Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS April 27, 2020 MEETING ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and the assemblage was invited to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chairman Daniel Rohaley, Vice Chairman Nick Nochevich, John Marshall, Richard Sauerman, Jeremy Taylor Members Absent: None Staff Present: Commission Attorney Joe Irak, Executive Secretary Anthony Schlueter, Recording Secretary Jenni Pause APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Daniel Rohaley asked if there are any corrections, deletions, or modifications to the January 27, 2020 meeting minutes. John Marshall motioned to approve minutes as presented. Dick Sauerman seconded the motion. With 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions, the minutes were approved. OLD BUSINESS 20-02 Larry Jackman, Petitioner/Owner Request: Variance of Use Purpose: Allow an Automobile Sales, Service & Repair with a Storage Lot Location: 116 North Indiana Avenue Executive Secretary Anthony Schlueter reported on the history of this property and previous approvals. Schlueter stated the owners have acquired the adjacent abandoned railroad property and is proposing to operate a storage lot in the rear of the property. Schlueter reported that the petitioner was deferred at the last meeting to come up with an appropriate screening plan. Schlueter reported the petitioner plans to install a commercial series black mesh vented wind screen along the fence surrounding the storage yard. Schlueter reported the petitioner is also planning on installing a row of arbor vitae to additionally help screen the property from surrounding properties. Schlueter reported that the front parking lot was recently expanded as a gravel lot but because ordinance requires all parking lots to be paved, the petitioner has requested additional time to get that lot paved. Schlueter reported that the city plans to do some improvements near this property including new curbs and sidewalks along with extending the bike trail. Schlueter reported they would like to give the petitioner until the end of 2021 to get the lot paved to coincide with the improvement projects. Kris Helsel, 116 N. Indiana, came before the Board as a representative for the petitioner. Helsel asked Schlueter to verify that they want a tree every 5’ in the rear of the property. Schlueter reported they would like them every 4-5’. Helsel asked Schlueter to verify that they want the mesh all along the trees. Schlueter reported that the mesh needs to be around the entire perimeter of the storage lot. Helsel asked if every section of the fence must have the screen. Schlueter confirmed it does. Schlueter asked the petitioner if they agree to all of that. Helsel stated they do agree. Page 1 of 8 Rohaley asked Schlueter to verify that the arbor vitae just covers the tow yard. Helsel confirmed. Rohaley asked if they will go all the way to Indiana Ave. Helsel stated it will not. Marshall stated in the beginning this was being called a tow lot and now it is being called a storage lot, Marshall asked what the difference is. Helsel stated it will be a storage lot for RV’s, boats, campers, and vehicles. Helsel stated they do not do towing or repo’s any longer. Rohaley asked if the boats and campers would be above the fence. Helsel stated some of them may be taller than the 6’ fence. Sauerman addressed what will happen to the fence in 8-10 years when it starts to look a little ragged. Schlueter reported that the city can enforce making sure the fence is kept in good shape. Helsel stated he will keep the fence maintained and if at any time the fencing or screening looks bad in any section, he will replace it. Helsel stated the location of the arbor vitaes may be on the city’s property a little but and asked if the city would have any problems with that. Schlueter reported the city would not have any issues with that. Taylor asked for more information on the gravel lot that is to be paved by the end of 2021. Helsel asked Taylor to look at the plat and the gravel parking lot is indicted on it. Rohaley stated Taylor brings up a good point and it needs to be indicated what is the storage lot and what is the future paved lot so that there is no disagreement down the road. Rohaley stated the future paved lot needs to be completely delineated on the platy survey. Helsel stated the dotted lines on the survey show where the fence will be located. Schlueter reported anything located within that fence is the storage lot. Schlueter reported the extension of the lot to the north will all be paved by the end of 2021. Rohaley asked if the existing parking lot is paved. Helsel stated it is. Rohaley asked the petitioner to verify that they will be paving everything outside of the existing paved lot outside of the fencing. Helsel confirmed. Rohaley asked Attorney Irak if he has all the conditions. Irak stated if and when this petition receives a favorable motion, he would like to read all the conditions. Rohaley entertained a motion. Taylor motioned to send a favorable recommendation for Petition #20-02 to subject to all of Staff comments and all the conditions listed by Irak. Irak listed out the conditions which included all Staff & Board comments, lot to be paved by the end of 2021, all screening commitments agreed to in the meeting, all other commitments agreed to during the meeting and clear delineation of what is the storage yard and what is the paved area on the survey. Nochevich seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 4 Ayes, 1 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #20-02 received a favorable recommendation. Rohaley informed the petitioner that they will need to present via zoom for the City Council meeting on May 4, 2020. NEW BUSINESS 20-04 DVG Team, Inc, Petitioner/I-65 Beacon Hill Partners, Owner Request: Variance of Development Standards Purpose: Allow the Hampton Inn Hotel to exceed the maximum size and height allowance Location: 10850 Delaware Pkwy Page 2 of 8 Schlueter reported on the location, zoning and proposed design of the building including the size and height. Schlueter reported that the BZA can approve the height to exceed the max if the all front and side yard depth are increased by 1’ for each additional foot of height and the structure does not constitute a hazard to an established airport. Schlueter reported on the proposed side and front yard setbacks and stated the building setback does exceed the excess in height by more than a 4/1 ratio. Schlueter recommended approval. Russ Posen, of DVG, 1155 Troutwine came before the Board and provided an overview of the petition. Rohaley entertained a motion. Marshall motioned to approve Petition #20-04 with Staff comments. Sauerman seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #20-04 was approved. 20-05 DVG Team, Inc, Petitioner/I-65 Beacon Hill Partners, Owner Request: Variance of Development Standards Purpose: Allow the on-building signage to exceed the maximum size and height allowance Location: 10850 Delaware Pkwy Schlueter reported on the location, zoning, and history of approvals. Schlueter reported on the proposed signage and sizes. Russ Posen, of DVG, 1155 Troutwine came before the Board and provided an overview of the petition. Rohaley asked if the sign will be illuminated. Posen confirmed it would be. Rohaley entertained a motion. Nochevich motioned to approve Petition #20-05 with Staff comments. Marshall seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #20-05 was approved. 20-06 Southlake Family YMCA, Petitioner/Franciscan Alliance, Inc., Owner Request: Variance of Development Standards Purpose: Allow the parking lot expansion to encroach the front setback Location: 1450 South Court St Schlueter reported on the location, zoning, and history of approvals. Schlueter reported this will add 69 spaces to their parking lot. Russ Posen, of DVG, 1155 Troutwine came before the Board and provided an overview of the petition. Rohaley asked the petitioner to verify that this is an extension to the east of the existing parking lot. Posen confirmed it is near the pool house. Sauerman asked if there is a parking lot proportion to the number of members that they use to determine the number of spaces needed. Posen stated they generally have that. Schlueter reported that there is a calculation based on the number of members, the number of parking would have been in the 1000’s and this petition received a variance to allow for less parking than what was required. Rohaley entertained a motion. Marshall motioned to approve Petition #20-06 with Staff comments. Nochevich seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #20-06 was approved. Page 3 of 8 20-07 Nana’s Daycare, Petitioner/John & Judith Wehner, Owner Request: Variance of Use Purpose: Operate a Day Care Location: 1810 & 1 East South Street Schlueter reported on the location and zoning. Schlueter reported that Nana’s Day care operates several locations along Main Street in Crown Point. Schlueter reported that the property has 2 single family homes that will house 12-15 children each and 2-4 certified day care employees each depending on licensing requirements. Schlueter reported on the hours of operation and pick up and drop off will occur in the shared driveway with access to South Street. Schlueter reported if approved both properties will undergo renovations to bring them up to city and state code licensing requirements. Schlueter reported that a paved parking area will be provided with landscape screening to shield lights from neighboring properties. Schlueter recommended any approval be subject to Fire Dept. approval of any renovations and the paved parking lot. Amanda Certa (no address provided), came before the Board and provided an overview of the petition. Certa stated they will be putting in a play area in the back along with parking. Certa reported on the Finding of Facts. Marshall asked what the current zoning of the property is. Schlueter reported that it is R3 Residential. Sauerman asked if Certa’s other daycare facilities are in residential zoning. Certa stated they are all on Main St. and two of them are in residential and two are commercial zoning. Sauerman asked Certa if she is leasing the properties or purchasing. Certa stated her colleague is purchasing them and she is leasing from him. Schlueter reported that though some of her daycares are in commercial they all abut residential. Schlueter reported there has been no issues with any of her other properties. Nochevich asked Certa to verify that they have allocated 18 parking spots. Certa confirmed. Schlueter reported that is well over what is required. Taylor asked if those spots would remain gravel or would they be paved. Certa stated she does not know what city code requires. Schlueter reported code requires all the parking to be paved. Taylor asked for clarification of the gate on the drawing. Certa stated they are considering putting a gate there. Schlueter reported that there was a gate there and there are still two poles but currently there is no gate. Unidentified male stated that the day care and the proposed storage facility will have separate ingress/egress. Rohaley stated he struggles with understanding where the daycare begins/ends and where the storage area begins/ends. Rohaley asked the petitioner to delineate on the map/drawing where the beginning and ending of each is. Rohaley asked if they are going to have a site plan review. Schlueter asked a site plan review in what manner. Rohaley stated he wants to see ingress/egress, how do they turn around and go back out, flow of the parking flow and what the parking for the daycare vs the storage is. Rohaley asked if the storage unit will be using the drive to the east. Schlueter confirmed. Certa stated cars will pull into parking spots to drop off then pull out and go back out on South St. Rohaley stated if someone is trying to get to the storage they will drive right up the middle of the two houses. Dave Tokar (no address provided) came before the Board. Rohaley asked Tokar to clarify the access to the storage facility. Rohaley asked what would stop someone from cutting between the two houses as a shortcut to the storage facility. Tokar stated that is possible and they can work with the Fire Marshall on that. Tokar Page 4 of 8 stated the gate would be the demising between the day care and storage facility. Tokar stated the gate would not be locked. Tokar stated they would expect the customers for the day care would utilize the west curb cut and the storage customers would use the east curb cut. Rohaley stated he feels this is just a hodge podge. Rohaley asked if they planned on securing the day care property from the storage facility with a fence or something. Tokar stated they could at some point. Rohaley stated he does not see how he is going to separate the kids from the day care from the people going to the storage facility in a safe way unless there is some clear delineation to keep those two apart. Tokar stated they would be open to that. Rohaley stated he is not prepared to make any determination based on what is before him now. Rohaley stated there are way too many variables and too many dangers. Rohaley stated he does not feel comfortable with this plan. Sauerman stated he feels it is a huge liability. Tokar stated the storage buildings are about 100’ back and once the fence is installed the kids won’t be able to get back in that area. Rohaley asked about the playground. Tokar stated the playground is tentative. Tokar stated the kids would not be able to runaround they would be in a fenced in area. Rohaley stated unless he sees a detailed plan he would not be in favor of this petition. Rohaley stated the petitioner would need a drawing to show what the parking flow and the separation between the day care and storage facility will be, something that would make it safe for all parties. Tokar asked where they would like to see the parking. Tokar stated they are open to doing fencing. Tokar asked what they would like to see. Rohaley stated they have to show on the drawing some sort of hard and fast fencing between the storage facility and between the two houses to be used as day cares. Rohaley stated they will also need some sort of delineation so that people do not use the west curb cut or the west ingress/egress to get to the storage facility. Rohaley state he sees this as a complete safety issue with kids and people flying through there to get to the storage units. Rohaley stated there is plenty of room there for them to work this out, the Board just needs to see a decent plan. Rohaley stated he does not want to create an unsafe situation. Taylor asked if there was a way to help this along, he feels they are looking at both petitions at the same time. Rohaley stated they are just looking at the day care. Taylor asked if they could move forward on the day care and address these issues on the storage unit petition. Rohaley stated he is not comfortable moving forward on the day care either until all the issues are addressed. Rohaley stated both uses needs to complement each other on parking, access, and ingress/egress. Sauerman agreed with Rohaley. Sauerman stated there should be some fencing to keep everything separate to assure there is no chance of having any traffic from the storage unit encroaching on the day care area. Sauerman stated there needs to be fencing that makes the storage area distinct from the day care area. Sauerman agreed with Rohaley that this is a huge safety issue. Rohaley asked the petitioner if they want to take the plan and rework it to show these two parcels separate from each other so there is no intermingling. Tokar agreed with Sauerman that there should be a fence along the north edge to keep them separate. Rohaley stated he feels they should defer both petitions to allow them time to rework the plan and come back with a better drawing. Rohaley asked if they are going to fence in the entire storage area. Tokar stated they are open to fencing. Attorney Irak recommended deferring any public comment to allow the petitioners to come up with a new plan. Schlueter asked Irak to verify that he thinks they should not take public comment. Irak confirmed and stated he thinks they should hold public comment until the petitioners have a new drawing. Schlueter stated he disagrees because he has taken a few calls regarding this petition that has questions. Schlueter stated he feels the public should be able to comment so that the Board can see what their concerns are so that the Board can take that under advisement. Rohaley stated they do not have a plan what are they going to comment on. Schlueter stated they can voice their concerns. Tokar asked if they can talk about the storage unit first so that he can get a feel from what the Board is looking for. Irak stated it depends on what the Board wants. Rohaley stated he feels they need to see a better plan. Rohaley motioned to defer Petition #20-07 for 30 days. Sauerman seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 4 Ayes, 1 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #20-07 was deferred for 30 days. Page 5 of 8 20-08 Dave Tokar, Petitioner/John & Judith Wehner, Owner Request: Variance of Use Purpose: Operate a Storage Facility Location: 1810 & 1 East South Street Schlueter reported on the location, zoning, history of use, proposed use, access, and proposed hours of operation. Schlueter reported if approved the petitioner will be repairing the buildings and installing fencing on the north property line. Tokar stated the primary reason for buying the property is to help his friend Certa. Tokar stated this would not cause a traffic issue or create any noise for the neighboring properties. Tokar reported on the Finding of Facts. Rohaley stated he has concerns with this petition and would like to see a new plan that shows delineation between the storage area and the day cares and shows the parking flow. Rohaley stated he wants to make sure there are no safety issues. Taylor asked if there will be any outside storage. Tokar stated he does not anticipate outside storage. Marshall asked if there will be any truck or large equipment parking. Tokar stated he does not anticipate that; it should be all inside storage. Marshall voiced his concern with truck parking and stated that would not be fair to the neighbors. Tokar stated he does not anticipate truck, large equipment, or RV parking. Rohaley asked if the storage facility would be operated by Tokar or leased out to an operator. Tokar stated it is possible, but they own other storage facilities. Nochevich asked Tokar if he will agree to no outside storage as a condition of any approval. Tokar agreed. Rohaley motioned to defer Petition #20-08 for 30 days. Sauerman seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 4 Ayes, 1 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #20-08 was deferred for 30 days. Schlueter informed the public that they can speak on these petitions at the next BZA meeting on May 26, 2020. 20-09 Richard Sallie, Petitioner/AJL Properties, LLC, Owner Request: Variance of Use Purpose: Operate a Mortuary Location: 850 Madison Street Schlueter reported on the location, zoning, and surrounding property. Schlueter reported the proposed use, proposed hours operation and a history of petitions. Schlueter reported this owner received a denial for a mortuary previously. Richard Sallie, (no address given) and Al Bartley came before the Board. Sallie provided an overview of the petition. Sallie stated he is not asking to operate a mortuary, just to be able to install cooling unit to hold bodies. Sallie reported on the Finding of Facts. Marshall asked where they are storing bodies right now. Sallie stated at the crematory Chicago Heights. Marshall asked Sallie if he is asking for a cooling unit to hold 12 bodies. Sallie stated 12 is a good number to Page 6 of 8 start with. Marshall asked how many bodies the crematory in Chicago Heights will hold. Sallie stated about 100. Marshall stated he does not think that a 12-body cooling unit would make that big of a difference. Sallie stated he is looking at his families and their needs. Marshall asked if the families have contact with the bodies at this facility. Sallie stated he is just looking for this approval so that he can keep loved one’s bodies at this facility until the death certificate is signed. Sauerman asked who is legally allowed to hold bodies. Sauerman asked if a person has to hold a specific license to hold bodies and asked the petitioner if he holds one. Sallie confirmed it is required and that he does hold a license. Sauerman stated if Sallie has a license what would keep him from using this location as a funeral home. Sallie stated an agreement with the City Council he agreed to years ago. Sallie stated all he is looking for is cooling units to store bodies not to perform funerals. Sauerman read back the minutes from the December 3, 2012 meeting. Sauerman stated this is a big jump and asked if there are environmental issues with this because of bodily fluids. Sauerman asked Irak about the legalities of this. Irak stated he is unclear. Sallie provided details of how bodies are picked up and what is done with them. Sallie stated he does not think it is any different than any other funeral home. Sauerman stated only a funeral home can hold bodies and if this location is holding bodies it is operating as a funeral home and stated he has an issue with that in an industrial area. Nochevich informed Sallie this has nothing to do with his licensing or capabilities, it is all about the location being in an Industrial area. Nochevich stated he remembers hearing this petition back in 2012 and the zoning of the location being an issue back then as well. Sallie stated he figured an Industrial area would be an opportune place for this type of facility. Nochevich stated the Board is just following the code which states a funeral home does not belong in an Industrial area. Rohaley stated the Board has an obligation to the taxpayers to make sure that uses are zoned correctly and that uses are placed in the correct zoning. Rohaley opened the public portion of the meeting. Larry Geisen, 606 E 113th Ave., came before the Board and voiced his concern with this petition. Geisen stated his family has operated a funeral home for 153 years. Geisen stated Sallie needs to be a funeral home to be legal, that the cremation service is not even in the definition for state licenses. Geisen stated that is not anything the State Board of Funeral Services allows. Geisen stated Sallie had to file an application with the State Board of Funeral Services to become a funeral home. Geisen stated Sallie does have a prep room at this location. Geisen stated it was not discussed with the State Board on whether this location is zoned properly because it is not on their application because they just assume that they are meeting the guidelines of the city. Geisen also stated the State Board does not ask about any stipulations that are put on a location by the city so they would not know that bodies cannot be held at this facility. Geisen stated the State Board would have never given Sallie the license to sell funeral products had they known the location was not zoned properly and/or had stipulations on it. Geisen stated he feels Sallie kind of went around the city and has been operating as a funeral home since 2012 in area not zoned properly. Geisen stated storage is not really an issue. Geisen provided Irak the code defining a funeral home in Indiana State code. Geisen stated he has issues with Sallie having a license to operate a funeral home in a location not zoned for that. TJ Pruzin, 811 E. Franciscan Dr., came before the Board and agreed with Geisen. Pruzin voiced his opposition to this petition. Pruzin stated a prep room is where embalming takes place and asked why they would need a prep room if they do not have bodies. With no other public coming forward, Rohaley closed the public portion of the meeting. Page 7 of 8 Sallie stated he takes great exception to the fact that Geisen stated he tried to hoodwink the city. Sallie claimed the State Board knows exactly how he is operating and knows he will never use the prep room. Sallie stated there is no merit to the fact he is holding visitations or embalming at this location. Rohaley entertained a motion. Sauerman motioned to send an Unfavorable Recommendation to the City Council for Petition #20-09 based on the Finding of Facts. Sauerman seconded the motion. With a roll call vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions Petition #20-09 received an Unfavorable Recommendation Rohaley informed the petitioner they would need to be present at the City Council meeting on May 4, 2020. MISCELLANEOUS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Larry Geisen stated he still feels the city needs to investigate the legality of Sallie is still operating as a funeral home, licensed by the state, in a location not zoned for that type of business. No Misc. ADJOURNMENT At 8:37 pm, Rohaley entertained a motion to adjourn. Marshall motioned to adjourn; motion was seconded by Sauerman. ATTESTMENT OF MEETING MINUTES. The above minutes were approved and adopted by majority on the _______day of ___________ 2020. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Daniel Rohaley, Chairman Anthony Schlueter, Executive Secretary Page 8 of 8