MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MICHIGAN CITY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2016

Transcription

1 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MICHIGAN CITY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2016 The Michigan City Board of Zoning Appeals met in a regular meeting in the Common Council Chambers, City Hall Building, 100 East Michigan Boulevard, Michigan City, Indiana, on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., the time, date and location for holding of said meeting. Chairman Jackson called the meeting to order, and upon roll call, the following answered present: Ricky Jackson, Wallace Hook, Lester Norvell, Karen Janus and Lawrence Zimmer. Also present: Counsel Steven A. Hale; Ms. Jessica Gage, Assistant Planner, and Planning Department; Janelle Robinson, Court Reporter. The first item of business on the agenda was the approval of the minutes from the Tuesday, March 8, 2016, regular meeting. made a motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by. With a roll call vote of all ayes, motion carried, and the minutes were Chairman Jackson called for the first petition. Petition B , Luke Stigler and Amber Poff requesting a Special Exception use and Development Standard Variance to allow an accessory dwelling unit in an R1E zoning district above a new garage which would exceed the maximum height of a detached accessory building located at 110 Felton Street. (Continued from March.) Mr. Stigler approached the lectern and re-introduced himself to the board. Counsel Hale advised that Mr. Stigler had not met the notice requirements, so didn t feel the board was ready to hear this matter. Mr. Stigler commented that after the last meeting some of the individuals who remonstrated made some comments to him, that he does not want to be in a combative environment, and that Counsel Hale is correct about not meeting the notice requirements. In addition, he requested that his petition be withdrawn and stated that they are not going to request the variance, that they re going to attach the structure to the primary structure and make the structure compliant with the code as it stands. He also stated that he feels there are some things that need to be clarified in regards to the code at to what is and is not an accessory structure, that it s been difficult to follow in the way it s currently written.

2 2 Counsel Hale advised Mr. Stigler that by withdrawing the petition he is not receiving a continuance and that it could delay his ability to restart a petition. He also explained to Mr. Stigler that he could withdraw his petition at any time in the future. Mr. Stigler chose to have his petition withdrawn against Counsel Hale s advice. The next petition called was B , Chicagoland SDI Properties, LLC/Great Lake Sonics, LLC requesting Special Use to allow a drive-thru for a newly proposed Sonic Drive-In located on U.S. Highway 20 in Dunes Plaza. Mr. Perry approached the lectern and introduced himself to the board, and proceeded to explain that in regards to the property they currently have under contract, as part of their due diligence and process of developing this location, they are requesting the Special Use permit to add and utilize a drive-thru on their building. Ms. Gage explains to the board that they still need to work through a landscaping plan, signage plan, lighting plan, but that this is the appropriate time to come before this board, because should a drive-thru or drive-in not be permitted for Sonic there is no reason to spend the rest of the money developing the other plans. There were no questions from the board at this point. Ms. Gage read into the record (H.I.) the Departmental Report, wherein the department recommended approval of the petition, though they think it is best to make the approval conditional to this user, that having a blanket approval for the drive-thru on this property would not be appropriate, as the checklist of use requirements was reviewed specific to this developer s proposal. Chairman Jackson states that before attorney s report is read he would like to have Mr. Perry talk about and go over some things. Mr. Perry explains to the board the unique layout of a Sonic restaurant, having both a drive-thru and drive-in stalls where carhops deliver food on roller skates to the cars, along with regular parking for customers who dine on the patio. He goes on to explain how their layout is planned to make it safe for the carhops on skates with the cars going through the drive-thru. There being no questions from the board, the public portion of the meeting was opened. There being no public comment, the public portion of the meeting was closed. Counsel Hale read the attorney s report (H.I.) into the record, and advised the board of their options. Departmental reports having been read into the record, Chairman Jackson called for a motion. It was moved my that the board approve the request to allow a special drive-thru for the newly proposed Sonic, and that the motion would include the Findings of Facts that were set forth by the Planning Department Report and the Attorney's Report, and the site plans as presented by the petitioner. Seconded by. Ms. Gage confirms that along with the motion made, some minor adjustments could be made as the development gets finalized by design, and that this is specific to this petitioner.

3 3 With a roll call vote of all ayes and no nays, the motion carried, and Petition B was The next petition called was: Petition B , Menard, Inc. requesting Development Standard Variance to allow setback relief for warehouse expansion located at Menard's at 5260 South Franklin Street. Counsel Hale advised the board that the notice requirements were not met by Menard s, that the petitioner acknowledged this error and requested the matter be continued so that that oversight can be corrected. Chairman Jackson states that Petition B will be continued over to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 10, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. The next petition called was: Petition B104-16, Michael and Kathleen Newman requesting Development Standard Variances to property setbacks to allow a home to be rebuilt using the existing building footprint at 1400 A Lake Shore Drive. (Represented by Attorney Christopher Willoughby.) Mr. Willoughby approached the lectern and introduced himself, his clients and the builder to the board, and proceeded to make his presentation, explaining their plan to rebuild their home using the same footprint as the existing home. questioned if they had approval from the fire department for access to the house from Lake Shore Drive. Mr. Willoughby and Ms. Gage explained that the fire department did not have any issues. questioned how the owners of the house directly to the south feel about their plans. Mr. Willoughby stated that she is in attendance at the meeting, and that his clients have been in contact with her regarding any questions or concerns she has had. asked about approval on the portion of the house and deck that will be rebuilt on park property. Mr. Willoughby explains that his clients have been before the Park Board and they have given them preliminary approval subject to this board s final approval. Counsel Hale goes on to explain that in their motion it is important they note that they are approving a zero lot line, only approving construction up to the property line, not beyond it. Ms. Gage clarifies that this is a non-conforming lot and it has its own provisions as referenced in Section There being no further questions from the board, the public comment portion of the meeting was opened. Sheila Brillson (phonetic), 1400 Lake Shore Drive, a new homeowner and neighbor of the Newmans, expressed her concern regarding drainage.

4 4 There being no further public comment, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. Chairman Jackson called for departmental reports. Ms. Gage read into the record (H.I.) the Departmental Report, commenting that she hesitates to use the term exact footprint since there are some variations. also states that there are some measurement differences. Mr. Newman approaches the lectern and explains to the board that the house on the new drawings is a different size. He points out that he has attached to an exhibit the new drawing and explains the changes in their plans, which included removing the bump-out from the home to make room for the two parking spaces. Chairman Jackson asked Mr. Newman if he would like to address the concerns brought up during public comment. Mr. Newman explained that his house is at the bottom of the lot, that they have one drain now and have discussed adding another. Counsel Hale read the Attorney s Report into the record and advised the board of their options regarding this petition, and that they can add conditions to their motion if they wish. Ms. Gage added that the two conditions proposed in the current Planning Department report included that it would meet the height requirements, and since the petitioners haven't proposed that variance for height, that it is irrelevant, and that the second condition was regarding off-street parking spaces provided, and that they have shown that in their current proposal, so those two conditions originally read are now irrelevant. Chairman Jackson consulted with Counsel Hale and the Petitioner about re-opening the public portion of the meeting, with no objection to doing so. Ms. Brillson re-approached the lectern and asked whose property the added parking is going to be on. Mr. Willoughby states that the parking will be completely on the Petitioner s property. There being no further public comment, the public portion of the meeting is again closed. inquired if it would be proper to ask Counsel Hale for assistance in making a motion. Counsel Hale stated that an appropriate motion would be to adopt the findings of the Planning Department as presented, to approve Petition B for Development Standard Variances, for a zero rear yard setback, for a two and a half foot west side yard setback, for a reduced east side setback, all as shown on Exhibit C2, and that include the front or Lake Shore Drive setback to 16 feet. requested that his motion to approve be as stated by Counsel Hale. Seconded by.

5 5 With a roll call vote of all ayes and no nays, the motion carried, and Petition B was The next petition called was: Petition B , Michael Whiting requesting Development Standard Variances to allow a water line to be run to the garage and to allow 55% of garage located at 721 South Calumet Avenue to be converted to a commissary for washing dishes and storage for mobile hotdog cart vendor. Counsel Hale advised the board that proper notification had not been completed by the Petitioner and that they requested their petition be moved to the next regularly scheduled meeting. ************************************************************************************************************************ Next item on the agenda is Old Business. The next item of business was approval of Decision and Findings of Fact for Petition B , Michiana Store-It. Counsel Hale read the Decision and Findings of Fact in its entirety. It was moved and seconded that the Decision and Findings of Fact as read into the record by Counsel Hale be approved for B With a roll call vote of all ayes, motion carried, and the Decision and Findings of Fact were There being no further old business, the next item on the agenda was Public Comment. There being no public present, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. BOARD SECRETARY