Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES July 2, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: PETITION #20A-08 Submitted by Dave Cravens for a Rudy Williams, President Variance from the Parking Requirement Harold Smith, Vice President Greg Spencer, Member located at 2309 Charles Street. Willie Rayford, Member Mr. Stires stated this property is located at MEMBERS ABSENT: 2309 Charles Street, it is the empty remaining piece of property on the Wal-Mart site, and Connie Klungness, Member was originally going to be a gas station on the northwest corner. Mr. Stires stated the gas OTHERS PRESENT: station was never built, so that land became available. It is a separate lot by itself and is Michael Widing, Development Director labeled Lot #9. Tim Stires, Assistant Development Director Stephanie George, Board Secretary, Mr. Stires stated that Mr. Cravens is in the Dave Wilbur, Sr. Zoning Administrator; and process of purchasing this property, which William C. Kreegar, Assistant City Attorney hasn’t been closed on yet. He is asking for his first continuance. ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A QUORUM: Mr. Spencer made the motion to continue Petition #20-08 and #20A-08 until the next Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 4:36 regular scheduled meeting. Mr. Smith p.m. Ms. George took roll call and declared seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. a quorum with four members in attendance. Mr. Williams performed the Invocation and PETITION #21-08 the Pledge of Allegiance. Submitted by Daryl and Kathie Goodwin for a Variance for Construction of a MINUTES: Detached Accessory Structure (barn) Prior to the Construction of a Principal The June 4, 2008 minutes were approved as Structure (house.) presented. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, 0 no. The June 18, 2008 minutes were approved as PETITION #21A-08 presented. Motion passed unanimously; 4 yes, Submitted by Daryl and Kathie Goodwin 0 no. for a Variance from the Livestock Requirement. BUSINESS: PETITION #21B-08 PETITION #20-08 Submitted by Daryl and Kathie Goodwin Submitted by Dave Cravens for a Special for a Variance from the Maximum Exception for a B-4 Development Plan. Allowable Size for a Detached Accessory Structure (barn) located at 6510 Ridgeview Drive. 1 Mr. Stires stated this property is located in added the animals would be kept in separate the 6500 block of Ridgeview Drive on the east corrals based on species. The donkeys, llamas side and is presently vacant farm ground. Mr. and alpacas can share the same corral. Mr. Stires stated the property contains 21.4 acres Stires stated the animals would be rotated and is zoned R-2. from corral to corral. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner received Mr. Stires stated the petitioner believes the approval for a variance from the livestock placement of the large barn on the far east prohibition more than five (5) years ago side of the property and behind the (future) (January 2003) which allowed them to have house and detached garage puts the barn a three (3) horses, three to five pygmy goats and considerable distance from any neighboring one cow or steer on the acreage. Mr. Stires homes. Mr. Stires added the placement of the added the variance approval expired before barn behind the house will also make any the petitioners built on the property. livestock hard to be seen by adjacent neighbors. Mr. Stires stated the submitted site plan shows the petitioner’s planned layout for their Mr. Stires stated the petitioners, after future home, detached garage, barn and consulting various sources, including the “mini-farm”. Mr. Stires added the residence Purdue Co-Op Extension website, believe will be located in the northeast quadrant of their proposed 21 acre homestead is more the property and separate pastures, a barn than adequate to support the raising of all the and a pond surrounding the home. The requested animals. property is accessed by way if a 20 ft. wide crushed stone driveway off the east side of Mr. Stires stated the petitioners have Ridgeview Drive. indicated there are at least three neighbors, the Orebaughs, Farmer’s and the Johnson’s, Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is requesting a in the general vicinity of their proposed home variance from the construction of the barn who currently have livestock on their prior to the construction of their house. Mr. property. Mr. Stires added the neighbors’ Stires added the proposed barn would livestock include horses, cows and goats. The measure 40 ft. by 60 ft. by 18 ft. high and be petitioners believe since three neighboring built on the eastern edge of the acreage, but properties with livestock are in close could be up to 15 percent larger. proximity to their acreage, then their proposed mini-farm would be an excellent site Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is seeking a for livestock as well. second variance from the maximum allowable size of a detached accessory building (barn). Mr. Stires stated Staff is recommending The petitioners would like to initially build approval of the three (3) variances the barn, get it completed as soon as possible (construction of the barn prior to the (Fall 2008) and build a house on the property construction of a house, construction of a next Spring or Summer (2009). Mr. Stires detached accessory building (barn) which added a detached accessory building is limited exceeds the maximum allowable square to 864 sq. ft. The construction of the house footage and the livestock prohibition.) Mr. would be contingent on getting their current Stires added the approval recommendation is house sold. based on the rural nature of the petitioner’s property, the overall size of the petitioner’s Mr. Stires stated the petitioners are property (21 acres), the fact three nearby requesting a variance from the livestock neighbors have livestock and the number of prohibition because of their desire to raise requested animals warrants a larger barn. animals on their property. The petitioners are Staff notes the petitioner also has plans in requesting to be allowed to have six (6) horses, place to deal with animal waste and approval (6) medium sized goats, two (2) donkeys, two will allow the petitioner to enjoy their past (2) llamas and three (3) alpacas. Mr. Stires time of riding horses. 2  Mr. Kreegar asked would the acreage handle a Mr. Widing stated the variances need to come herd that large? Mrs. Goodwin answered yes, before this Board as he has indicated to the one (1) to one and a half (1 ½) acres can Board before, the Board needs to keep in mind support six (6) goats, or six alpacas. There is that they are in the process of rewriting our plenty of acreage there to grow the herd for Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance. ten (10) or twenty years. Mr. Widing stated they are adding an agricultural zoning class, and in the future Mr. Williams asked what happened back in something like this may not come in front the 2003 that caused you not to build your house? Board, depending of the size of acreage and Mrs. Goodwin stated she went through a such. divorce. Mr. Williams asked is one of these the same Mr. Williams asked what are your reasons for variance they had back in 2003? Mr. Stires having the animals? Mrs. Goodwin stated her stated one of the variances is the same, but daughter shows goats in 4-H. they added two additional variances by building the barn first. Mr. Stires added the Mr. Williams asked you have six (6) goats animals are slightly different in the types of right now? Mrs. Goodwin answered no just animals they want and the number. one (1). Mr. Williams asked Mr. Kreegar they want a Mr. Williams asked the waste is going to be variance for animals, where do they go if they taken care of, have you already talked to the end up with seven or eight horses? Mr. neighbors? Mrs. Goodwin stated that goats Kreegar stated they would be stuck with what and alpacas have pellet dung, they don’t have they have applied for. The ordinance states a clean-up program for those animals but the they can’t have anything. Mr. Kreegar added horses definitely. The manure from the barn the petition says you are going to have x and stables would be collected and could be re- amount of animals. If you have more than distributed over the pastures for fertilizer or that, they will have to come back before the gardens. Board, since they are only approving what you asked for. Mr. Williams asked why do you need an oversized barn? Mrs. Goodwin answered for Daryl and Kathie Goodwin, 6610 S. 675 W., multiple stalls for the different types of Pendleton, Mrs. Goodwin stated they are animals, have a nice size hayloft for the going to start out with three (3) alpacas but storage of hay from Mr. Orebaugh and for the they want to breed them and eventually grow tractor. the herd. Mrs. Goodwin asked is it possible to change the number of alpacas to a larger Mr. Widing stated that our standard is number? Mr. Kreegar, with the Board’s somewhat restrictive, he doesn’t believe what permission, someone would have to put that they are proposing is that large. into the motion to increase the number. Mr. Kreegar asked what do you want that number Mr. Spencer asked are these animals that you to be? are going to keep, are they just for your own recreation use, or do you anticipate some type Mr. Widing stated he thinks the prudent thing of petting zoo that would be a benefit to the to do is to give a number and not wait on the community? Mrs. Goodwin stated there new zoning ordinance, just to have it on record current vision is only for their use, but she has this evening. had conversations with the Lutheran Disabled Ministries that is directly south of their Mrs. Goodwin stated she would like to have property, about possibly their disabled up to 20 alpacas within the next 10 years. members coming over and interacting with the animals. 3 Mr. Spencer asked you want to breed the and this property was already granted a alpacas, is that for a profit? Mrs. Goodwin similar variance in the past that expired. The answered the alpaca fiber is very valuable and approval of the proposed variance would not there are a lot of co-ops in the United States adversely affect the surrounding properties that will buy that from you. because the property is rural in nature and they have at least three of their neighbors Mr. Spencer asked income for yourself not to that currently have farm animals, and this hire employees? Mrs. Goodwin answered yes. piece of property will most likely fall into a forthcoming agricultural zone class in the Mr. Williams asked what will happen if you do future. The strict application of the terms of not sell your current house? Mr. Goodwin the zoning ordinance would result in practical stated the goal is to sell the house and move to difficulties in the use of the property, if the the new one. The house will be for sale soon. proposed variance were denied because the petitioner enjoys horse riding and interacting Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve with their farm animals as a form of Petition #21-08 based on the following recreation, and a similar variance was already findings of fact. The approval of the proposed granted in the past. Mr. Rayford seconded. variance would not be injurious to the public Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because the structure that Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve they want a variance on is a considerable Petition #21B-08 based on the following distance from neighboring homes. This findings of fact. The approval of the proposed structure would not require a variance if the variance would not be injurious to the public home was already built and they are going to health, safety, morals and general welfare of build a home when they sell their existing the community because this structure will be home. The approval of the proposed variance located a considerable distance from would not adversely affect the surrounding neighboring homes, and the animals that will properties because the property is in the City be housed in this structure, the petitioners limits, but it is a rural part of town. This have a plan to deal with any animal waste structure is a considerable distance from that is created. The approval of the proposed neighboring properties. The strict application variance would not adversely affect the of the terms of the zoning ordinance would surrounding properties because this location result in practical difficulties in the use of the is already in a rural area and they have three property, if the proposed variance were denied neighbors that have barns and livestock. The because this property is in a rural area at strict application of the terms of the zoning least three of their neighbors currently have ordinance would result in practical difficulties farm animals that require a similar type of in the use of the property, if the proposed barn structure and they want to utilize this variance were denied because the number of structure for their own recreation. Mr. Smith animals they want to keep, need to be in a seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. larger structure as this variance will allow. Mr. Rayford seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 Mr. Spencer made the motion to approve no. Petition #21A-08 based on the following findings of fact and with a change to the PETITION #22-08 petition. Increase the number of alpacas Submitted by Nestle USA and The Stellar referenced in this petition from three (3) to Group for a Special Exception for an I-3 twenty. The approval of the proposed variance would not be injurious to the public health, Amended Planned Industrial safety, morals and general welfare of the Development. community because this property is a large size, approximately 21 acres, and the PETITION #22A-08 petitioners have a plan in place to deal with Submitted by Nestle USA and The Stellar the animal waste that is going to be generated Group for a Variance from the Number 4 of Loading / Unloading Berths located at expanded office (11,572 sq. ft.) pump house, 4301 West 73rd Street. wastewater building and a guardhouse. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner has indicated Mr. Widing stated before Mr. Stires makes his the plant expansion is due to a new beverage presentation on this next petition, he would product that will be manufactured at this like to make a comment concerning this facility. petition. The City and Nestle have created a great partnership, and recently their Mr. Stires stated the submitted site plan consulting firm, The Stellar Group, has filed shows the proposed plant addition easily this new petition with us. Mr. Widing stated meets all setback and height requirements. this petition is not nor should it signal that The site plan shows the plant expansion will this next addition is a guarantee that this has include the addition of a third access drive on definitely been selected for the City of the south side of West 73rd Street. Mr. Stires Anderson. added the expansion also includes 47 new truck parking spaces between the guardhouse Mr. Widing stated to his understanding that and new addition, and 11 new docks doors on there are other communities in competition the new shipping dock. The addition of 11 with Anderson for this other product line that more loading and unloading berths in the new this addition represents. What the Nestle addition puts the total number of docks well group is doing is getting all the approvals in over the maximum allowable. Mr. Stires place so when they make the decision to go stated they are requesting a variance from the forward those approvals are in place and can loading and unloading requirement. move quickly. Mr. Stires stated the new access drive and Mr. Widing stated a representative from The truck parking area will be asphalted, but not Stellar Group is here today, and he wanted to curbed due to drainage concerns. The site plan make a quick comment about this petition. also shows there will be no sidewalks and no cross access between the plant site and Mr. Stires stated this property is located in neighboring properties. Mr. Stires added the the 4000 though 4600 blocks of West 73rd lack of sidewalks and cross access is due Street on the south side. This is the 183-acre mainly to safety concerns and security. The platted lot of Anderson’s new multi-million Board’s previously granted waivers from the dollar Nestle manufacturing plant, which Board’s three Design Standards (curbing, began construction in mid-2006, and is sidewalks and cross access) back in 2006; nearing completion and will have a workforce therefore the waivers are not required a of approximately 300 employees. second time. Mr. Stires stated the Nestle site is zoned I-3 Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is not Industrial Reserved and directly south or proposing any new signage. Mr. Stires added across the street from Carter Logistics and the lights would be 39 ft. high pole lights with Dukes Trucking. 400 watt to 1000-watt high-pressure sodium lamps. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is seeking special exception approval for an I-3 Amended Mr. Stires stated the petitioner has submitted Planned Industrial Development for a sizable drainage plans to the City Engineer for manufacturing and warehouse building review. Mr. Stires added the petitioner expansion on the north side of the Nestle understands no permits for construction can Plant. The proposed expansion measuring 200 be issued until a drainage permit or drainage ft. by 1200 ft. by 24 ft. high will house sign-off has been approved. manufacturing, warehousing and trucking operations. Mr. Stires stated the expansion Mr. Stires stated the landscaping on the north includes the addition of production area side of the Nestle plant expansion would (212,649 sq. ft.), shipping (24,655 sq. ft.), 5 mainly be the planting of grass around the everything could hit the ground running and construction area. The petitioner plans to more forward at a quick pace. complete the plantings along West 73rd Street of several evergreen trees approved during the Mr. Williams asked the construction would first phase of the Nestle plant in 2006. Mr. start then if the petitions were approved? Mr. Stires added lot coverage calculations indicate Monday stated yes. more than 70 percent of the 183 acres will remain green or landscaped, and with an I-3 Mr. Williams asked you are standing before zone class it has maximum allowable lot the Board wanting this to happen as quickly coverage of 80 percent. as possible. Mr. Monday answered yes, so they can continue with the selection process and Mr. Stires stated that Staff is recommending things can move forward. approval of the special exception (I-3 Amended Planned Industrial Development) and Mr. Williams asked what would be the lead- variance (loading and unloading berths), time for construction if the petitions were because the proposed Nestle plant expansion approved? Mr. Monday stated the construction meets or exceeds a majority of Figure 9 process is about a year. Requirements and all setback requirements. Mr. Stires added the proposed expansion Mr. Spencer stated this might apply to Mr. would bring additional economic development Widing as well as Mr. Monday. Mr. Spencer benefits and provide new employment asked that Anderson is in competition with opportunities. other communities, so does that mean that the City is offering possible incentives, how are we competing? Are they under confidentiality Mr. Williams asked if both petitions were agreements? approved, and we don’t get that wonderful product, what do you do with expansion? Mr. Widing stated it is not just Anderson, but the whole state of Indiana. Mr. Widing added Donald Monday Jr., 4850 Seascape Way, yes, there is a confidentiality agreement and Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Monday answered if we cannot discuss them. Anderson doesn’t get selected, the expansion will go to wherever was selected. Mr. Spencer asked this expansion would require additional infrastructure? Mr. Widing Mr. Williams asked is there a contingency stated at this point he believes the entire plan if we don’t get that product line? Mr. infrastructure is in place to support this Monday stated not at this point, at this point expansion. the addition is a package that is being reviewed by and for potential communities as Mr. Spencer stated he had a copy of the well as Anderson. project agreement between the City of Anderson and Nestle for the original project. Mr. Williams asked would we have a better On this agreement, exhibit B, states in the chance with this already in place than without opening paragraph from Anderson Municipal it? Mr. Monday stated yes, the odds are better Light and Power. Mr. Spencer added it states for a situation that is expanding to an existing no current plans for filing for any rate facility than a new plant. revisions is anticipated, this is August 2006. Sixteen months later in December 2007, Mr. Williams asked when would we find out Anderson Municipal Light and Power is about getting the new product? Mr. Monday insolvent, borrowing money just to make the stated he did not know the answer to that. payroll, and going before the Indiana regulatory Commission and City Council for a Mr. Monday stated once the decision is made, 10.5 percent increase, something happened in if we already get the approval from the Board, those sixteen months. Mr. Spencer stated they 6 know the Nestle project happened, that may Mr. Rayford asked you estimated some jobs or may not have any bearing on that. could come with that expansion, would those jobs come from people that have been Mr. Widing stated he did not believe Nestle displaced in other area? Would they have first had a bearing on that. shot at these jobs or would these jobs be for the Anderson area? Mr. Widing said under Mr. Spencer stated he just wanted assurance state statute we cannot limit these jobs just to that any expansions will not cause new Andersonians, nor limit it to the area. insolvencies to any city department, and he doesn’t believe it would. Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve Petition #22A-08 based on the following Mr. Widing stated he could only speak about findings of fact. The approval of the proposed his department, this juncture, this variance would not be injurious to the public administration is not going to wave any health, safety, morals and general welfare of permit fees this time. Mr. Widing stated the community, because this is an expansion during the last go around, they waved all the of an existing production facility and economic permit fees. development opportunities. The approval of the proposed variance would not adversely Mr. Spencer stated to Mr. Monday that affect the surrounding properties because the Anderson wants this development to come to surrounding areas are zoned industrial and our community and it is important to the increased business activity may increase the community. Mr. Spencer added all he wanted surrounding property values. The strict to do was voice his concerns. application of the terms of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties Mr. Williams asked 80 loading and unloading in the use of the property, if the proposed berths is that going to be enough? Mr. Monday variance were denied because it would not stated at this time that would be enough. allow for the necessary loading and unloading requirements of the products that are being Mr. Widing stated being involved with the produced here at the facility. Mr. Smith construction process and knowing a small seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no. amount of how this product is flowing through this facility, and how the product will be taken Mr. Spencer made the motion to approve out of the plant, there are a lot of trucks that Petition #22-08 based on the following would be coming and going out of the facility. findings of fact. The proposed special exception is in a proper zone district. The Mr. Smith asked how much sewage would be requirements of Figure 9 have been met or coming from this facility? Mr. Widing stated variances have been granted. The proposed he wished Nara Manor, the Superintendant special exception will serve a public need and from Water Pollution Control, was here so she convenience by providing needed economic could answer this questions, but we have had development, bring jobs and additional numerous meetings with Nestle concerning economic activity to the City. The proposed this issue. Mr. Widing added Nestle is under special exception will not permanently injure the impression that we are undersized and it the appropriate use of the surrounding is his understanding that they have plenty of properties because the surrounding properties excess capacity. are essentially industrial properties as this will be. The proposed special exception is Mr. Smith asked pumping-wise also? The consistent with the spirit, intent and purpose reason why he is asking is he read an article of the zoning ordinance because based on the or saw some plans on a heavy or large zoning ordinance allows for special exceptions pressure main from Park Road to the plant, is to promote economic growth and job creation. that proceeded any further? Mr. Widing stated Mr. Rayford seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 it is proceeding, yes. no. 7 PETITION #23-08 along the back curb the full length (800 ft.) of Submitted by Vipul Modi and M3 Hotels the Clarion Inn property as it fronts East 59th LLC for a Variance from the Sidewalk Street. Staff would suggest working out a timetable or covenant with the petitioner and Requirement located at 5920 S. setting a deadline (1 or 2 years) for the Scatterfield Road and the 2000 through construction of the sidewalks along East 59th 2100 blocks of East 59th Street on the Street. Mr. Stires requested the filing of the south side (Clarion Inn formerly Holiday covenant be tied in with the petitioner’s Inn.) ability to move ahead with the final platting of his property into two (2) lots which is pending Mr. Stires stated this property is located on before the Plan Commission. the southeast corner of the intersection of South Scatterfield Road and East 59th Street Mr. Stires stated Staff is recommending and the 2000 through 2100 blocks of East 59th partial approval of the variance from the Street. This property contains 7.11 acres and sidewalk requirement as it pertains to is zoned B-2 General Business. Mr. Stires sidewalks along South Scatterfield Road in added a majority of the acreage is occupied by front of the Clarion Inn. Staff would Clarion Inn (formerly the Holiday Inn). recommend denial of the variance from the sidewalk requirement regarding the Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is presently construction of sidewalks along the south side platting the acreage into two (2) lots. The of East 59th Street along the full length (800 primary plat for the two-lot subdivision, to be ft.) of the Clarion Inn property as it fronts known as M3 Hotels Addition, received Plan East 59th Street. Commission approval on May 27, 2008. Mr. Stires added the Subdivision Control Mr. Widing stated in consultation with the Ordinance does require sidewalks along all City Engineer, Mr. Spyers, normally we would newly platted lots. have the sidewalk be placed along the new proposed right-of way line. So the back of the Mr. Stires stated the plat shows a 10 ft. right- sidewalk would be coterminous with the right- of-way dedication along the entire north edge of-way. Mr. Widing added this situation that of the two-lot plat as it front’s East 59th Street. would cause the trees to be removed which is Mr. Stires added the petitioner is requesting something we as a planning department are the variance from the sidewalk requirement not in favor of. So in this situation, the City because the south side (Interstate 69) and Engineer concurs with Staff that the best west side (South Scatterfield Road) on the plat location for the sidewalks would be the back are currently fenced and labeled limited side of the curb, which numerous city streets access right-of-way. have the 5 ft. sidewalk along the back side of the curb. Mr. Widing stated as the Director of Mr. Stires stated there are no existing this department he is recommending to the sidewalks in front of any of the businesses Board requiring a covenant be required of this along either side of East 59th Street. Staff petitioner, whether it be one or two years from would reiterate the opinion of the City this date, that these 5ft. wide sidewalks with Engineer’s office “you’ve got to start handicap ramps at the drive cuts be installed. constructing sidewalks at some point in time.” Mr. Stires stated by adding sidewalks along Mr. Williams asked Mr. Modi if he is in favor this section of East 59th Street would provide of putting this sidewalk in the back side of the the initial linkage between the businesses curb? (restaurants, motels and a credit union and increase safety for pedestrians. Vipul Modi, 5920 South Scatterfield Road, stated no, he would like to request for a Mr. Stires stated, the City Engineer in waiver on that side of the street as Mr. Stires conjunction with Staff, is recommending the has already mentioned that there are plans on construction of 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalks widening 59th Street. There is a requirement 8 as part of the previous petition on the green property look better. Mr. Williams stated the space requirement. Mr. Modi stated they are sidewalks are to benefit the customer and to going to be doing a lot of work in putting more make Anderson look better for travelers. Mr. green space in the existing property and now Modi stated he could see where Mr. Williams if we are putting in a sidewalk they are is coming from, his only thing is the property defeating the purpose of the green space would only encompass this hotel. The other requirement. Mr. Modi added the cost of the hotels around that are already done there is project would be significantly high and he has no room for expansion for those hotels, on the spoken to the investors and they are in favor north side of 59th Street, all those businesses of not going through with the project right are completed and have no sidewalks, unless now, if they are required to do that. they remodel. Mr. Modi stated one thing, once the platting is Mr. Williams asked since the other done and once the final construction project is establishments don’t have sidewalks, Mr. done, we could possibly look at building the Modi’s property shouldn’t have sidewalks sidewalk on the new platted piece of property, either? Mr. Modi stated only the partial street but not on the existing Clarion Inn site. would have the sidewalk and that doesn’t benefit people walking from the Comfort Inn, Mr. Williams stated sidewalks are required by Super 8, Fairfield Inn, Lee’s Inn and the the ordinance, for the safety of the customers, credit union. Mr. Modi stated in his opinion, it wouldn’t your investors want your customers would make it more beautiful, but at the same to be safe if they are walking along 59th time it would hinder the cost of the project Street? Mr. Modi answered yes, he and the and it would delay or it would be hard to sell investors are looking at that. to the investors, and they would not be able to justify the cost of doing the new business. Mr. Modi stated if you put the sidewalk on the backside, you would lose that whole row of Mr. Williams asked Mr. Modi would he rather trees. take the chance of losing investors than not getting a variance granted for the sidewalks. Mr. Widing stated the expansion of 59th Street Mr. Modi stated lets put the sidewalk in, if is years down the road, it is part of the you do the development in the 1.8 acres of Thoroughfare Plan, but it is nothing that is land that they have separated out, put the imminent. sidewalk in the new area, and not on the existing building. Mr. Modi stated he doesn’t have an issue with putting in a sidewalk, however on an existing Mr. Williams told Mr. Modi he would put the property, that has been there since 1967, and sidewalks in. Mr. Williams stated what all of the sudden because we are thinking of difference does that make to build the new developing the new lot, we need to put building and just put the sidewalks in front of sidewalks along the north side of the just the new building and not the existing property? building also. Mr. Widing stated the 5 ft. sidewalk would go Mr. Modi stated with the cost of this business immediately behind the curb along 59th Street, rising so much, it would not be justifiable to not up by the evergreen trees. This is part of do this whole project and try to do the the cost of doing business. Mr. Widing stated development at this point in time. Mr. Modi Mr. Modi came in and proposed redeveloping added they are already starting to spend this property and this is part of the cost of money on tearing up the parking lot to developing this site. accommodate the green space requirement, which we will, but to do this now, it is too Mr. Williams stated his pet peeve is cross costly and the existing hotel is losing money. access and sidewalks, because sidewalks need Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Modi about being to start somewhere and it only makes the granted a variance from the green space 9 requirement? Mr. Modi stated yes as long as sidewalks by your place, so we do have to start there was something that from his somewhere. Mr. Smith stated it is a necessity understanding they are to tear down our as far as he is concerned. parking lot and put in green space island. Mr. Spencer made the motion to partially Mr. Spencer stated to Mr. Modi that he was approve Petition #23-08 as it pertains to granted the variance and the Board South Scatterfield Road but deny the variance accommodated his needs. Mr. Modi expressed along East 59th Street, in addition a covenant his gratitude. to be attached to this petition that would require within two (2) years from this date 5 Mr. Williams stated the sidewalks are for the ft. sidewalks to be installed immediately safety of the citizens of Anderson and the behind the back of the curb the whole (800 ft.) visitors here, he believes it is a win-win length. Mr. Spencer added the covenant needs situation for Mr. Modi’s motel and the to be recorded prior to secondary plat community. Mr. Williams added he wants the approval. Mr. Spencer stated the approval is businesses to adhere to the ordinances here in based on the following findings of fact. The the City. Mr. Modi agreed with Mr. Williams. approval of the proposed variance would not be injurious to the public health, safety, Mr. Modi stated when you visit 59th Street, morals and general welfare of the community how much benefit are we going to get from the because this variance would not change the sidewalk with it being just on the one property existing property. The approval of the and not having any future plans of having it proposed variance would not adversely affect on any other properties. the surrounding properties because there are no sidewalks currently existing along the Mr. Spencer stated what is coming before surrounding properties. The strict application them, does set a precedent, so if there are of the terms of the zoning ordinance would other properties that want additional result in practical difficulties in the use of the development in that area, this precedent has property, if the proposed variance were denied been set and they will be required to put because South Scatterfield and the I-69 sidewalks in as well. interchange are fenced in and labeled as limited access. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion Mr. Widing stated when you drive down 53rd passed 4 yes, 0 no. Street and find different sections with sidewalks or without. The reason for that is Meeting adjourned at 5:57 pm over the three or four years, Mr. Spyers and Mr. Widing have been stepping up and saying before this board and Plan Commission that BY: ______________________________ we need to start enforcing our Ordinances and Rudy Williams, Chairperson require sidewalks. ATTEST: ___________________________ Mr. Spencer stated it seems that a two (2) Stephanie George, Board year requirement gives you ample time to Secretary build that cost into your business model and move forward. Mr. Spencer said it seems very generous to him. Mr. Smith stated in regards to the location, he went out to the site and to the best of his ability you only have about two (2) trees you would need to move to have the sidewalk right behind the curb. Mr. Smith added in the past people had been looking the way you are trying to look, there would have been 10