Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES January 7, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: PETITION #01A-09 Submitted by Matt Conner and Muncie Rudy Williams, Chairperson Alliance Church for a Variance from the Harold Smith, Vice Chairperson Connie Klungness, Member Front Yard Setback Requirement located Greg Spencer, Member at 1525 West 14th Street. (Former Willie Rayford, Member Shadeland Elementary School) MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Stires stated he received word late this afternoon that the petitioner did not have adequate time to get their legal ad in the OTHERS PRESENT: paper and to send out the notices over the holiday. Michael Widing, Development Director Tim Stires, Assistant Development Director Mr. Stires asked for this petition to be Dave Wilbur Sr. Zoning Administrator continued until next month’s meeting. Stephanie George, Board Secretary; and William Kreegar, Attorney Mrs. Klungness made a motion to continue this Petition #01-09 and #01A-09 to the ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A February 4, 2009 meeting. Mr. Smith QUORUM: continued. Motion passed 5 yes, 0 no. Mr. Williams called the meeting to order at PETITION #40-08 4:30 p.m. Ms. George took roll call and Submitted by Jerry Alexander, Clint and declared a quorum with four members in Shelly Short for a Special Exception for a attendance. Mr. Williams performed the Invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Church. MINUTES: PETITION #40A-08 Submitted by Jerry Alexander, Clint and The December 3, 2008 minutes were approved Shelly Short for Variance from the as presented. Motion passed unanimously; 5 Minimum Lot Size Requirement. yes, 0 no. The December 17, 2008 minutes were approved as presented. Motion passed PETITION #40B-08 unanimously; 5 yes, 0 no. Submitted by Jerry Alexander, Clint and Shelly Short for a Variance from the Parking Requirement located at 21 West BUSINESS: 8th Street. (Bickel Building) PETITION #01-09 Mr. Stires stated this property is located at 21 Submitted by Matt Conner and Muncie West 8th Street, the site of the Bickel’s Alliance Church for a Special Exception building. This petition was continued last for a Church. month to allow the petitioner additional time to complete their drawings. The drawings are now complete; therefore, this petition is ready 1 for review and possible action. Mr. Stires location for three to five years, or until they added this property is zoned B-2, which is an outgrow the capacity allowed at the Bickel’s appropriate zone class for a church, but a site. special exception is required. Staff notified the church officials (Full Gospel Church) who Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is not formally filed the special exception petition proposing to add any exterior lighting. There and related variance. are existing street lights near the site. Mr. Stires added the only signage being planned is Mr. Stires stated the Full Gospel Church a small 10 inch by 10-inch window sign would occupy the northern half of the 10,000 stating Full Gospel Assembly Church. sq. ft., 25 ft. tall two story building. The church plans to utilize a 36 ft. by 60 ft. area Mr. Stires stated the petitioners are (2,160 sq. ft.) for services. Mr. Stires added the requesting three (3) waivers from the Board’s proposed church is situated on .261 of an acre, Design Standards. The waivers are from the which fell well short of the minimum one-acre concrete curbing requirement for the parking requirement for a church project. The lot, the five foot green barrier requirement petitioner is requesting a variance from the and the cross-access requirement. Mr. Stires minimum lot size requirement. Mr. Stires added the petitioner believes meeting these stated the site plan shows the existing requirements for the church are impractical building meets the minimum front setback in and will create a financial hardship. a B-2 zone class which is zero, but falls short of the side and rear setback requirement. Staff Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending notes due to the pre-existing nature of the approval of the special exception, variances Bickel building Staff has determined the (lot size and parking) and the three waivers setback requirements are not applicable. (curbing, 5 ft. green space and cross-access) because the church is utilizing a pre-existing Mr. Stires stated the site plan shows 15 building and parking lot. Board approval will parking spaces (10 ft. by 18 ft.) on site, with a also allow the church to better meet the needs total of 30 to 35 seats inside the small church. of it congregation. Church facilities are required to provide one parking space for every two seats in the Mr. Williams asked are you selling the sanctuary. Mr. Stires added a total of 17 to 18 property? parking spaces are required. The petitioner falls a few spaces short; therefore, a variance Clint and Shelly Short 1103 Garnet Drive, from the parking requirement is being sought. Anderson answered they are renting the Mr. Stires stated there are two large available property for the church. Mr. and Mrs. Short surface parking lots nearby to handle any are the pastors. overflow. The petitioner plans to hold services on Wednesday evenings at 6:30 pm, Sunday Mr. Williams asked if they had a congregation mornings at 10:00 am and Sunday evenings at with a certain number of parishioners? Mr. 6:00 pm. Short answered yes. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner’s site plan Mr. Williams asked are you located at shows the entire church property is 100 Bickel’s? Mr. Short answered yes. percent covered by building and hard surface, with zero green space. Staff notes these are Mr. Williams asked what are you wanting pre-existing conditions and it would be very from the Board? Mr. Short answered approval expensive to require the petitioner to add for the zoning. green space. Mr. Stires added staff had determined the lot coverage requirement is Mr. Williams asked if they are already in not applicable, because of the pre-existing Bickel’s. Mr. Short stated yes. conditions of the property for several years. The petitioner anticipates staying at this 2 Mr. Kreegar stated for the church to be legal Mrs. Klungness asked what about weddings, if they have to have a special exception and you have them do you feel like you have variances to continue to have their church adequate parking? Mr. Short answered they services at that location. don’t know about that, they have never done a wedding. Mr. Short stated the reason why they are at Bickel’s, they were not aware of the ordinance Mrs. Klungness asked if they have any until they asked a couple of questions then reception hall or is it just a worship area? Mr. when they found out that they needed a Short answered they do not have a reception special exception and variances they got right hall. on it. It was just ignorance to the zoning, not anybody’s fault, but once they found out about Mrs. Klungness asked no fellowship hall or the requirements they did contact the cooking? Mr. Short answered it is a big space Planning Department and got that rolling. and they do the fellowship and worship in the Mr. Short added they have been at this same space. location for two (2) months. Mrs. Klungness asked this is only going to be Mrs. Klungness asked she has seen signs up used as a church? Mr. Short answered yes. in the window for services held in that building? Mr. Short stated that was for Mr. Williams asked do they have a kitchen in another church that was in that location for a the building? Mr. Short answered in another long time and now that is not them. part of the building. Mrs. Klungness asked if they own the Mr. Widing stated the building is divided into building? Mr. Short answered no they are two (2) parts and Mr. Short is only leasing out renting from Mr. Alexander. the front of the building. The back part is a commercial kitchen that is under Mrs. Klungness asked do you know when the construction, and designed by Kato Smith who building was built? Mr. Short answered no. is here tonight. Mr. Widing added that part would not be used by the church. The facility Mrs. Klungness asked would you be doing is only being leased out not entirely to the any remodeling inside the building? Mr. Short church, it is being leased out on certain days. answered no. Mr. Short stated it is leased to the church on Mrs. Klungness stated it wouldn’t be possible Wednesdays and Sundays. to put green space around the building because it takes up the whole lot. Mr. Short Mr. Widing stated there are many times agreed. people don’t fully understand our Zoning Ordinances and when we explain them to Mrs. Klungness asked this location would be them most of the people cooperate with the temporary? Mr. Short stated he hopes the Ordinances and come into the office and fill congregation will grow and if it does they will out the appropriate applications. get a bigger building in the future. Mr. Rayford made a motion to approve Mrs. Klungness asked could they use the Petition #40A-08 based on the following county parking lots on Sundays? Mr. Short findings of fact. The approval of the proposed answered yes there is not anybody in those variance would not be injurious to the public parking lots on a Sunday. health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, because the conditions of the Mrs. Klungness asked if they have services on property are pre-existing, and no physical Wednesdays? Mr. Short answered they have a changes will take place. The approval of the bible study on Wednesday. proposed variance would not adversely affect the surrounding properties, because the 3 conditions of the property are pre-existing, and purpose of the zoning ordinance, because and no physical changes are to take place. The the property is zoned B-2 which covers a strict application of the terms of the zoning church. Mrs. Klungness seconded. Motion ordinance would result in practical difficulties passed 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention. in the use of the property, if the proposed variance were denied because the expenses PETITION #02-09 involved would be too much for what they Submitted by the Anderson Fire want to do and the church is likely to be there Department, Anderson Board of Public only three to five years. Mrs. Klungness seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no, 1 Works and Dauss Architects for a Special abstention. Exception for an Amended Development Plan for a School (Firefighter’s Training Mr. Rayford made a motion to approve Center). Petition #40B-08 based on the following findings of fact. The approval of the proposed PETITION #02A-09 variance would not be injurious to the public Submitted by the Anderson Fire health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, because they fall short two to Department, Anderson Board of Public three spaces, however there are two large Works and Dauss Architects for a hard surface parking lots nearby to handle the Variance from the Front Yard Setback overflow. The approval of the proposed Requirement located at 5724 Dr. Martin variance would not adversely affect the Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. (Former surrounding properties, because the services Yesterday’s Restaurant) are held on non-business days it should not affect any other businesses. The strict Mr. Stires stated this property is located in application of the terms of the zoning the 5800 block of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ordinance would result in practical difficulties Boulevard on the east side and consists of 2.46 in the use of the property, if the proposed acres and carries a zone class of B-2 General variance were denied because it would be too Business. The existing building on the west expensive to add two to three spaces in a place half (front) of the property is the former like that when you have all the available Yesterday’s Restaurant, while to the east is parking nearby. Mrs. Klungness seconded. the Anderson Fire Department’s burn training Motion passed 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention. tower (former Blue Grass Farms tree growing area). Mr. Stires added the burn training Mr. Rayford made a motion to approve tower received Board approval in September Petition #40-08 based on the following 2007. findings of fact with a waiver from concrete curbing, 5 ft. green barrier, cross-access and Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is seeking sidewalk requirements. The proposed special special exception approval for the next phase exception is in a proper zone district. The of the Anderson Fire Department Training requirements of Figure 9 have been met, there Center (school). The submitted site plan were variances, but they were granted. The shows the reutilization of the former proposed special exception will serve a public Yesterday’s Restaurant building. Mr. Stires need and convenience, because it creates added the resulting 4860 sq. ft. building will another place for worship in the downtown be used as a firefighting training center or area and it is in walking distance for several school. The floor plan shows the building will people in that area. The proposed special include the following: a training room, offices, exception will not permanently injure the conference rooms, storage, restrooms, appropriate use of the surrounding properties, mudroom and mechanical areas. Mr. Stires because the pre-existing conditions will not added the training center is expected to be change, services will be held during non- constructed in 2009. business hours. The proposed special exception is consistent with the spirit, intent 4 Mr. Stires stated the site plan shows the landscaping within 18 months from the time proposed training center (school) meets the of completion of the building. Figure 9 Requirements for the 40 ft. minimum side yard setback and the 40 ft. rearyard Mr. Stires stated lot coverage wise, once it is setback. The closest side yard setback is 44.1 completed, the site would be 53 percent ft. while the rearyard setback is nearly 800 ft. covered by building and hard surface parking, Mr. Stires added the required front yard while 46 percent will remain green or setback for a school is 100 ft. The site plan landscaped. In a B-2 zone class they can go up shows the existing former restaurant building to 75 percent lot coverage with building and has a front setback of 38.45 ft., which is nearly hard surface. Mr. Stires added they easily 62 ft. short of the required front yard setback. meet the green space requirement. Mr. Stires stated the petitioner is requesting a variance from the front yard setback Mr. Stires stated at the time construction is requirement. Staff would note the former started on the proposed training center, the restaurant building which is to be used for the petitioner would like an additional 30 to 36 firefighter’s training center is pre-existing, months to return and put in the curbing and staff is supporting the variance request. the asphalt for the parking around the north and east side of the building. Mr. Stires added Mr. Stires stated a previously approved due to funding constraints, some additional driveway cut is located in the northwest time is needed to put the asphalt and curbing corner of the property. A second new cut is in as funding becomes available or up to 36 shown in the southwest corner of the property. months. Mr. Stires added the site plan shows parking on the north and east sides of the building. A Mr. Stires stated the site plan shows the same total of 49 parking spaces (10 ft. by 18 ft.) are single ground sign approved for the burn shown on the site plan, with 13 spaces on the tower in September 2007 will be installed for north and 36 spaces on the east side of the the training center (school). The proposed sign building. Mr. Stires stated the parking will be constructed and placed within the City requirements for a school specifies one space Sign Ordinance requirements. per staff, one space per 5000 sq. ft. of building space and one space for each four (4) students Mr. Stires stated the submitted lighting plan of driving age. The petitioner has indicated shows the placement of two (2) 400-watt metal the training center will be supervised by two halide 25 ft. tall pole lights in the curbed (2) staff members, will accommodate up to 110 landscaped islands in the training center’s students and the building will contain just rear parking area. A satisfactory isolume plan under 5000 sq. ft. Mr. Stires stated that is on file. translates to requiring 30 parking spaces. The site plan shows 49 parking spaces, which Mr. Stires stated staff would add when the means the proposed training center easily Board approved the master plan layout and meets and exceeds the minimum parking burn tower phase of the training center requirement. project in September 2007 several variances were granted. Staff, following internal Mr. Stires stated the submitted landscaping discussions, decided there was no need to seek plan shows a variety of trees and plantings the same variances a second time due to would be planted around the exterior of the duplication. Mr. Stires added the previously training center and the parking lot. The approved variances included the following: petitioner is asking for Board’s consideration variance from the parking requirement, in allowing additional time as far as the variance from the 25 ft. distance of a parking installation of the landscaping. Mr. Stires area from a residential use, variance from the added due to some funding constraints they sidewalk requirement and variance from the would like to have the Board’s approval to hard surfacing requirement. have some additional time to install the 5 Mr. Stires stated likewise three (3) waivers Williams added that in his mind that is a long from the Board’s Design Standards were also time to get those done. granted by the Board in September 2007. The previously approved waivers included the Mr. Widing stated there are several projects following: cross-access, concrete curbing and that never come before this Board and people the required 5 ft. green barrier between the come before the Municipal Development office parking area and property lines. Mr. Stires and they make a request of postponing there added the only Design Standard the petitioner asphalt paving. Mr. Widing added they take it needs to seek a waiver from in this phase of under advisement with the City Engineer and the training center is the cross-access. The if they have an appropriate drainage plan on petitioner notes the proposed training center file, if they are willing to sign a covenant, would not benefit from having cross access to many times we do go forward and allow up to any of the nearby properties. Mr. Stires stated 36 months for a paving plan if its appropriate. the petitioner also noted if there was cross In this situation, the fire department is access to neighboring properties it could pose putting forth a lot of sweat equity, they are security and safety concerns given the types of funding this not only with a grant which is a vehicles (fire trucks) that would be on the minimal grant, but they are taking in training center site. ambulance fees. Mr. Widing stated they don’t have the money in the bank to do this and this Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending will be a process effort. The main effort is to approval of the special exception (training get the building done first, it is important that center / school), a variance (front yard some of the less important things be done in setback) and a waiver (cross access) because time. the proposed training center / school is an excellent re-utilization of an existing building Mr. Williams stated he does not disagree it’s and vacant property. The proposed training just that he knows there are going to be center / school will also provide a much needed people come after this and raise their hand training facility for local and regional fire and say, “hey, I want to hold this off.” Mr. departments and emergency personnel. Williams added he does not disapprove of this project, but with the lead-time of 36 months, it Mike Dauss, Dauss Architects, 227 Historical is going to open it up for a lot more people to West 11th Street, Anderson, stated this is an come and ask for the same thing. addition to the existing restaurant facility, reusing as much of the existing facility as they Mr. Widing stated staff weighs the request can. Mr. Dauss added the reason being this and are they truly giving us a true story, of is project is being funded through a grant from it really a funding issue? As staff we do the Indiana Department of Homeland understand the funding issue is true. Security and come from fee money and a lot of sweat equity from the firemen themselves. Mr. Williams asked is the staff comfortable with the lead-time of 36 months? Mr. Widing Mr. Dauss stated when Mr. Stires mentioned answered yes. lack of funds here, please understand that is why they are trying to stretch their dollars as Mr. Williams asked Mr. Kreegar if he recalled far as they can. It is designed to supplement granting a 36-month lead-time for paving the training facilities that are down the hill from this Board? Mr. Kreegar answered no, including the fire burn tower, future ponds but Mr. Widing is saying if the project had not and other facilities that were approved last been required to come before the Board for time. special exception, his office would of granted those extensions. Mr. Kreegar added as a Mr. Williams stated his concern about how Board you could reduce that number and just many petitions come before the Board and this require everything within 18 months if they petition is asking for 18 months on don’t achieve it, they can come back and ask landscaping and 36 months on paving. Mr. 6 for more time and explain why they could not Mr. Widing stated the fire department does achieve it. not want access onto their property from another business. Mrs. Klungness asked would the 36 months have started last year? This is an old project Mrs. Klungness asked this is a school? Mr. they have already had 12 months. Mr. Widing Widing answered yes, but it would be the fire stated they are looking at the front half only, department training school. It is not like a not the back property. usual school. Mr. Widing stated the fire tower is complete. Mrs. Klungness asked what is cross access This is an addition to the building, and the unless you are going to fence it off, it won’t parking lot around it. keep people from going onto the property. Mrs. Klungness added she has issues with the Mrs. Klungness asked part of the deal the cross access, what is the big deal about being Board granted waivers to keep it gravel able to drive onto another lot if it is there in because of the use of big trucks? Mrs. the future? Klungness added she thought that would eventually be hard surfaced out in the front. Mr. Williams asked what if they put a chain or two concrete barriers across the entrance to Mr. Williams stated he wanted to speak about keep people off the property? Mr. Widing cross-access. If the Board grants the cross answered according to the Homeland Security access, would it be just as easy to have the standpoint they require these types of cross access just in case an emergency facilities to be secured. They can require police happens back to the east for the equipment to and fire departments to be secure. get out? Mrs. Klungness asked cross access threatens Mr. Kreegar stated one main difference security of the fire department? concerning this project is the fact this is the fire department, and is not a business. People Mark Keck, 6015 Boulder Drive, Anderson really don’t have any right to come onto the stated Homeland Security would love the fire fire department property to access another department to have security there. Mr. Keck property. Mr. Kreegar added that is what sets added the fire department plans to put up a this petition apart from other business uses. fence around the entire property at some point. Mr. Keck added they would like this Mr. Williams stated he is thinking about how area to be as secure as possible. the fire department would get out onto Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Mr. Mrs. Klungness asked if Homeland Security Kreegar stated they would have two access says you have to secure it with a fence around drives onto Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. it? Mr. Keck stated they didn’t specifically say Boulevard. a fence, but they would like the area to be secure. Mrs. Klungness stated she doesn’t understand, we are talking about variances Mr. Williams asked is there a security concern for parking spaces but yet, we don’t have right now? Mr. Keck answer was not audible. parking spaces because it is going to be gravel. Mr. Williams asked this would stop anybody Mrs. Klungness asked what is the big deal from coming onto the property through this whether they grant the cross access? What if cross access? the school grows and something new like a McDonald’s goes in next door, you might want Mrs. Klungness asked is the fire department to have cross access to go into another going to secure or block the front driveways business. that access Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard? Mr. Keck answered no. 7  public, coming through there with expensive Mr. Williams stated he is not opposed to the equipment. cross access, he is just asking questions. Mr. Keck stated the Board has to understand, Mr. Dauss stated if you had a question that when they do have trucks down there, these would have to be asked back is what purpose trucks will have to leave and leave in a hurry. would cross access serve here at this time. The less access to the public that there is, the safer it is for their trucks getting in and out, Mr. Williams stated the petitioner is coming and safer for the public trying to cross through before the Board asking for the cross access. the parking lot at that time. Mr. Keck added there could be a safety concern. Mr. Williams stated to Mr. Dauss he is coming and asking for the cross access waiver, so Mrs. Klungness stated she was thinking about don’t put it back on the Board when they are the students trying to get out and that is how asking questions. Mr. Dauss stated what he is she was seeing it. With that many parking saying is there are two drives to either side of spaces, that is a lot of people going out onto the property. If it becomes beneficial to the Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard. Mrs. property to the north or south, cross access Klungness added there needed to be a could be considered at that time. Mr. Dauss stronger argument as to why the Board should added he is seeing the big concern here. grant a waiver from cross access, since it is a requirement to have. There is no other Mrs. Klungness stated if they grant the cross security around the property, when people can access now, then the petitioner would never drive in there. have to give it. If the guy next door wants and if the Board waives it now, we are looking to Mr. Williams asked would that hurt the the future. project if you didn’t have cross access? Mr. Dauss stated he doesn’t think it would affect Mr. Dauss stated the City needs to ask that it. From the City standpoint they are not question, is cross-access across a fire talking about any kind of an easement, we are department training center a good thing or just talking about the ability to connect not? parking lots. Mr. Dauss added that’s fine we will show future possibilities for cross access. Mr. Kreegar stated going back to why you The petitioner withdrew the request for the even have cross access. The idea for cross waiver for cross access. access is to keep people off the main road. Mr. Kreegar added when you have a commercial Mr. Spencer stated he was not around when development they would have other means the first phase came before the Board, and within to get to those commercial and retail asked Mr. Keck to explain how much buildings, so they wouldn’t have to be out on ambulance fees can be utilized for this project? the main road. Mr. Kreegar added here, he Mr. Spencer added if the fire department is in doesn’t know if you want people driving financial straights that you need 36 months to through the fire department training center to complete the landscaping requirements and get to some other retail business. That is why 18 months for the concrete requirement, he they are asking for the waiver. Mr. Kreegar would hate for you to come up against that stated this is not a situation where the fire deadline and then utilize ambulance fees to department is a retail business, and you want meet that deadline and put a burden on to keep people off the main roads so they can ambulance users, that is Mr. Spencer’s get to the fire department. The only people thought. Mr. Keck answered how the that would be coming to the facility are the ambulance user fees are used is all dictated by people who are going to train there. Mr. his bosses. The ambulance fee is a fund that is Kreegar added they would have their restricted by the City Council on how it can emergency vehicles, and he questions if you grow, be spent and they approve the want to open that up to people from the ambulance fee budget every year. 8  Security wants things to be secure, such as Mr. Spencer stated he is not opposed either fire station doors are suppose to be secure all way, but he doesn’t want the Board to put a the time. They can’t leave the garage doors up restriction on that because it may hurt the anymore at the station because what ends up public. happening is you get terrorist bulletins going across saying someone had used a stolen fire Mr. Keck stated the City Council has complete truck or things like that. Mr. Keck added they control over how the fees are adjusted and do want a certain amount of security in when they are adjusted, and if they are different facilities. Mr. Keck’s main concern of adjusted at all. That is tight control on how security on a training ground is if the public fast and how high those fees could go up. Mr. has too much access to it, are they going to get Keck added they couldn’t say they need more themselves hurt, because they do have some money “okay public you are going to get a things that people shouldn’t be playing with. $500 increase in your fees” that does not and Nothing that would get people hurt, but let’s cannot occur. say a homeless person breaks into a building down there, or security wise if we have too Mrs. Klungness stated the school was many cars from the public sector running back supposed to generate money throughout the and forth through our parking lots and one of state that would make it self-sufficient. ambulances has to get out of the training center all of the sudden. Mr. Keck added are Mr. Keck stated once they get the classroom those additional vehicles going through going up and running, then the way the structure is to interfere with the ambulances getting out going to be, then they will hold classes for the or will the ambulances run into somebody fire service. The Department of Homeland else’s vehicle. Those are some of his big Security will pay for those classes. concerns. Mrs. Klungness asked this training facility is Mr. Williams asked that would restrict access not for Anderson only, would other counties to your property? Mr. Keck answered yes, if use it? Mr. Keck answered it is a District 6 we didn’t have any cross access through the training hub which is 13 counties wide. Right parking lot that would definitely restrict the now, they’ve had Fishers, Marion, Kokomo capability of people transversing the property. and Wayne County fire departments that have used this property and it is not done yet. Mr. Keck stated they want to take a dilapidated building and they want to turn it Mrs. Klungness asked you are generating into a showplace. It might take them two (2) some income? Mr. Keck answered sort of. years to get that done because of all the sweat District 6 is contributing the $100,000 they equity going into the project, but it will end up are kicking in on the classroom, plus they are looking like a showplace. Mr. Keck added if $11,000 into completing some of the other you look at Fire Station #6, which is the oldest structural work of Phase One. fire station in the City right now, that place is a showplace. They want to do it in a way that Mrs. Klungness asked would the fire is not going to kill the user fee and tax base department give out certifications once you and not going to interfere with the fire get the classrooms? Mr. Keck stated yes, department’s ability to continue with other through the State for certification. projects such as providing proper trucks, ambulances and equipment needed to make Mr. Williams asked how often would this emergency runs. facility be used? Mr. Keck stated once it is up it could be used everyday. Mrs. Klungness stated here is the deal this is a City project so the Board wants the City to Mr. Williams asked are you saying you need be held to the same standards as a regular the waiver from cross access for Homeland citizen would be held to. Is there some kind of Security? Mr. Keck answered no, Homeland phasing the petitioner could do with this 9 project? Mrs. Klungness asked maybe the front part to be a little more done in say 12 Mrs. Klungness asked is the waiver then for months? Mr. Dauss stated there is a letter 18 months on landscaping, is that right? Is requesting the waiver which did address a that in the Board documentation? Mr. phasing that Mr. Widing has in his files. Williams stated it’s 18 months for landscaping and 36 months for asphalt. Mrs. Klungness stated a little bit of an effort goes a long way. Mr. Kreegar stated it is not actually a waiver, because it is not part of the Design Standards. Mr. Dauss stated when they determined the You are granting them an extension on time budget as far as general construction we can within in which to make the requirements. revisit how far those dollars go. Mr. Dauss added he hoped the Board appreciates what Mr. Williams asked it is not a waiver? We the fire department is trying to do with the don’t have to act on it? Mr. Kreegar answered grant money. The phasing that was presented yes, the Board will still have to act on it, in was that they would build the building and order to grant them additional time, otherwise then within 18 months do the landscaping and it has to be done at the time that they build the final phase would be curbing and the building. pavement. Mr. Williams asked what they should call it? Mr. Dauss stated it would be difficult to Mr. Kreegar answered an extension of time to commit to that and not knowing the cost comply with the landscaping and parking associated yet with the construction of the requirements. building. Mrs. Klungness asked we don’t have to, grant Mrs. Klungness stated as Mr. Kreegar this if we don’t want to? Mr. Kreegar suggested, if the paving and landscaping answered you can do whatever you want to do. doesn’t get done within the 18 months, then they could come back before the Board and Mrs. Klungness asked are there going to be ask for more time. Mr. Dauss stated they can’t other phases to this, or is this the last phase? make that decision tonight, neither you nor I Mr. Keck answered there will be another can make those decisions of how the fire phase, the first phase was where the tower department budgets the project. Mrs. sits now, the second phase is the classroom, Klungness added she understood that. Mr. and the final phase will include a pond, Dauss stated that is why they have the hazardous materials training area. Mr. Keck phasing plan for the budget. added when he said hazardous materials they will he simulated they will not have actual Mr. Williams asked are we supposed to have hazardous materials there. hard surfaced so much from the last phase? Mr. Dauss stated he did not know. Mrs. Klungness asked when does Mr. Keck anticipate that phase (hazardous material Mrs. Klungness stated she did not want to training area?) Mr. Keck answered he is deny this petition because of that. hoping to start that phase by the summer of 2009. Mr. Widing stated part of Phase One in the flood plain could not be paved, it has to be Mr. Widing stated as of late, the Anderson gravel. There was a variance on that one, police department has approached Municipal which was approved by this Board. Development about possibly putting a shooting range out there as well. That is being Mrs. Klungness stated she is sure that she debated and discussed whether requiring made the motion then and she remembers more land to make that a viable option. part of it around that tower was because of the heavy trucks. 10 Mr. Williams asked the 36 months on asphalt, Board’s Design Requirements for landscaping would that cover all the hard surfacing that and concrete of 18 months for each of those, a the petitioner would need? Mr. Widing stated covenant will be required to be filed to meet on the front section, yes. that requirement if within 18 months it’s not done they can come and revisit this Board. Mrs. Klungness asked would it be so out of The proposed special exception is in a proper line to say let’s review this in 12 months, zone district. The requirements of Figure 9 maybe there is something that could come up? have been met, and variances granted. The If we give you 36 months, whether you don’t proposed special exception will serve a public have the money are not, you don’t have to do need and convenience, because it will provide anything, and it would hold the whole project for fire protection training, which is vital to up. Mrs. Klungness added then you would the public service needs of this community. come back and want more stuff even though The proposed special exception will not the petitioner hasn’t finished Phase Two. permanently injure the appropriate use of the surrounding properties, because it is Mr. Widing stated that every section is a essentially an existing site that will be re- different section. This parking lot is part of utilized. The proposed special exception is this phase. Mr. Widing added a majority of consistent with the spirit, intent and purpose these projects have paving agreements and of the zoning ordinance, because the zoning don’t even come in front of this Board. ordinance allows for the use of empty property Municipal Development has created a to be utilized for the vital function of fire covenant that is recordable so that its protection training. Mrs. Klungness asked for enforceable, we get the owners to sign them point of order. Mrs. Klungness asked what is and record with the real estate so it is the covenant consisting of? Mr. Spencer stated enforceable. 18 months for each for landscaping and paving. Mrs. Klungness seconded. Motion Mr. Williams asked Mr. Widing is that what passed 5 yes, 0 no. you would do, if it wouldn’t have to come before the Board get a signed covenant? Mr. PETITION #03-09 Widing answered yes. Submitted by the Madison County Community Health Center and Anthony Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve Petition #02A-09 based on the following Malone for a Special Exception for an findings of fact. The approval of the proposed Amended Development Plan for a Health variance would not be injurious to the public Clinic health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, because this is a pre-existing PETITION #03A-09 building that will be re-utilized. The approval Submitted by the Madison County of the proposed variance would not adversely Community Health Center and Anthony affect the surrounding properties, because this Malone for a Variance from the Side is a pre-existing building that is going to be re-utilized. The strict application of the terms Yard Setback Requirement located at of the zoning ordinance would result in 1547 Ohio Avenue. (Madison County practical difficulties in the use of the property, Community Health Center) if the proposed variance were denied because it would put an undo financial burden on the Mr. Stires stated this property is located at City or fire department to meet its building 1547 Ohio Avenue, contains 3.93 acres and is requirements. Mrs. Klungness seconded. zoned I-1 Light Industrial. This is the site of Motion passed 5 yes, 0 no. the Madison County Community Health Center, which was formerly the Anderson Fur Mr. Spencer made a motion to approve Company. Petition #02-09 based on the following findings of fact with an extension for the Mr. Stires stated the petitioner appears before the Board seeking approval of a special 11 exception for an amended development plan The petitioner understands no permits will be for a health clinic in order to expand and issued for the project prior to drainage renovate the present facility. The addition approval. measures 138.6 ft. by 230 ft. by 28.6 ft high. Mr. Stires added a second smaller addition Mr. Stires stated the submitted lighting plan measures 47 ft. by 53.58 ft. by 19 ft. high and for the health clinic expansion and renovation is located on the front (east side) of the calls for ground lighting and pole lighting. A existing building. The additions total 20,300 total of (14) 175-watt metal halide lights on 27 sq. ft. and will house various expanded health ft. high poles are shown throughout the new related facilities, services, offices and a parking lot. Mr. Stires added a total of 15 conference room. bollard lights are shown around the circular building entrance off the parking lot. A single Mr. Stires stated the site plan shows adequate new ground sign is noted in the parking lot setbacks for the new additions, except for the island by the entrance drive off of Ohio part of the new addition as it extends west Avenue. Mr. Stires added the sign measures 3 towards Jefferson Street. The side yard ft. by 10 ft. by 4 ft. high and will state setback requirement in an I-1 zone class is a “Madison County Community Health Center, minimum of 10 ft. Mr. Stires added the site 1547 Ohio Avenue with logo.” plan shows a 7.5 ft. side yard setback, which falls short of the minimum requirement. The Mr. Stires stated the submitted landscaping petitioner is requesting a variance from the plan shows a variety of trees, shrubs and side yard setback requirement. Mr. Stires plantings throughout the health clinic site. stated the setback for the existing building, The petitioner, in an effort to meet the screen- which the new addition will attach to, ranges buffering requirement, is proposing a six (6) from two ft. to 4.25 ft. from the side property ft. high privacy fence along the north side of line. the large addition, which is also across the rear of the nearest residences. Mr. Stires Mr. Stires stated the site plan shows 107 added the landscaping plan shows a lot curbed and asphalted parking spaces (10 ft. by coverage of 48.5 percent by the existing 18 ft.) extending southeast in front of the new building, new building and parking, leaving addition. This far exceeds the Figure 9 51.5 percent as green space. These figures are Requirements of one space per two employees, well below the maximum lot coverage plus three spaces per doctor. Mr., Stires added allowance and far exceeds the green space the site plan shows there will be 40 staff requirement for an I-1 property. employees, 10 full time doctor and two (2) part time doctors at the health clinic. This Mr. Stires stated the petitioner’s submitted translates to 56 required parking spaces. plans show a conceptual layout for another 60 ft. by 138 ft. addition to the south or adjoining Mr. Stires stated the submitted site plan the latest addition. The future addition would indicates four (4) driveway cuts accessing the need to come back before the Board in the proposed clinic off the west side of Ohio next few years. Avenue. The cuts will range from 20 ft. to 30 ft. wide and will access the new parking lot Mr. Stires stated the petitioner’s project meets and the half circle drop-off area at the north all the Board’s Design Standards, except cross end of the health clinic. Mr. Stires added a access. The petitioner is requesting a waiver fifth access driveway, measuring 10 ft. in from the cross access along the west side width is shown on the east side of Jefferson (Jefferson Street side) of the project. Mr. Street. This will be a service entrance to the Stires added the petitioner believes cross rear of the health clinic for deliveries and access is not feasible, since there is a trash pick up. residence next door. Mr. Stires stated drainage plans have been Mr. Stires stated staff is recommending submitted to the City Engineer for review. approval of the special exception (health clinic 12 expansion), a variance (side yard setback) and and maybe even yours, you the property waiver (cross access) because the proposed owner can hold that piece of property hostage project meets a majority of the Figure 9 by saying “no I won’t because the Board said I Requirements. The expansion of the health didn’t have to.” Mrs. Klungness added what center will allow the facility to better serve she is looking for is down the road, if it would more low-income citizens in a timely manner. beneficial for that cross access, then both parties have already agreed that cross access needs to go in there. Asking for a waiver for it Kato Smith, 7 East 12th Street, Anderson, now, for an unknown reason doesn’t make any stated Mr. Stires did a very good job of sense. Mrs. Klungness added she wants to illustrating our project and he would be happy know that you can’t. to answer any questions. Mr. Smith stated honestly what they are Mr. Williams stated this is a well-needed looking at, the only real situation where cross project in the City. access would be beneficial for our property the way it is developed is to the south along Ohio Mr. Smith stated he would beat the Board to Avenue where the video store is. Mr. Smith the punch and talk about the cross access and added the Madison County Community get it right on out. Originally, when the Health Center is working with the realtor of concept of cross access was developed it was that property to create a design where a primarily to keep additional traffic flow off of potential developer does use our property or major street arteries like Ohio Avenue. Mr. parking lot for cross access. Mr. Smith added Smith added when they did Ohio Avenue they that is what would be best for the public actually removed a curb cut that currently interest. exists trying to reduce the amount of traffic input onto that for that very idea. Jefferson Mrs. Klungness asked Mr. Smith, the Board is Street, being a very small residential only not totally denying any access to the cross area, really has no realistic development access? Mr. Smith stated they are only potential as a high commercial district that referring to Jefferson Street, because it really would require cross access. Mr. Smith stated doesn’t apply in that situation. what they are trying to do with Jefferson Street, is to actually blend into the Mr. Widing stated the cross access waiver be neighborhood keeping it low key and green, along the residential zoned property. Mr. with one driveway just like everything else on Kreegar added the petitioner could be even the street, so we are good neighbors. The idea more specific and say Jefferson Street. of creating cross access there would actually defeat the purpose of trying to blend with the Mrs. Klungness asked what if Jefferson Street environment that they are in. would change from residential to something else? Mr. Kreegar answered that is not going Mr. Smith stated on the Ohio Avenue side, to change. The Board is not granting the because of the configuration of the building, waiver for the other area on the end, he is not there is simply not the capability to create asking you to do that. cross access to the north where the gas station is. There is not enough physical space to safely Mr. Smith stated the Jefferson Street do that. Mr. Smith added what they are properties are not deep enough to warrant a asking for in the cross access waiver is for the cross access drive. Even if it did develop into a Jefferson Street side of the project. commercial, it would be so constrained by the depth of those lots that it would never be Mrs. Klungness stated she really doesn’t care appropriate. Mr. Smith added the property to if you put it in there, but 10 years from now, if the south on Ohio Avenue they are trying to somebody next door wants to build something, encourage the people who are marketing the and cross access would be beneficial to the property to utilize our parking lot so that the community as well as enhance their business 13 driveway is moved further off of the for the neighbors it was a function of trying to intersection because that is in the public good. make this odd shaped property work for a reasonable design. Mr. Williams asked you wouldn’t be denying that if they can develop that property, you Mrs. Klungness stated she drives past this wouldn’t be denying access? Mr. Smith stated facility frequently and that parking lot is full, they are encouraging it, for our development and she sees people walking across the street, as well as theirs. to where they parked their cars. Mr. Smith stated that is why they are putting in 107 Mrs. Klungness asked why are you waiving spaces that are far beyond what that parking cross access; we are just limiting some of the lot is currently. property? Mr. Widing stated if they are specific on where the waiver is located, then Mrs. Klungness asked is 107 parking spaces you would still have access. Mr. Smith added enough? Mr. Smith answered yes that should as we are doing our drainage design, we are be enough for parking. looking at the potential of the addition that you see on the site plan and they are taking Mr. Williams asked how far does the property into account the property next door, because line go down to the former video store? Mr. that is they way the land drains. They are Smith answered if you think about the trying to work with this at a bigger level than furthest from the intersection entrance into just our property boundaries. the video store that is roughly the property line. The petitioner is going all the way down Mrs. Klungness stated it would be fair to say to the video store parking lot within about 30 that they would just want the waiver of cross ft. of it. Mr. Smith added that is why we are access on Jefferson Street? Mr. Widing stated saying to the folks developing this connect the Jefferson Street property. into us, then we’ve got a buffer of shared parking and access which both can utilize as Mr. Stires stated on the site plan it does show overflow. a cross access to the neighboring (south) property. Mr. Williams stated this is a worthwhile project for the City of Anderson it would do a Mrs. Klungness asked in order to do whole lot of good for our citizens, and is glad everything you want to do, and it would be this is expanding. fair to say that this property is a peculiar shape because of the angles of the main roads Mrs. Klungness made a motion to approve that go through there? Mr. Smith stated that Petition #03A-09 based on the following would be an understatement. findings of fact. The approval of the proposed variance would not be injurious to the public Mrs. Klungness asked to utilize this property health, safety, morals and general welfare of and to get the buildings on there, you need the the community, because the property is a size and the parking, sometimes setback peculiar shape, there is a pre-existing building requirements are going to be an issue? Mr. that is within 2 ft. of the property line already Smith stated if you figure this to be the and what they are expanding here is further cornering question of the property. The from the property line than the existing addition we are talking about has one point in building. The approval of the proposed space that is 7.5 ft. within a foot either way variance would not adversely affect the you have 10 ft. because it is at a 45-degree surrounding properties, because this is one angle. Mr. Smith added that is as good as he little issue that is already pre-existing and could get it and they were off in one point, by because the shape of the property would not 2.5 ft. and they felt since the existing building affect anyone surrounding this piece of land. was a close as 2 ft. to the property line, this The strict application of the terms of the wasn’t so bad. This is where they are going to zoning ordinance would result in practical put up a privacy fence so it won’t be an impact difficulties in the use of the property, if the 14 proposed variance were denied because the Widing added at some point that will take property is in such a weird angle and shape place and at some point when that officially that just this one little section where they takes place, Mr. Witham will advise the don’t meet the setback requirements and it remonstrators on what their next step will be. would be a shame to hold a development such At this point, we still have the lawsuit over us as this for a matter of 2 ft. in either direction. in Superior Court, and we are under an order Mr. Rayford seconded. Motion passed 4 yes, 0 from the judge to provide to the court a no, 1 abstention. recorded transcript, and we are preparing that at this time. Mrs. Klungness made a motion to approve Petition #03-09 based on the following Mr. Spencer stated he believes that our usual findings of fact. The proposed special attorney is not representing the Board in this exception is in a proper zone district. The case. requirements of Figure 9 have been met, and variances were granted. The proposed special Mr. Widing stated that Mr. Kreegar recused exception will serve a public need and himself, because he personally represents convenience, because the facility will be some of the homeowners in that area, so expanding and from just looking at the attorney John Goehring is representing the parking lot you know how this facility is Board of Zoning Appeals and himself as needed particularly in this location. The Director in this case. proposed special exception will not permanently injure the appropriate use of the Mr. Williams asked so that project is dead in surrounding properties, because this is a the water? Mr., Widing stated he believed so, medical facility and it’s in a business / as of February 5, if they have not applied for residential area and it is easy access for an Improvement Location Permit, the special patients by car as well as pedestrians. The exception expires. Mr. Widing added they proposed special exception is consistent with would have had to submit an appropriate the spirit, intent and purpose of the zoning drainage plan to the City Engineer and they ordinance, because this facility is growing and have not contacted him at all. not only enhancing the surrounding properties in the neighborhood aesthetically, but also it Mr. Widing stated either they will have serves a great need to our community for this withdrawn their purchase agreement or the area and our whole community. Mrs. Improvement Location Permit will be applied Klungness added she moves to grant the for and if they don’t get that done by February waiver for cross access on the Jefferson Street 5 the special exception will have expired and property. Mr. Rayford seconded. Motion they would have to go back through the whole passed 4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention. process again. Miscellaneous: Mrs. Klungness asked so there wouldn’t even be a hearing then? Mr. Widing stated it would Mr. Widing stated seeing everyone had read be a mute issue at that point. the newspaper, and you saw the Mayor took a stance concerning the PEAT property. The Meeting adjourned at 6:12 pm remonstrators have filed a lawsuit as you know. Mr. Widing added he is not going to BY: ______________________________ make a whole lot of comment other than Mr. Rudy Williams, Chairperson Witham is the attorney for the remonstrators talked to Mr. Widing after the meeting last ATTEST: ___________________________ night. The Mayor and Mr. Widing discussed Stephanie George, Board with Mr. Cooper yesterday on the phone at Secretary length and he has been in contact with PEAT International and it appears that they will be withdrawing their purchase agreement. Mr. 15