Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] It's time.

Good evening everybody. I'm going to bring bring the regular September home city board of zoning fields meeting to order. Roll call please. Kathy Gardner present. Patricia Hatcher, John Kissinger here, Anthony Romano, Dennis Warick here. All right, we have the previous meeting minutes for August to chances discussions. Nope. If not, I entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve them as submitted. I have a motion from Kathy.

Second. I have a second from Dennis. All in favor.

So that's not an official motion. We can't approve without three. Yeah, I'd suggest you can table it. Okay. Um I move to table it till the next meeting. I second that. All right. We're going to move this to the next meeting. All those in favor in the right hand. [Music] Okay. Old business. Okay. We got to do the open. Anybody here that's willing to speak tonight, please uh please stand up and um we will swear you in to speak.

Do you Oh, yeah. Do you swear or permit to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, say I do. Thank you. You can be seated. Thank you. Old business, we have 25- C-seor LLC. I was looking for a special exception for electrical message center billboard on 597 West Connection. Nathan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, going to the slides. Uh, this is the special exception that was continued from last month. Um, it considered the variances or uh the sameish billboard last month, but it was on the opposite side of the lots. Uh the petitioner has moved the location, made it compliant with all the setbacks, eliminated the need for the variance. However, the special exception for being a EMC billboard still is outstanding. Uh and so that's what you have tonight. Uh a couple of uh updates. Uh because of the change in location, uh it's actually kind of on the line between lots six and eight uh in Armstrong Park, more on eight than six. Uh overall acreage between the two lots is two acres. Still the same owner, so we didn't have to renotify the continuation covered that. Uh if it had changed ownership, then then we or drastically changed location, we would have had to renotify Uh as I said it's to the proposal is to have an EMC for a billboard. Uh the nature of the use approximately the same size as uh the previous uh size faces. Uh the final change between last month and this month is in order to avoid uh the other existing identification signs building couple other factors I'm sure uh they actually raised it up a little bit higher than it was believe last month it was 41 ft and now it's being proposed to be 46 1/2 ft in height uh which is still less than the maximum that is allowed for billboards. Uh going to

reference materials. Highlighted in blue are the two lots in question. Uh a little closer view. As you may remember, the previous location was right here and now it's a little bit farther over. So this is the survey site plan uh showing the least area with the footprint of the proposed billboard there. uh the existing building. So this is within well I'll show you an aerial in a second uh sign plan for reference basically uh but this is the uh location uh survey overlaid on aerial and highlighted in red is the proposed sign itself. Uh, and then I included this last month and so I updated it. Uh, it's a little bit harder to judge uh because of the placement kind of set back farther. It was easy to tell last month when it was really close to the highway where it would line up. But that's my guess as to where the sign face would approximately be as you look west. Uh, of course eastbound it would be a very different uh angle. uh you have far less signs uh in the way as you are eastbound. You've got a lot more distance there. So um the westbounds a little bit more critical because of this intersection. So with that uh same suggested conditions as last month um as granted as presented number two is basically a lot of these are moot but I just wanted to make sure they were here in the special exception as conditions of approval for future uh use if we needed them. Uh number two is that it wouldn't

flash or otherwise have things that are are bright. Um and uh linking I guess. Uh number three is I believe actually from INDOT's requirements, current requirements. Number four is also from INDOT's current requirements. Again, these are just setting into local conditions what's already required by NDOT. Number five is that the sign would be available for local use. uh as had been discussed uh last month, their program, which is uh something that the EMA and city would uh I think really want to be a part of. Uh and then number six, uh any other INDOT requirements um that may need need to be met as part of their permitting. So including that as well a lot of uh just standard conditions and making what's already required part of these conditions uh again for future. So not overly concerned about it overall. Um going through the review criteria uh doesn't seem like this would be particularly injurious, dangerous or noxious. the brightness of it might cause glare and that's what some of these things uh are some of the conditions are meant to address. Uh the visual impression it's a sign. It lines up with other signs. Uh the size is smaller than the maximum that's allowed for billboards. It is uh placed in a way that would line up and avoid existing signs. uh it is additional polariferation of signs. So there is always that. But uh in terms of the special exception tonight, the billboard

could go up the way it is, get permitted tomorrow, assuming they end up permitting. Uh but in terms of the special exception for the EMC, uh you could actually make the argument that the EMC reduces the number of overall overall signs needed because it has the ability to rotate through signs uh and messages. So in some ways it may be a little different than what's out there, but in others it may actually have a more consistent uh visual impression. uh this doesn't have traffic uh associated with it and I feel that this with these conditions would still propo uh preserve the purpose of the ordinance. Uh so with that any questions for me like to come to the podium and state your name and anything that Nathan might left out?

Danny Marley with Robinson. Uh thanks again for being here again. uh uh as Nathan has stated, you know, taking your advisement on the location and setbacks and everything else. I hope that I comply with most of every request that you asked of me. I don't think I missed anything, but uh we appreciate you guys' time and uh hopefully we'll be able to u provide good services to the community, good services to the city, uh emergency management teams as well. Um the uh we're pretty unique with that that uh community minutes package that we put together. Again, like I said last time, a lot of people say they'll do things, but you know, being in business, if it ain't black and white, it's not it's not there. But we spent a lot of time putting that program together. And it's an ongoing development thing, too. It's not something that's just been thrown together. It's just over years we've been just improving and proving and proving. Um, we're trying to get with most of the state regulators as well as far as like their uh, safety messages that you see posted out on the interstate. You know, they're switching a lot of digital billboards on the interstate. Uh, we're trying to get with them, get into part of some of their programming for their emergency announcements and stuff like that. So, but anyway, uh, does anybody have any questions for me regarding any changes or anything?

I don't believe so. I don't. Okay. Thank you for your time. Thank you guys. Does anyone else here um like to speak on behalf of petitioner? Does anyone here like to speak against petitioner? Hearing none, I close the floor open to board discussion or motion. I my only comment was I wanted to thank you for um when I was out there, I was able to see the surveyor really painted the hot pink, you know, we could see it. um is where the stake is between the concrete and the concrete. Is that where the pole will be at? Yeah. Okay. That's journal area. Yes.

I mean tell like I said a lot of times the ground tells you what you can do if for some reason we did do a dig right there's nothing there but I've done dig rights before 10 inch water. So, okay, god forbid there's nothing in there, then we can go straight down right where that's at. And then the landowner will still be able to utilize that space just like he is now. Take anything away from that. Okay. No, I appreciate being able to go out there and I was able to find it without a problem. And

first and personally too, I really like this site so much better than the other site. So just think it really opens it up and it doesn't interfere with the building or any of the other signage for the other businesses that are to the east. Okay, good. Mr. Chairman, I make the motion for the approval. I second that motion. I have a motion from Dennis and a second. All those in favor matter of clarification that is with the staff's conditions. what the staff can. Thank you. I agree. All those in favor raise the right hand. Close. Motion passes.

Thank you. Good luck. Okay, moving on to the next order of business. We have some new business. It's 25- C-B11. Gina Cochrell is looking for fence hype. Um set back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going to these slides. Uh, so variance 11 is located at 750 North Longidge Road. Uh, which is literally catacorner from variance 10 that we dealt with last month. Uh, this is lot 60 of Ches Landing. Uh what is being proposed is to construct a six-foot wood privacy fence to replace an existing three to four foot fence that was constructed in 2018 that's located within the setback. Uh they intentionally when they constructed that fence uh they intentionally lowered it uh to be within where it is within the setback. Uh so currently it is compliant uh with the code. The variance is to raise it up to six feet. As you know, maximum height of 4 feet is what's allowed within any required or platted front yards. Purpose, as I understand it, is to give privacy per the proposed swimming pool that the petitioner is working on uh building. So, highlighted in blue is the subject site. Uh the variance last month was this property. Previous variants from I don't remember when, but a couple years ago was the southwest corner. And for what it's worth, the northeast corner also has a fence that is also similar to the situation currently for this lot of having a shorter fence in the right of way. Excuse me, not the right way, the platted front setback. Uh so this would be the uh third lot at the same intersection that could possibly have a six-foot uh fence within the front setback. Closer view. Uh also of note, uh when they constructed this, they didn't realize that the sidewalk

actually veered towards the street and the right of way doesn't. And so the the fence actually goes into the rightway some. So, they've proposed to correct that somewhat, make it uh follow the right-of-way line as best as they can, I'm sure. Uh, and that was com a complete error uh on the on the part of the installation wasn't uh uh intentional. Again, just trying to follow the sidewalk. So, this is the proposed site plan uh showing the part that will become uh six foot here. So this part and down and then it goes on up to the existing six foot to enclose the rest of the yard.

But it's in it's there's a six foot right there off of the porch right in front of the house. Right. Or am I wrong? The part that's not proposed to increase is Yes. Yeah. This portion here is six feet

is six feet. This portion is and it kind of goes up along the sidewalk and on down is approximately 3 to 4 feet. Um so that is the portion that's being proposed to increase. Uh going to the review criteria. Um I'm not going to say more. or it's in the written staff report and it's very similar to last month. Uh so it's up to you uh to weigh out whether uh this is uh again appropriate if there's anything that you may want to add as conditions that's of course as an an option as well. So any questions for me? Yeah.

Thank you. The petition like to the pod, state your name and address and tell us you got to go home. Uh Gina Cochrell and I'm at 750 North Long Ridge Road here in Columbia City. Um so we are building a pool and we would like to put the sixoot fence just for more privacy on that side of the sidewalk. question.

Gina, do you know of roughly how much of that fence you're going to remove? Like any any idea of what that section there that you're going to remove. Do you know? Um I don't know the measurements. I just know that there's there happens to be like two posts like on the side, one on the side and one at the end that actually happen to meet up perfectly to like be within that um property line.

I don't know if I can show you. Yeah, I when I was out there looking at it, it appeared if you did straighten that fence up, you know, from where where it starts to curve, if you just went on

um you know, straight to the back fence. Um it it alleviates a lot of that that sticks out. I personally do not like fences in the front yard, even though it's kind of a sideyard to you. Um, I like to go follow the ordinance. However, um, we are here for a variance and in looking at it both ways, I didn't feel like increasing the height of that fence to six feet would create any kind of a um, visual or um, obstructive, you know, situation. So, and I did see with you putting your pool in um there, like I said, you've got a lot of activity going on in there. So,

okay, that answers my question on that. Does you have any for sure? Thank you. Does anyone anyone else here like to speak on behalf of petition? Anyone here like to speak oppose the petition? Hearing none, I close the floor and open to board discussion. Just have one quick question. Um, in in making a motion to approve the variance, if I were to make the motion, am I allowed to to um emphasize the removal of that portion of the fence? You do.

Yeah, I mean, you could you could outright make that a condition if you wish. Okay. make it a condition. Good. So, if anybody doesn't have any more questions on that, I would like to make a motion to approve. Well, hold on. We do have one thing. Um Pat is sick tonight. Okay.

But she did want to relay a quick message. So, Amanda, you want to read that in? Um when I talked to her, she uh I asked her what she might want me to say um on her behalf on this case. She said that when she considered the case from August, she felt um in approving that one that that yard with strict application of the code that yard would have been significantly reduced. And she also felt there wouldn't be any obstruction by what they proposed. But with this one, she felt like there would be some obstruction. So I told her I would place that.

I I guess I'm not sure where the obstruction would be at. Yeah. Where would it obstruct somebody's view from their car? Yeah. I didn't ask her to clarify that. So I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Maybe she didn't realize that part was proposed to be removed. Um, but that was her comment about that. Okay. Thank you.

Well, I guess I'll just comment that I was out there and took quite a bit of time viewing and driving different directions. I felt like last month's I was not in favor of. I just thought that it would look like a wall the way that you were going to be driving, you know, up and down the street or how you were going to be able to look at that fence. This one here, I feel like if we remove that section and it goes to six feet, I don't I don't feel like it's going to be um detrimental to the area at all. So with that being said, I would like to then um make a motion to approve uh variance um 11 for the increase in the size height of the fence from 4T to 6 feet with a condition that that area of the fence that projects north um

outside of the outside of the you know the property line there be um removed.

Got that, Nathan. Does that make sense? You got that? Got that, man. Thank you, Dennis. Yeah. Again, have a motion from Kathy and a second from Dennis. All those in favor, raise your right hand. Motion carries. Nathan, we have any other business tonight?

Um, two quick items. A reminder that uh the last fifth Monday training session for the year is coming up at the end of this month, September 29th. Um, I believe that the topic will be uh basically just a community roundt. uh talk with Busco, talk with the county, talk to South Whitley and about what's going on. I'm sure the county will love to tell you all their tales about hayos and so on. Um and vice versa, whatever you want to let them know about fences. Uh but in seriousness, I I am planning on having at least some structure to it, but it won't be a specific this is what you're learning. It'll be more of a round table

format here. Uh yeah, it should be here. Uh going offsite with uh with the live streaming requirements are uh it's just becoming more and more difficult to be able to do that. So until I get that worked out, we'll still be here. Okay. Uh and then the other item, uh I'll let our label council tell you.

Yes. Um I was talking to some of you before, but uh formerly letting you know that Greg Hawkamire will be taking over as BZA. Um he will I know this doesn't apply to you but he will also be taking over as the plan commission attorney full-time legal counsel. So if you have any questions um Nathan has his email if you want to reach out directly to him um he will start uh next month if there is a meeting he will be here so and he will continue. So it was a pleasure working with all of you though. You too. Good luck. Thank you.

Nathan that's it. I make a motion that we adjourn. I'll second that.

Thank you everybody. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]