Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

[Music] d [Music] d [Music]

[Music] good welcome to the town of Avon Board of his zoning peels of me meeting if you interested in having a copy of the agenda or the staff reports they're available on the tables to the right of the audience this meeting is being recorded for the public record because of this we request that personal conversations are kept to a minimum and all cell phones are set to vibrate with any phone calls taken outside of the chambers if you are interested in commenting during any public hearing please sign up on the sheets located on the tables to the right of the audience when your name is called please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record please address your comments to the board and not to staff or the appellant your comment should relate directly of the case at hand we do understand that there be seever that there may be several persons who wish to speak the chair May therefore impose a time limit for each person Federal Law requires that the town make available to all attendees a title six public involvement survey these surveys are on the table to the right of the audience members of the public who wish to complete this survey may do so and place them in the designated area if because of a disability any person in attendance needs Assistance or accommodation to fully participate in this meeting please notify staff thank you for your assistance in facilitating a respectful fair and timely meeting again Welcome to our meeting please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for

all roll call please Paul goodenberger here Ann enman here Katherine ransburg here Marcy tasler here Markus Turner here and at this time we uh we do have one item that's been left on the agenda so we're GNA ask for a motion to suspend rules and um and add um election of officers to the agenda so if someone would like to make that agenda we'd appreciate we'd appreciate someone making that motion I'll make a motion to end rules for election of officers I'll second a motion by Mr gburger a second by Mrs ransburg any discussion all in favor say I I I anyone opposed so we will start by opening uh nominations for chair and I'll just remind everybody um seconds are not required for nominations I'm would like to nominate Marcus Turner for chair any other nominations I'd like to nominate Marcus Turner as well thank you just emphasizing any other nominations we'll close nominations all in favor say I I I anyone opposed now we will open nominations for the vice president I'd like to nominate an Inman for vice president or vice chair any other nominations all in favor say say I please I I anyone oppose and finally uh we'll open nominations for the

secretary I nominate Paul grenberg um I'd like to decline the nomination as secretary I don't think you're allowed to do that are you is he allowed to do that I I would not like to serve that position but I would like to who normally who was it last is Paul oh that's right it was that's right okay yeah let nominate Paul Jun [Laughter] okay I can't read what's your last name Paul sorry lamb lamby I can't read Because okay I nominate Paul lamby as our secretary motion by Mrs ransburg any discussion all in favor say I I I okay we can move on next item is approval of the minutes from December 12th 2024 does anyone have any comments Corrections and if there are none we'll attain a motion luenberger um I for oh sorry we we need a motion first I move we approve the minutes of December 17 2024 it's a motion by Mr goodenberger is there second I second second by Mrs ransburg any discussion now we're ready for roll callenberger four andman four rburg four tler four four Turner four next time as requests for continuances or agenda modifications do we have any thank you chairperson Turner we do in fact um they may pop up on the screen in just a

second here we go um so we have two cases that are requested for continuances by the petitioner they are related they are SE 245 and V 2407 both at 7893 East US Highway 36 um which is a special exception and variance of development standards for a proposed Dutch Brothers Coffee the petitioners requesting these matters be continued to February 18th 2025 in order to further review the property owners obligations related related to previous land use approvals at the site um you do have a full staff report in your packet so you probably are a little bit familiar from having reviewed that with what the issue is there I'm not going to go into detail on that um unless there are questions but even though this was continued at the previous hearing right um for a somewhat similar reason staff is supportive of this request as between the last hearing and this one we were able to um discover some more documents to send to the petitioner to kind of back up the requests that uh staff is making as far as trying to take care of this long-standing issue at the Lowe's property so we do support continuing this so that the petitioner can have time to evaluate um what their response will be I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have so to clarify this this request is not by right it's at our discretion um yes it is at your discretion and this is this would only be the second continuance oh yes but it's based upon the fact that there's Now new documents that have become available

yes yes those are yes so we sent the after prior to the previous hearing when we made our position known to the petitioner but without having published a recommend ation um they kind of questioned our position and we were able to dig up some some more documents from the old case files to send to them but um that maybe only happened in the last couple weeks so we do think it's um appropriate to request another continuance and we would certainly welcome the opportunity to hopefully um come to some agreement with the petitioner to resolve the long-standing matter uh before this goes forward so I take it there's been um disagreement between staff and the petitioner with regards to some particular element relating to this that they that this could hopefully help clar bring the parties into agreement correct would it be appropriate to ask a question um about staff report or if we're going to continue it would be better not to ask those questions at this time I would suggest to hold those questions about the staff report I mean you can you can ask them but um as far as having a discussion about the merits of the case I would hold off on at least that okay hearing I just I had a question to make sure I understood who who is the property owner um that it's referred to in the staff report as a property owner I couldn't make it out if it was a petitioner or if it was not the petition um so I'm not sure what the the exact relationship is between the applicant Pavilion development company um and the property owner I believe

Lowe's corporate is the owner of the property and they've signed a consent yeah Lowe's Home Centers LLC the vice president they for um sign the consent form to Pavilion development company in order to apply for the special exception in variants I'm not sure of what if there's any relationship if you know Pavilion might be affiliated with um Lowe's in some way or not okay all right thank you if there are no more questions we'll entertain a motion I move that we continue SE 2405 and V 2407 to the February meeting motion by Mrs ransburg is our second second by Mrs Inman any discussion roll call please goodenberger for enman ransburg po tler four Turner four moving on to new business this is SE 24-6 Cava hope I didn't Slaughter that I think you got that right Cava Mediterranean um SE 2406 is a special exception the property is located at 9257 East US Highway 36 um just as a minor administrative note this property was addressed as 9255 through the county and in the uh Beacon system that can be viewed online um after this

was filed it was brought to our attention that another property behind this property was using the address of 9255 so um the town has reassigned 9257 to this parcel so if you saw any reference to 9255 um it that's what the town had on this but we changed it to 9257 since it's a undeveloped parcel and so as not to have confusion with uh somebody else who was using that address this request is for a special exception to allow for a drive-thru in tier one of the us36 overlay District as well as in the C3 zoning District this is lot two in the Rockville Crossing subdivision it's a 1acre parcel um the plat is up on the screen here so just familiarize yourself if you're not familiar with it us36 here to the north Avon Village Parkway to the west and then here's lot one this backwards L shape which is improved with a multi-tenant commercial building here and the subject of this request is lot two which is the northwest corner of that site here's a area view again us36 Avon Village Parkway the existing multi-tenant building that has several restaurants um yats I believe there's a pizza place a sideline Pub on the end a doughnut shop I think an eyebrow place and a smoke shop as well so the property is improved right now um all basically all of lot two is improved with parking which is somewhat certainly used by the lot one um strip center there you can see the

outline essentially approximately of where the proposed building would lie just uh these aren't the best photos but this is the us36 frontage facing west back towards Avon Village Parkway so the site in question would be just off to the left here and then there's a looking South along Avon Village Parkway here's the Strip Center back here I think yats is right here on the end and so the the proposed Cava restaurant would be kind of going right off to this to the edge here excuse me here's just an image from Google Street View kind of showing you the property so this is looking south from us36 the so here's 36 here's the inter excuse me the intersection here's Avon Village Parkway going south from 36 and then here's the multi-tenant building in the back the Cava would be going out front in this general area here oops so as I mentioned the subject site is Zone C3 having been rezoned uh from the I2 industrial district back in 2005 the multi-tenant retail building on lot one was built between 2006 and 2008 um I believe originally lot one I'm sorry lot two which is the subject site was going to be reserved for another commercial use um but it ended up being developed as additional off street parking for the commercial multi-tenant center on lot one back in 2008 uh in order to meet the stricter off street parking standards was in place at that

time so currently Lot 2 is developed with 120 parking spaces and I I'm sorry I didn't I thought maybe I had an image of the existing conditions there but you can kind of see that on the aerial photo that it's it's all parking across here even under that box so this proposal would allow for construction of a little over 2500 square foot uh fast casual type restaurant building with a drive-thru Lane and a pickup window and it would ret would retain excuse me 60 of the existing 120 off street parking spaces so again this is the outline of lot two here the subject site in question so the new building would kind of go in the center there um the drive-thru would start around the South here and come around the East to the pickup window here and so all of these parking spaces on the East the North and the West those would all be retained so but by putting this in I believe 60 parking spaces um go away so again what we're talking about though is the special exception um sorry skipping ahead oops see okay so what I did want to emphasize though although all the other development standards will be looked at in um under the development plan review that'll go to the plan commission we did calculate out the number of parking spaces that are required for the whole integrated unified development um and found that it would be

compliant even after taking away the space spaces for the Cava um The Strip Center building is 20,800 sare Ft this building down here at our strictest standard for restaurants and taverns which is five spaces per thousand square feet that necessitates 104 parking spaces applying that same standard to the co the proposed Cava restaurant that would require an additional 13 spaces for a total requirement of 117 spaces so with the retention of 60 spaces here as well as the 82 spaces that are technically on lot one the overall development would end up with 142 spaces which would be 25 more than required by ordinance um but again to get to the the special exception that is what we're here to discuss um drive-throughs are only permitted in tier one of the us36 overlay by Grant of a special exception they're also required to get a special exception when Zone C3 and one other quick note I should make is that we initially uh mistakenly thought this property was Zone C2 we've had some issues with our zoning map that we've been working on correcting over the last month or so um we thought this was C2 we so the legal notices went out as C2 um but we don't think that there's any issue with the notice being defective um because we don't think that it would um be deceptive or not something that a reasonable person would understand what the request is for and the requirements for a special exception are the same for the tier one tier one of the us36 overlay as well as

when located in C3 so this uh drive-thru it can consist of a single Lane as opposed to some of the double lane drive-throughs that we see nowadays and just a pickup window um I don't believe they have any intention of adding a speaker and menu board that this would just be for picking up orders that have been placed ahead of time uh it is compliant with the us36 overlay requirements the drive-throughs be located behind the front building line or essentially to the side or rear of the building so looking at the required findings there are seven findings the first four are required the the second three are optional for the board to consider the first four essentially being that it's not detrimental to public health safety or general welfare that it wouldn't be injurious to the use and enjoyment of properties in the immediate vicinity or substantially diminish and repair property values that the site would be adequately served by public facilities and that it not create additional public expense for public facilities and then the three optional ones that it meet the standards of the Udo and that it be compatible with adjacent properties and neighborhoods that it makes adequate provision for public services Etc and align with the comprehensive plan um we do believe that this proposed drive-thru would neither negatively impact the public nor surrounding Property Owners one thing to consider when you're looking at the impact of a drive-thru is the potential impact on adjacent Residential Properties if you know you might have vehicles that are idling at late hours if that were like very close to a residential um neighborhood that would be a concern there is a residential

mobile home park immediately to the east of Rockville Crossing but with uh this development being on the northwest corner just to back up here oh my it's not responding when I click it but it does respond at some point let's see if I can get back to where I'm trying to go that's close anyway with this being at the uh the Northwest portion of the property here we go finally so with this being the northwest corner of the property here's the mobile home Park to the east we did measure it out and although we don't have a standard in our ordinance some ordinances require a drive-through to be 100 feet from a residential district the Leading Edge of this drivethru would be 190 feet from the property line and it would be about 250 fet from the closest residential structure so that's a pretty adequate separation um so that leads us to believe that it wouldn't be injurious to um surrounding properties so those are the first two findings that we also believe it's adequately served by public facilities being accessible from the public Street Network um via access through lot one and with utilities available nearby and it should not create additional public expenses um nor be detrimental of the community and then for your second three findings we do find that it meets the standards of the Udo um although we'll review that more closely uh with the development plan review and it's compatible with the surroundings and in alignment with a comprehensive plan so having found that all four required findings as well as

three optional findings would be met staff recommends approval of SE 2406 and I'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have staff questions so if I'm looking at this exhibit a location map do I see that there's only one entrance into the entire um development that includes the proposed development that is correct okay and it's down there by the strip mall correct just to the to the West the west of the building there okay yeah anything else for staff we hear from petitioner good evening my name is William Wilson with Paragon realy address is 8700 North Street sweet 310 fisers Indiana I'm just here to answer any questions that youall might have we developed this property as Paul said in the mid 2000s um we platted both Lots at that time we've uh always had a dream of developing this outlot but it just never worked out over the years and finally this opportunity came before us um I think next Monday night is development plan review um so we'll have I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions there I I did note that I took a note that Paul mentioned something about parking we own both out Lots we may sell one day um the particular caval lot but we plan to keep it currently um we're in

the middle of finalizing a an Rea that would allow cross parking cross access cross utilities so we we'd share in all that even if we sold the outlaw okay just out of curiosity Kevin let's oh let me let me do public hearing first and then we'll oh sorry okay so we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing it's uh 7:57 do anyone sign up to speak there is not and with no one sign up to speak we will close the public hearing 757 I'm sorry for interrupting go ahead okay so just out of curiosity what is Cava Mediterranean drive-thru sorry I thought I was finished um I I liken it to a Chipotle um or a kudoba but with Mediterranean flavors a Mediterranean twist I've not been to one unfortunately um they're a lot in the Southeast there's one going up in fisers and one in Greenwood currently but some of my colleagues have been there and say it's it's delicious you walk in and you make your own Bowl you put whatever you want on it and they serve Peter bread with it so it's I here it's a it's a fad that's expanding into this area can't go wrong with peer bread so I do have a question that you were talking about so this is a separate lot and sounds like does it expand as far as the line the square line is that the entire lot there that is the entire platted lot correct okay so without the agreement that you are talking about for parking if that lot sold that could be fenced off to the rest of the parking lot by a different owner at this time it could not because there's an we would not sell it uh if if

that were the case Okay the the so it could if you did sell it without the agreement please it could not because we will record a restrictive easements and access document that restricts what we want to happen on that line okay they would never be allowed to come in and take all 60 spots that that Paul mentioned um we would all share in those whether we own both Lots or another another owner came along so we would have to share in all those responsibilities I'll also say about the Rea um The Strip Center Lot will be in control forever to maintain the entire lot both Lots one and two Landscaping snow plowing we want to make sure the standards of that caval lot whether we sell it or not meet our standards yeah so the cavalot will share in the ongoing expenses for snow plowing Landscaping keeping it up uh to the standards that it is now okay so with the special exception can we request or make conditions or request commitments i' say yes so if we would approve this and we would make this as a condition of approval that you put that agreement in place are you uh amendable to that condition to have that in place the Rea yeah that it be recorded yeah absolutely it's it's any day now it's going to get recorded we were we've I actually emailed my attorney yesterday and asked her where she stood with it okay we just had a few things to iron out we we definitely wanted to make sure that if anything in the future happened and we did sell it that we would still maintain maintain control um whoever owns the retail Center a lot

we may sell it someday but we don't have any intention to but the lot the retail Center Lot would always maintain control of the entire property in terms of keeping the standards where they should be meeting code and all those things all right thank you sure and when this land was platted it was with the intention of having that outbuilding on there correct it was our intention of doing something they're correct okay if I might just for the record since the acronym Rea has been mentioned several times is that that's a reciprocal easement agreement reciprocal easement agreement correct and um sometimes it's called the CCR Covenant conditions and restrictions it's an acronym that's thrown around a lot yeah thank you and would that be something if there were a condition to be considered that would be more appropriate at the development plan review stage it's something that could be at the development plan stage but if this board wants to see it then I would that they make that condition now um that they present that to us and that it eventually be recorded prior to obviously moving forward with the development happy to agree to that that's important to us as well and I'll just comment that that

staff didn't request a condition like that in this case or in the development plan review which will be heard next Monday um with the with the belief that as the petitioner said it would not make any sense for them to sell the property to someone and then not have the ability for the parking to be shared um and that it we we weren't concerned of a scenario where somebody would buy the property the lot two that we're discussing and then try to restrict the owner of lot one from using the parking because they're relying on lot one for access to their property so it seems like you know lot one needs to be have the shared parking from lot two lot two needs the access through lot one so it seems like something that um if they did sell the property that two Property Owners two potential Property Owners would get together and um make sure they have that covered and not to get too far ahead but if there were a condition I guess the concern staff would have is that we would need to know specifically exactly what needs to be in that agreement um you know in order to be be able to review that and make sure it's covering exactly what the board might want if there were a condition proposed and attached to this are we in general discussion now or okay um so you're welcome sit down or stand up as you want so I do have a question on when I'm when I'm looking at this I was concerned about the number of parking spaces and it sounds like what I

heard you say Paul when you're talking about this there's approximately 140 that would be left over after the construction of this based off what we know at this time is that correct yeah based on this plan which is the same as the the plan that is going forward with the DPR at plan commission next Monday there would be 142 spaces remaining and the ordinance would require 117 if every use in the multi-tenant building were like a restaurant or Tavern because that's the highest standard that we have for commercial uses if it was a lighter more intense use like dut shop might only require uh I'd have to look but it I looked earlier and it's less than five per thousand so you could end up with even lower standard but um we looked at what that kind of worst case scenario would be for the highest amount of parking required for commercial uses and at this time time it would be 117 okay versus 142 provided so pertaining to the request for special exception when I looked at this I was looking at Criterion one on the operation of the use be detrimental to or end Danger The public's health safety or general W welfare so I'm thinking about safety that with the traffic pattern and not really sure but looks like either kind try to squeeze in at the top or go around the building to get into the drive-thru it just seems like it creates a lot of traffic where there could be pedestrian flow going into those other small businesses Ys rise and roll smoke shop the eyebrow place so I'm I'm concerned about pedestrian traffic um which would be something that I would expect the plan commission I'm sure they will bring up um the pedestrian traffic on and safety on this so I'm like is

this really appropriate to have a drive-thru in this location in this parking lot because I'm concerned about safety and not having enough information on how pedestrians will be protected from in increased traffic flow there so I I look at that as Criterion one I'm not sure that Criterion one is met and Criterion two um operations be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties for the same reason that increased traffic flow could hinder pedestrian traffic and potentially Drive business away from that so I'm like those are my the two things the two Criterion that I looked at it's like are these really met and I want to bring that up for consideration by the by the commission by the board if if we're looking at the way and and the petitioner might be able to assist with this if I'm looking at the Exhibit C which is the the sketch plan if someone was going to um want to go here they would they would turn South onto Avon Village Parkway and then they would make a left-hand turn and then in another immediate left-and turn I would assume into that first aisle and then turn right into the drive-thru Lane does that sound correct yes so the the traffic would be along the edge of the entire two lot area near the entrance could be but it's not restricted and that's that's my point because I agree I looked at that which would potentially impact foot traffic to Ys and Rise And Roll because I believe those are the two businesses there on the

end but would that be any different from any other someone who's just pulling in to park there it that's just it went I don't disagree with you and I just like it we I put in that business in there with a drive-thru instead of a a sit down just solely sit down does it increase the amount of vehicular traffic as opposed to going into a business something that that I would look at I'm just concerned about that I want us to I want to bring it up to for consideration uh if we can ask the petitioner I have a question um so are there any plans by the petition since you own both lots to put any kind of signage or anything that would deter pedestrian traffic from that um southwest corner directly in front of the strip mall or to direct the drive-through traffic has there been any thought into that so as to reduce the possibility of a vehicle pedestrian are you referring to like wayfinding signage to get them to get them to the direction you just mentioned earlier right there hasn't been any thought given to that um and to just comment on traffic flow I mean it is currently a parking lot now as you mention if somebody's going to pull in

it's not a drive-thru as Paul mentioned it's a pickup Lane so you call ahead and you place your order either on your phone or on the either on an app or on your phone and you pull into the parking lot you pull up to the window and you grab your food and and you leave you're not sitting there idling you're you're just picking up your food and you're making normal movements like everyone else would in in a parking lot of that size so is this is is this configuration where it's just a pickup Lane it's not a an a traditional drive-thru Lane is that standard for these correct and so Chip is going to that uh as well okay so is it is it your understanding or your experience that because it's just a pickup Lane as opposed to a drive-thru traditional drive-thru Lane that traffic would be actually less than what you might expect at a reg not necessarily they're not necessarily you won't have like in in a Starbucks drive-thru you'll see 10 people lined up here um people will just be lined up at the if they've got 10 orders at once they're not ordering right there at the window or at a menu board they're just driving in to pick up their food and they're and they're taking off so there won't there won't be as much time spent in the Drive-Thru there won't be any as much traffic idling as much as many cars idling in the Drive-Thru or in I call it a pickup Lane but so what I'm hearing is same number of trips but but much less stacking stack okay we still have to meet the stacking requirements of a driveth through well it wouldn't be any different than order ahead of time turning in you know turning left into off of Avon Village Parkway turning left again parking your car and going inside and picking up your carry out except instead of parking and going inside

you're going through a drive fing and and to also to help Mr guckenberger uh question about pedestrians potentially being um being a hazard for for pedestrians we do have curbed Islands there um so it'll kind of lead them in and I don't think a pedestrian is going to park say in the northwest corner and walk straight they could walk straight down to yats but I don't think they're going to Traverse across the entire parking lot um they're going to find the closest spot possible to wherever they're visiting I me I certainly do being from Indiana um I like my parking spot real close have a a question for staff so if this is approved it's a special exception for a drive-thru even though it's a pickup Lane but it's approved for a drive-thru which means that if they choose to put a board up there that they wouldn't have to come back for a special exception because it's it would be approved for drive-thru meaning I'm not sure what action they'd have to take so could you help us on that so staff has recommended approval of this as proposed without imposing any conditions um so I would think Linda would you agree that without any conditions if they wanted to add uh a menu board and speaker in the future that that wouldn't require coming back to the board I would agree with that I think if they had expanded the number of lanes or the number of stacking spaces they would have to come back but nearly adding a menu board and the speaker box would not

require them to come back unless you made a condition of it right so that's again we're approving a drive-thru if special exception for a drive-thru so it may be a pickup Lane now it may stay a pickup plane but it could be a drive-thru and that goes with that property so that's the thing again don't expect anybody to park up or park in the northwest corner and walk all the way down but they there would be foot traffic from with vehicles going up from those four or five Lots there spots so again it is a concern of mine that there's a safety issue here because of increased it's going to be increased vehicular traffic going to that business especially if it's one that is desirable and then people want to go to we'll see more traffic there but I think that could be said for any out building that is that is being built any place is that when you're when you're putting an out building on a lot where there's already a a strip mall or a big box store um you were inviting traffic to come into that parking lot that could impede or or have an impact on pedestrians going to the strip mall I mean I think that's just built into the design of that that is just part of what happens I think we're overthinking this myself um well I I understand what you're saying I I don't agree I think with a drive-thru it promotes more continuous traffic so that's that's where I'm at and I don't think Criterion one and Criterion two are met so T first of all I I and again just just to hit everything on the on the Criterion um I I thought staff did a pretty good job of laying this out

typically on these special exceptions um you know we don't get the full drive-thru layout that's usually an issue resered for the plan commission and they get to they get to scrutinize all all those layouts so just as a matter of right for a drivethru I don't have the amount of burn that I that I normally would so I'm not I'm not as concerned about that from a sa safety standpoint um when you look at the plan view on this it does look a little bit crowded uh looking at the you know going through staff's parking calculations I feel a little bit better than that but then sitting here thinking about the traffic and the fact that there is is a drivethru there um you know knowing that that is pickup and that there'll be less vehicular uh stacking makes me feel a little bit better and U I do expect that that'll be a little bit more heavily scrutinized at the plan commission level but at our level I I think I'm comfortable with it as it stands and I certainly do not mind Paul's conditions um you know regarding the the menu board and speaker box If he if he wishes to put those in um that certainly would um indicate a a shift either in a business model or attendant or um I'm sorry in a in a business model or tenant that would affect uh substant could substantially affect the the traffic FL flow through their site so if you'd like to put that in I would certainly welcome that so I just wanted to clarify Linda did I hear you correctly

that if they te if they kept the configuration the same let's say um this this business sold to a different business that wanted to have a more traditional menu board drive-thru if they kept the configuration as St but they just simply added a a menu board and a speaker they would not have to come back and get permission for that only if they change the driving configuration is that correct only if they increased the number of stacking spaces or increase the number of Lane like expanded the drive-thru but if someone came in and asked for a menu board and speaker box the administrator without changing anything else without changing anything else we would approve that because of the drive-throughs and unless this board put a condition on so okay so that was my question would it be appropriate for us to have a condition that said and then of course we have you remember this would go with the property you know it's not specific to the proposals to with with the property but would it be appr appropriate for us to say a menu board and speaker box cannot be added onto this if that's your concern related to a special exception it's absolutely appropriate for you to okay I would be fine with that because I think it would if I agree that by having a having a pickup window is no different than taking orders um and having people walk inside when I ordered mcallisters I have to go inside and pick up my dinner this is exact same thing except people aren't parking to do it they're just driving to do it but I'd still have to take my car there but if we do a if there's an actual traditional drive- through the menu board excuse me then it's um you would

see increased traffic and then I would agree with Paul that it could create I I I still think it's not as much of an issue as Paul does but I would agree there would be increased traffic and more potential um conflicts with pedestrians on that southwest corner any other discussion would anyone care to make a motion okay so um I want to make sure that we re this right [Music] um so we just we're making this a condition is that correct so I may suggest that your condition is that um they return for the board's approval if they ever Implement a speaker box or menu board so that would be something that a future owner could see recorded saying oh I want this and then they would come back to the board and ask for permission that no speaker speaker box or me menu board would be permitted requires the board approval requires board approval okay I would change speaker box to on-site ordering or something like that I'm sorry to what have a person standing there that's not a speaker box soite ordering menu board onsite

ordering okay let me you're going to add Thea do we need to it sounds like it's already in the works if I understood the petitioner correctly and you're just waiting for I mean will it be will you have it by the time in the plan meeting the plan commission meeting on I I have it now and consider it to PA stand up I I do have a final it just hasn't been recorded it just hasn't been recorded yet but as as he mentioned if if we're going to start talking about the restrictions that you want to see that that could me I don't know yeah I'm I'm fine with that I don't think we need to have any more conditions if they're already doing it for it so if we would say the condition that any future on-site ordering require permission from the board of zoning appeals does that sound right okay I move that we approve SE 2406 Cava Mediterranean 9257 e US Highway 36 a special exception to allow for a drive-thru within tier one of the US Highway 36 overlay district and within the C3 District because it will meet all the requirements for a special exception under state law and subject to the approved finding of fact with the condition that any future on-site ordering require permission from the board of zoning appeals okay okay did what I was gonna do now we have a motion by Mrs ransburg a second by Mrs Inman is there any discussion and I'm sorry and I'm as part

of the discussion I'm sorry I I missed the the piece about the um on-site ordering was that in there yes okay that was add at okay I'm sorry I just missed it that's okay any other discussion ready for a war call vote please gken bger against enman for ransburg for tler four Turner four okay thank you he could you all wait an extra minute after we're done here so we can amend the findings so you can sign them tonight absolutely thank you thank you do we have any other business we do not okay then we we are adjourned but we'll hang out for a couple minutes