stated there is a lot of asphalt surrounding the area.
Mr. Kolbus asked if he considered the cul-de-sac the start.
Mr. Hauflaire stated the back of the cul-de-sac.
Ms. McKenna asked if he envisioned grass and landscaping in there, similar to what's on the north.
Mr. Hauflaire stated he did.
Ms. McKenna stated they have been caught where they just filled in with gravel.
Mr. Friesen asked if there was room to put parking in on the west side.
Mr. Huffman stated there is a berm on the west, which is 75' wide.
Mr. Kolbus stated that the drawing shows the berm and a NIPSCO easement.
Mr. Hauflaire stated they couldn't go east in this area here.
Mr. Huffman said even if they take it up to the berm, there's still the setback off Dierdorff and there's not much to get.
Mr. Hauflaire said he would agree and stated it's residential on the west side of Dierdorff.
Mr. Huffman said they would need to keep the berm up.
Mr. Hauflaire stated it was required by the first decision.
Ms. McKenna said it would be hard to tell where the road was if they grant asphalt right up to the road.
Mr. Huffman said the right of way was 50 or 60 feet.
Ms. McKenna asked if there would be some greenspace in between.
Mr. Huffman said that once you are past the cul-de-sac, it's the factory entrance, which is all private property.
Ms. Coyne asked Mr. Hauflaire what his recommendation was.
Mr. Hauflaire stated it was to have a setback of 20' from the right of way, not the pavement.
Mr. Huffman said they need 20' to access the spaces and without the variance, they lose them all.
Ms. Coyne asked if the building was up yet.
Mr. Huffman said it was under construction.
Ms. Fairfield asked Mr. Hauflaire if they stuck with his recommendations would they lose the parking.
Mr. Hauflaire stated they would lose some things unless they shift, but that he hadn't redesigned the plan. Mr. Hauflaire said a bad guess of what they would lose is about 1/3.
Mr. Kolbus said it shifts the driving aisle.
Ms. Coyne said she doesn’t understand how they got this far assuming the variance would be granted and we're supposed to be concerned for them, but why would they assume that the variance would be granted. She asked what the law said about granting variances.
Mr. Kolbus said the use and value of the surrounding property shall not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
Ms. Coyne asked the use and development was in general or as desired by the owner.
Mr. Hauflaire stated the zoning clearance and permit were both issued for the building, the setbacks were not met and a variance was applied for.
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire stated he recommends denial of parking within 3' of right of way but he would like to modify the request to allow a setback of 20' where 30' is required and based on the standards through the area, 20' is typical. Mr. Hauflaire said across the street, they have a substantial setback which is further than the ordinance requires them to be and noted that the 20' is still less than what is required.
A motion was made and seconded, Coyne/McKenna, to adopt the staff analysis and recommendations as amended as the findings and conclusions of the Board, and based on these findings and conclusions, approve 06-04DV with the condition that the 20' setback area needs to be landscaped or greenspace. The motion passed 4-0.
06-13DV Forest Sign for Chase Bank requests a developmental variance to permit 2 wall signs where no wall signs are permitted due to lack of signable wall area above 10 feet. The subject property is generally located at 1719 Lincolnway East and zoned commercial B-1.
Petitioner Presentation
Don Jesswein, 2729 S. Main Street, South Bend, stated that he requests permission to construct 2 sets of illuminated letters about 14" tall. Mr. Jesswein stated that the building is not identifies and it is typical to identify the building of a business and there are quite a bit of woods and coming up Lincolnway from the south, the sign pops out but you can't see the building. He stated that going west on College Avenue, the woods are there and the only auto that can see the sign is the first one in line at the light because of the woods, but the building is at full exposure down the street.
Rob Steiner, 401 S. Main Street stated that he would ask the Board to consider the petition because these are busy roads and there's a lot of truck traffic that does block the signs. Mr. Steiner stated the building is not identified and he would ask the Board to allow the additional signs.
Audience Comments
Marvin Bartel, 1708 Lincolnway East stated the bank has been a good neighbor; they have an attractive year and fairly nice landscaping. Mr. Bartel stated they do have a nice graphic for the sign and the neighborhood is wooded and on all 4 sides it is residential except for the mini-golf center across the street. He stated that some beautiful Bradley Pears were donated and they have taken pride in the area. Mr. Bartel stated he had spoken to the branch manager about 8 months ago. He stated that they had already gained an additional sign to put up on College Avenue, which is close and in the face of residential homes. Mr. Bartel stated that would be expected on US 33 because it is a major thoroughfare, but the other one was given as an exception. Mr. Bartel said he doesn't live within 300', so he did not receive a notice, but a neighbor notified him and he took some pictures of the site this afternoon to illustrate. Mr. Bartel said the meetings should be in an interurban trolley so they could go to the different locations. He stated that there is no doubt about what the building is and you can see it for quite a distance down the road and he has been a customer since 1970. He said he has talked to the neighbor directly to the north, who is a colleague of his, who wondered why the lights on the parking lot signs were turned right into his house. Mr. Bartel said he didn't think the Board should approve the request.
Wilbur Birky, 1710 Lincolnway East stated that he lived within 300' and received notice of hearing, which was not very descriptive. Mt. Birky asked where the sign would be.
Mr. Jesswein stated 1 sign would face the golf course.
Mr. Birky asked if they would be on the building.
Mr. Jesswein said they would be.
Mr. Birky said he did not have an objection, but he wished the communication were clearer.
Mr. Bartel stated there is very clear signage on the ATM.
Ms. Coyne asked Mr. Bartel to get in touch with the bank about the lights.
Mr. Friesen stated the parking lot lighting is not the issue today.
Mr. Bartel stated that he would have the neighbor talk to the bank, but that it's difficult to do business with those who don't care.
Mr. Steiner stated that he has not worked there but he would be happy to go to the branch and talk to them about it and did not think it was intentional; they could have been bumped by snowplows or something, but he would talk to them tomorrow.
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire stated that there have been 3 letters in remonstrance to this and the 2 other sign petitions. He stated that Carolyn Hertzler said the signs were unnecessary because they already had 2, Julia Gautsche stated they should follow the staff recommendations and Lovina Rutt, who is a member of Plan Commission and also on the Sign Task Force, asked the request to be denied. Mr. Hauflaire stated that the staff recommends a denial of the petition and if they can't meet the requirements, then it's pretty clear. He said these wall signs wont do anything the freestanding signs aren't doing and Zoning Ordinance permits 1 freestanding sign and the second sign is on the property by a variance, and that's enough. Mr. Hauflaire said because of that, he would recommend denial of the petition for the wall signs.
Ms. Coyne asked if the sign on the ATM was effective.
Mr. Hauflaire stated that it draws attention to the site.
A motion was made and seconded, Fairfield/McKenna, to adopt the staff analysis and recommendations as the findings and conclusions of the Board, and based on these findings and conclusions, deny 06-13DV. The motion passed 4-0.
Petitioner Presentation
David Cripe, 1722 Bashor Road said he doesn't have a lot to say, but that the request is based on the need for space. Dr. Cripe said the building expansion will be behind the current building and the parking is behind that yet. Dr. Cripe said the rest of the project is to beautify with new siding, a new roof and landscaping.
Mr. Friesen asked if the parking would be paved.
Dr. Cripe stated it would be cement.
Audience Comments – There was no one to speak to the petition.
Staff Report and Discussion
Mr. Hauflaire said this property has been operating under a variance since March of 1981 and the conditions of that variance stated that any additional requests had to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval. He said this addition is away from the street and hardly visible and this is a large lot in a residential zone district. Mr. Hauflaire said that the Board has granted these variances for medical/professional offices in residential areas many times and this is similar to those requests.
Ms. McKenna asked if the parking area would be lighted.
Dr. Cripe said that they used to only have a post lamp, but they are open late 2 evenings a week so now they have a motion light, which is helpful for staff and there would be a post lamp in the corner
Ms. McKenna asked which corner.
Dr. Cripe said he didn't have the exact figure but (pointing to site plans) said that little space will be landscaped and he thought that was a good spot.
Ms. McKenna asked if that would be more centrally located.
Dr. Cripe said it would be behind the existing building between the 2 parking lots.
Ms. Fairfield said it looked like a really nice plan.
Petitioner Presentation
Todd Lehman, 1508 Bashor Road said he was approached about restoring the Bobby Jo's sign. Mr. Lehman said he took it down and the ordinance changed, however he completed the construction. Mr. Lehman said that he applied for a variance to permit the roof-mounted sign and was denied, and he is requesting this variance to take that sign from the roof and mount it to a pole in the parking lot and he is requesting a variance for the landscaping requirements because of the parking. He said they are trying to confine the sign to one parking spot and the construction is already complete and they would like to use what's already there.
Audience Comments – There was no one to speak to the petition.
