MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MICHIGAN CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 2013

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MICHIGAN CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 2013 The Michigan City Plan Commission met in a regular meeting in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall Building, 100 East Michigan Boulevard, Michigan City, Indiana, on Tuesday, August 27, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. local time, the date, hour, and place duly established for the holding of said meeting. CALL TO ORDER President G. Wallace Hook called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Craig Phillips called the roll. A full board was noted present for the record: Michael Gresham, G. Wallace Hook, Fred Klinder, Faye Moore, Charles Peller, Jim Powers, Chris Schwanke, Tim Smith, and Al Whitlow (9 present 0 absent). Staff in attendance: Planning Director Craig Phillips, Attorney Steven Hale, and Planning Department Secretary Debbie Wilson. It was noted for the record that a pre-meeting was held prior to this meeting at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The chair entertained a motion for approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of July 23, A motion to approve was made by Mr. Gresham; seconded by Mr. Klinder. The roll was called and the vote taken: (Ayes): Michael Gresham, G. Wallace Hook, Fred Klinder, Faye Moore, Charles Peller, Jim Powers, Chris Schwanke, Tim Smith, Al Whitlow (Nays): None POLICY OF CONDUCT AND PROCEDURES With no objections, President Hook dispensed with the reading of the Policy of Conduct and Procedures but asked that it be included as part of the record. The Policy of Conduct and Procedures for the Michigan City Plan Commission states that the Commission is composed of nine persons. By statute, five must vote

2 affirmatively to approve a petition. Thus, whenever less than a full board is present, the petitioner may wish to continue his/her hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on a petition or to the board in general at the end of the meeting may do so by approaching the speaker s roster and giving his/her name and address. Comments should be addressed to the Plan Commission, not to a petitioner or remonstrator or others in the audience. The Plan Commission vote is based on the evidence presented. PETITION(S) The chair called for reading of the first petition. Mr. Phillips read Petition P request by Jong M. Lee for rezoning from R1D to B2 to continue to utilize the property in a manner consistent with a B2 zoning designation at Ripley Street (represented by Attorney Atley Price). Attorney Atley C. Price, P. O. Box 277, Michigan City, Indiana, came forward on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Price introduced the petitioner, Jong M. Lee who purchased the subject property 2-3 years ago. Mr. Price explained that the rear (Ripley Street portion) of the building for which the petitioner is seeking rezoning, was recently vacated by the previous tenants (the Migliore family who owned the entire parcel of property and operated Lake Michigan Bolt for several decades). When Mr. Lee found a renter for the parcel who was going to operate a small commercial business (a religious bookstore), they discovered the zoning on that rear portion of the property had an R1D zoning classification while the parcel fronting on Franklin Street remained B2. Mr. Price stated that this problem arose a few years ago when Michigan City went through the process of adopting zoning classifications consistent with the overall master plan throughout the county. Mr. Price stated that whether by CAD or human error, when the lines were drawn it dissected parcels of properties. Mr. Price provided and read findings in support of the petition and asked that the commission give the request due consideration and grant the motion. There were no questions or comments from the commission. The chair opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none, closed public comments. The chair called for reading of the department reports. Mr. Phillips indicated that the Fire and Water Departments had no objections. Mr. Phillips added that based on his review of the petition he found the request to be consistent with appropriate considerations for the rezoning of the property given the Page 2 of 7

3 previous and current use and the way the property fits into the overall corridor. Mr. Phillips recommended that the commission favorably consider the request. Mr. Price had no summation. Mr. Powers commented that he did not see a survey on the property and said it could be part of the reason why there was a mistake where the lines were drawn. He added that he had no objections to the rezoning. Mr. Phillips interjected that this was just a detail issue with regard to the drawing of the zoning lines when it was established; it was basically an oversight. The chair called for a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the findings incorporated in the petitioners application and to forward Petition P to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation; seconded by Mr. Schwanke. The roll was called and the vote taken: (Ayes): Michael Gresham, G. Wallace Hook, Fred Klinder, Faye Moore, Charles Peller, Jim Powers, Chris Schwanke, Tim Smith, Al Whitlow (Nays): None The chair called for reading of the next petition. Mr. Phillips read Petition P request by M. S. Foster & Associates for rezoning from B2 to M1 to allow for commercial and light industrial use at 1040 Highway 212. Attorney Atley C. Price, P. O. Box 277, Michigan City, Indiana, came forward on behalf of the petitioner. He noted that he represented the Foster s a few months ago when they appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals on this particular piece of property. Mr. Foster distributed additional drawings (rendering, elevation, site plan) to the commission. Mr. Price explained that this property has already been subject to a Board of Zoning Appeals use variance granted for the purpose of utilizing the property as indicated in the petition for a business that Mr. Foster operates which deals in the aftermarket distribution and installation of various components for fleet trucks. At the time this went before the Zoning Board, Mr. Foster anticipated the amount and type of work he would be engaging in would suffice under the terms and conditions as established within the variance granted by the Board. Page 3 of 7

4 Mr. Price continued that shortly after the variance was granted, a property owner immediately to the north (former Chuck s 212 Bargain Center) was acquired by a new owner who chose to petition the Plan Commission for a rezoning to a M1 classification. Since the time Mr. Foster obtained the use variance, he has also acquired the property fronting on Warnke Road immediately east of the subject property, and that property was already zoned M1. Mr. Foster s property is now essentially an island on M1 properties. Also since obtaining the variance, Mr. Foster believes the state of his business is such that it could reach a level where it may have certain components or he may be selling products for services not otherwise contemplated or presented to the Zoning Board that would be inclusive within the use variance, but nevertheless would be a contemplated and allowed use under an M1 zoning classification. Some individuals/clients would come to his business. All truck activity would enter off of Highway 212. Access from Warnke Road would be reserved for customers entering the office area. Mr. Price acknowledged that Mr. Foster has already agreed to and would adhere to the lighting and landscaping plans. Mr. Price stated that the timeline for the improvements would commence after the infrastructure is in place. Mr. Price provided and reviewed findings in support of the petition. Mr. Smith referred to the rendering and commented that it is an attractive building. He questioned if there would be adequate parking for the number of trucks and asked how many trucks would be pulling off of Highway 212. Mike Foster, 1040 Highway 212, Michigan City, responded that there is more than adequate parking. He said there is a large parking lot off of Highway 212 and he also owns the property directly behind it. He explained that most of the business will be municipalities; there won t be a lot of semi traffic. There were no other questions or comments from the commission. The chair opened the hearing for public comment and hearing none, closed public comments. The chair called for reading of the department reports. Mr. Phillips indicated that the Fire Department had no objections but requested an inspection of the building prior to opening. The Water Department had no objections. Mr. Phillips added that he reviewed the request and recommended the Plan Commission favorably consider this request based on the fact that he found it to be consistent with comprehensive plan for the community; the land in this area is characterized by a mixture of industrial and commercial type uses; the general goals of the city are that this become a focus in terms of employment and an economic Page 4 of 7

5 development corridor; and the surrounding zoning to the north and east is also zoned M1. Attorney Price had no summation. Mr. Powers commented that he did run the survey on this and it has zero gaps, so the commission knows they are talking about his parcel. The chair entertained a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Peller to adopt the findings incorporated in the petitioners application and to forward Petition P to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation; seconded by Ms. Moore. The roll was called and the vote taken: (Ayes): Michael Gresham, G. Wallace Hook, Fred Klinder, Faye Moore, Charles Peller, Jim Powers, Chris Schwanke, Tim Smith, Al Whitlow (Nays): None PUBLIC HEARING Proposed amendments to Article of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Adult Business Entertainment Mr. Phillips stated that the public hearing is for the purpose of information gathering at this point. Mr. Phillips provided background information stating that the city hired Duncan Associates to assist with drafting ordinance language regarding adult use establishments. A committee was formed by the Plan Commission to work with the consultant to develop the standards. The committee has been meeting for several months and is very close to completion of its work to present proposed language to Plan Commission which would ultimately be considered by the City Council. Mr. Phillips called attention to the documents provided to the commission and pointed out that they draft in nature and for the purpose of information only at this point. There will be a scheduled formal public hearing for the purpose of the introduction of the actual ordinance language most likely at the September meeting. He explained to the commission that one of the documents gives a step by step explanation of the proposed ordinance amendments. This document makes references to changes in (1) the tables of Articles 7, 8, and 9; (2) Article 14 Use Regulations; and (3) Article 31 Definitions. He noted that the committee made several revisions to those at their committee meeting tonight. Mr. Phillips explained that the second document is the supporting documentation necessary to go along with amendments of this type because it deals with first amendment right issues. Mr. Phillips stated that this is common practice to provide the background and necessary legal basis for establishing that there are secondary Page 5 of 7

6 negative effects with regard to these types of uses, references to the many documents supportive of those secondary effects, and the need for these types of ordinances on the part of the community. Mr. Hook went on record to thank Mr. Phillips, Mr. Hale, and the committee for their work on this. Attorney Hale made reference to the study of sexually oriented businesses by the Duncan and Associates. The study was conducted in LaPorte County and includes a study of establishments within the city limits of Michigan City. Mr. Hale stated that it is very pertinent and current and encouraged the commission to read this to help them understand the issues and why the committee is going to propose the ordinance. Attorney Hale stated that the proposals will be presented to the commission next month along with a formal public hearing and possible passing at the October meeting. President Hook opened the public hearing for comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed. NEW BUSINESS Attorney Hale noted that tonight the commission had two petitions for a change in zoning. Those changes require public notice to those people that have adjoining properties and publication in the newspaper. He explained to the commission that there is a different type of amendment to the zoning ordinance amendment to the text; and the commission has the ability through their rules to both define who the interested parties are and how they should receive notice. Attorney Hale recommended that the commission adopt the following rule of procedure: For purposes of considering changes or amendments to the text of the Michigan City Joint Zoning Ordinance, being Ordinance 4120, (a) The term interested parties shall include all persons who are residents of or who own property within the City of Michigan City, Indiana, and (b) notice to interested parties shall be by (1) notice in at least two newspapers as defined by IC at least on two occasions each; one time at least ten (10) days before and one time at least three (3) days before the public hearing, and (2) posting notice at Michigan City City Hall and the Michigan City Public Library at least ten (10) days before the public hearing thereof. Mr. Hale stated that the commission should understand the need for providing public notice for these sorts of things and requested that the commission consider the rule he proposed. Page 6 of 7

7 Mr. Gresham asked what necessitated the change and questioned if this was not currently being done. Mr. Hale replied that it is but felt that in matters the commission is considering there is a need to reach out and make sure the community has plenty of notice. Mr. Phillips echoed that it is important in cases of text amendments, especially text amendments of a sensitive nature so it is clear that interested parties as defined by the Plan Commission have been notified. Mr. Gresham stated that he had no objection to the notification being done but was just curious what necessitated the rule itself. Mr. Phillips replied that the text amendments being presented to the commission next month is one reason and the other is that there currently is not a specific policy on record with regard to how to conduct that business. The chair entertained a motion. Mr. Gresham made a motion to adopt the rule of procedure as presented by Mr. Hale; seconded by Mr. Schwanke. The roll was called and the vote taken: (Ayes): Michael Gresham, G. Wallace Hook, Fred Klinder, Faye Moore, Charles Peller, Jim Powers, Chris Schwanke, Tim Smith, Al Whitlow (Nays): None PUBLIC COMMENT (None) ADJOURNMENT With no other business to come before the commission, President Hook declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:35 p.m. /s/ Michael Gresham, Secretary Page 7 of 7