Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

here. Peter Kemp here. Logan Zuber here. Dave Schmer's absent. Chris Lamb absent. [music]

We do have a um the vote has got to be unanimous in order for the variance to be approved. So if anybody wants to wait till the next meeting when we have more people here that way. So that's up to the person asking for okay uh please turn off your cell phones airplane mode. No changes to our agenda. No, [clears throat] no business. No, good business.

We have We have the meeting minutes. Oh, the meeting minutes. Sorry about that. Yeah. Um, changes or modifications to minutes. They're pretty short. Nope. None. A motion. Move to approve the November 2020 November 25th, 2025 meeting notes. I'll second. All in

favor? I I Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh James Kataret, city planner for Auburn. Uh Todd Ramsey, who's representing the property owner 869 Development LLC. uh requesting a variance of development standards to reduce the setback requirements for parking lots on a on a proposed new development. Uh it's required to be 10 foot setback for parking lots. He's requesting it to be 5 foot. It's for a proposed commercial de development at 1570 Shook Drive. Uh the uh various request requires public hearing was advertised on December 4th and there were four adjacent property owners notified of the request. The property itself is highlighted in the yellow just north of the Home Depot and south of the uh the office building where Thomas Realy is etc. This is just a uh the the plat of the property. There's an access driveway uh that provides access for this lot as well as for the Sonic and for the office building that is on the east side of this lot. This is a conceptual site plan. We'll refer back to it. The request is specifically for the parking spaces that are on the north side of the property and the south. Uh they are proposed at five foot at their closest point. There's a slight angle uh to the north uh parking lot line. Uh but the closest would be five foot. You'll see they'll have landscaping between the parking spaces and the property lines. The property itself is own commercial.

A couple of photographs of the property. Um this is actually the entrance drive. So we're looking at what would be the drive to the property. [clears throat] This is looking uh from the driveway along the uh Shook Drive. So this is looking west towards the Holiday Inn. This is just showing the undeveloped lot itself looking south. And last one is looking to the uh east along Shook Drive. There were uh no public input comments provided to staff for this request from our notices. And again, I'm uh on the uh request, all commercial parking lots, the actual parking lot spaces have to be at least 10 foot for the property line. I note that the driveway again along um the uh west property line if you and if you don't mind going back to the site plan just briefly on the west property line um where the uh drive-through lanes are and the bypass lane for the drive-thru is that is at least 10 foot for the property line. The parking spaces on the east side are are a lot more than 10 foot because of that access drive. Uh so they're only asking for the variance on the north and south. One thing with the conceptual plan that that was important to staff as we looked at this is ensuring that if we're reducing the 10 foot, it's reducing the what would be the landscaped area. And uh so we we wanted to ensure that the landscaping of the property was at least 20% of the entire site. Um, so even with the reduced setback um of the parking spaces, they're still at 23% of the lot. So that's that's that's a very good thing. They don't have to request a variance to the lot coverage as well. So we're we're uh that was an important part of the request.

Um, and I mentioned the access to the site um along the east property line. And then the as we looked at that uh development plan uh it has it has good circulation. So we have good parking on the north and south side. So there's adequate parking. There's three tenant spaces in this proposed building. The north one and the south one have a proposed driveth through lane attached to it which is very common now in the newer commercial buildings. Tenants more and more want drive-thru lanes um as part of their their um business model. And there's good circulation behind it because we still have a bypass lane. So even if you're in the if you're in the drive-through lane for the tenant on the north side, you can still drive around, not get blocked, whether you're exiting the parking lot or going into the other drive-thru lane. Uh the drive-through lanes, we're not looking at the development plan, but there's adequate stacking for each one. That that's also important to make sure that there's the ability to have the stacking uh for vehicles waiting in the drive-through lanes. Uh but with this specific request um even with the reduced setbacks of the parking they exceed the landscaping requirements the open space requirements and we feel that if we if we force the 10-foot setback in this scenario it it creates bottlenecks in the traffic flow around the building. And so staff was comfortable with this request of this property. So, we do recommend um that you accept the staff proposed findings and approve the variance as requested. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Please come forward. Um Todd Ramsey, one50 Bent Creek Boulevard, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Um, yeah, Jim does a great job with the staff. We met with them prior to doing this. I really don't have much to add other than it does allow for some very nice flow and not having some bottlenecks here on the property. So, thanks. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak for the project?

Your All right. Introduce yourself. Your name address. [music]

Yep. Dr. Brian Hogberg, spelled H O A G. B U RG. Um, I'm the owner of 1568 Shook Drive, just north of the property. Home address is 14306 Smuggler's Notch. That's Fort Wayne, Indiana 46814. Um, I'm also I'm so the owner of the property. I'm also the owner of Hogberrook Orthodontics, which is one of the tenants of that property as well. um our windows are the ones that face directly to the the proposed um development. And I do want to say that I I do not support the request for the variance to reduce the setback from 10 feet down to the 5T um specifically on the north side of the property. Personally, I don't have an issue with the south side, but um where where my um my business operates, I do have an issue. Some of my main concerns um is the lack of a green space and buffer space between my office and that parking lot. Um I have windows that face directly out to that property. Um exam rooms, patient rooms that that people are in. Um, and I'm quite concerned about the presence of, you know, one how close it's going to be, but cars being there, headlights coming right into into the windows, the noise from car doors shutting, cars turning on when I'm trying to conduct exams, see patients, trying to communicate with staff and patients as well. Um, and and just the overall the experience of just having having those headlights and cars to look at. Um, not saying obviously this is more just a setback, but when you go out to the property and actually measure it out, the the five foot um really puts it right right in our backyard right right at the windows basically. And um these are windows, you know, like I said, we operate exams out of and see patients in and um do new patient exams, all of those things. Um you know, the noise like I talked about is is one of my other concerns. you know, obviously five

feet is not significant, but as you get closer and more on top of of each other, I I have those concerns of, you know, hearing that constantly within those rooms and being able to operate a medical office as it needs to be operated. Um, so, you know, I think having that that 10 ft will give a little bit more of a natural uh green space, more of a a visual and noise barrier between our businesses. Um obviously it's a a fairly large lot and you know with a large parking lot and um you know to me five feet on terms of a plan can be pretty small but in terms of the feeling in our business and the impact it'll have on us could be a little bit more significant. Um, outside of the variance setback and I'm not entirely sure if it's appropriate in this this meeting is I do have a significant concern about traffic flow and the overall safety just within that area and particularly with the the access way um that is there. So our our our property was the one that really only used that access way and then you know pretty recently within the last few months Sonic has opened up there um which has created a lot of um pretty pretty concerning um safety issues particularly with the drive-throughs and you know seeing a drive-through proposed on this where there is backup of flow of traffic onto that access way. a few times it's actually been out onto Shook Drive and I have personally had multiple patients come in and complain and and be concerned that hey there is only one way in and one way out into my entire business park there and um if you see it's you know it's a fairly long access way there's no markings or lines on on there so um I've had several patients express concern frustrations about it um and so that is another thing again I don't know if that's outside the scope of what we're talking about today, but is a mostly a safety concern with, you know, patients having to go in and out and tenants, you know, or customers of

these businesses and and all that. So, the the overload on that access way was already felt and I'm concerned about it getting um to a point where it's it's going to be a serious concern. Um, so like I said, for that particularly safety, safety is my number one concern. you know, I'm not opposed to widening it or doing some other things, but within this proposal, I would, you know, at least like to see something done to to ease that um that congestion that that's been occurring there. Um so, overall, you know, I'd like to say obviously I'm pro business. I'm I welcome an additional business neighbor. I have no problem with with the development. I just want to make sure it's done in a way that's not going to, you know, negatively impact me as a tenant, al also my other tenants that I have within the building. Um, and so one thing is if um if this is really, you know, what what they would desire, I would be okay with the five- foot as long as there was some sort of barrier as in a a full fence that would go in between the businesses um or some sort of landscaping buffer that um is somewhat significant. You know, talking about at least probably five, six foot bushes that would go in to to create that that noise insulation and visual insulation um between the two. But if that's not um feasible for them, I I I do um oppose having that setback in place. Thank you. Kevin Webb 113 Matthew Cove, two B's with web. Um or not to be. Oh, go ahead. So, I didn't see the uh drawing on how close the north side is to that business there that you just talked about, which would be kind of a concern, but you can do landscape bushings and fences in a five foot set five foot space as much as you can a 10-ft space. And I know that

this was 10-ft space was proposed kind of one sizefits all. And then definitely there's times that it it needs to be adjusted. the south side there's I don't see any problem with the five foot setback on that but I think some kind of landscaping should be required bushes or something on the north side but because of the business being so close but

tell us about um no I you know what I think a fence would be proper so uh our parking is for our people and they don't park in our lot and we don't park in their lot. So, I'm fine with a north property line fence if that meets requirements. Yes. Yeah, they could. So, I'd rather have that. So, we park where we are supposed to park and they park where they are. You're not going to walk around necessarily. I mean, as long as it's a a six foot privacy fence, I'm okay with that. Sounds good to me.

Okay. And does anybody else have to speak? [clears throat] [clears throat] More questions. What are our fence requirements for that property for a commercial? Because I know we've had the issues with fences in the past like the design. Yeah, they I mean it could be six foot maximum height. It can only be uh along the north property line up to what the front setback would be off of the uh the what would be the east property line. So it won't be able to go all the way up to the access drive. It'll have to start stop a little short of that which you wouldn't want to do just for visibility purposes. Uh, is there

Yeah, they could do one along the entire property line and put it on up to the property line. Okay. So, it can go up to It can go up to it. Okay. I think the rightway line will stop at our the eastern most parking space. Okay. Yeah. About where that is that we have visibility. Is it the name of that street? No, it's just a private access drive. There's an easement there that so all property owners have access and could use that.

I mean, we've got applicant and neighbor who just both agreed that they kind of like we can work together. So, I say do it and then give them um should we make it a requirement then to put a condition to put a fence along the north side? Sure. This finds a factor for 1570 shook drive variance BJA stands 2025-16 one the approval of the variance will not be public health safety morals and welfare of the community will not sorry will not will not sorry wish to adopt the staff line yes number two the use of the area of the property including will not be effective will not wish to adopt that staff yes yes yes

three strict application the ordinance will or will not practical difficulties and use of the property will you wish to adopt the staff Yes. Yes. Motion. [music] Move to approve BZA standard variance 2025-016 with a condition that a privacy fence be installed on the north side of the property. And I'll second it. I happy holidays. Thanks. You too.

[clears throat]

I can talk. [laughter] [snorts] Oh, you're okay. Thank you. uh Dale Bernard who's representing the Auburn Church of Christ uh they're requesting a variance of development standard to reduce the uh minimum front yard setback requirement from 30 ft down to 0 feet along 17th Street for the property at 1103 South Jackson Street. Uh the uh specific property is the house that's located at the quarter of 17th Street and Jackson Street. This variance required uh legal notice in the star that was published on December 4th and there were 13 adjacent property owners. We went around the perimeter of the entire church property for this request. Um the that [clears throat] the uh in the yellow is the entire church property. We're specifically looking at the 17th Street which is highlighted in this conceptual plan and the the black. So that's the existing house which currently is on the property line along 17th Street. So there currently is a zero foot setback for that home. Um and uh the current setback along Jackson Street is actually where the al cove is the front of the church building the entry way which is um believe three three and a half ft. The request specifically would be to demolish the existing structure. When you demolish the existing structure, the uh that existing setback then goes away. They could add on to it. They could have kept the home and added uh further to

the to the west and kept along the same line of the home. But when you remove the structure, anything new has to comply with the building setback. That means basically they don't have any room there to build anything uh with a 30-foot setback. The other um fact about this property is it has frontage on four a street on each side of the property. So they have a front setback on all four uh sides of this property itself. Couple of photographs illustr that shows the the zoning of the property is institutional. This shows the actual setback. So it's actually a zero foot setback. You can see that the garage part of the structure actually extends right up to the property line. This shows what that front would be. So, currently the the residence itself is is pushed back a little bit further than the church and then even further back than the uh al cove uh entryway to the church. And this shows from the parking lot. We're looking east showing that existing building. Just a little bit closer, a look up of what the uh entryway to the church is. That actually establishes the front setback along Jackson Street. On this particular request, at the time we published the staff report, we didn't receive any public input. We did receive a call after the report was published. It was from a neighbor. They had no objection to the variance um and were not able to be here, but they had questions just to make sure they understood what the request was. Uh so as as identified uh the current requirement is 30 foot. They're asking to go uh basically up to the property line. Their intent is to they're going to remove the building but they're going to put the new building in the same location as the existing structure. Um it is classified as non-conforming as

I mentioned because it currently does not comply with the requirements. So that prompts the need for the variance request by removing the structure. As I mentioned, the uh the front yard set back off of Jackson is actually three and a half feet, but they're going to push the uh the new addition is going to be set back just the way the home is at 6 foot. So you shouldn't see any encroachment into uh towards Jackson Street of the structure. That existing uh structure has a garage on it with a driveway approach off of 17th Street. That garage and the entire structure goes away that uh access driveway will be removed as well. Uh the new structures at this point in time is proposed as one story. Um but unless you condition it as a one story, they could do two. I know there was some talk amongst the church they may go with a second story as long as um um if there was a condition you wanted to limit it to one and that would be um that would be a requirement but the new structure is going to be utilized for offices for the church just as the existing structure. There'll be some storage in the back of the building uh but there won't be a driveway off of uh 17th Street. It'll just be a storage for the uh for the property. The building right now is designed at approximately 1,900 square ft uh in size. Uh so as um as I understand the request, uh the new structure, it's not going to be any closer to 17th Street than the existing structure. And with the property having the four frontages, there's really no way they could build a new structure uh other than in the parking lot area um uh without the various requests. So we feel that the the setback's been established for many many years with that existing home. It's not going it's not really

changing the dynamics of that particular corner. Uh so staff does approve the uh variance request and recommend that you accept our proposed findings of fact. This is not an extension of the church. It is not. It will be connected to the church. There'll be a but it won't be a a pure there'll be space between the church and this building with the exception of a connection hallway between the two. Thank you very much.

Yep. Dale Bernard, 1103 Riviera Court, Auburn, Indiana 46706. Bernard Ber ND and I think Jim laid it out real well. Um that there's a little bit of difference on that connection. It'll be up there's a storage behind the little hallway, an office storage that's going to be right next to the church as well. But I think other than that he stated everything. There's an exist looks like an existing storage

that shed's going to go away. This would be like storage for file cabinets. So it's an internal that'll be right next to the church as well. But that was the only difference I saw from what Jim presented.

Is there anyone in the audience forward against this project? Kevin Webb 113 Matthew Cove 2Bs. Um, I appreciate the presentation because I glanced at all this stuff this morning and had more questions and concerns, but uh, looks pretty good. zero setbacks existing buildings and I'm sure you'll go along with the building the structure as the old structure was footprinted and everything. So I'm all for this. Wish the church well [music]

questions it's an office building today. Okay. All set. Yep. And there's a findings effect, please. The findings effect worksheet for 1103 South Jackson Street variance standard 2025 17. One, the approval of the variance will or not be jurisd? Yes. Yes. Number two, the use of the area property including variance will not be affected substantially adverse manner to adopt the staff. Yes. Yes. and the strict application of the terms of the ordinance will or will not result in practical difficulties in use of will. Yes.

Yes. Have a motion please. Oh, I I'll move BCA standard variance 2025-017 to be approved. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. [clears throat]

Okay. We do not have a meeting next month. We do not have any applications filed yet. The filing deadline's next week. So, we'll keep you posted. And that's also nominations for officers. If we have the meeting, it will be it'll be at the the first Yeah. February. reports. Move to adjourn. A second. Thank you. Everyone have a wonderful holiday.