Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

We'll go ahead and open this meeting. If you're able to, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, can we get a roll call, please?

Mike Nichols.

Here.

Scott Highlander.

Here.

Sam Payne. Here. Isaac Chavez.

Present.

Charles Bates. Here.

All right, let's move forward. Let's take a look at the minutes from August 12th.

I'll make a motion. We approve the minutes from August 12th. Second.

All right, first and second. Can I get a roll call, please?

Mike Nichols, Scott Highlander, Sam Payne, Isaac Chavez, Charles Bates.

Okay, just double checking here as we get into business here that we have no conflict of interest here with any of the board petitions being heard. Hearing none, we will move to Public Hearing Docket 2026-017. The petitioner is Grant Wealth Management and Caleb Grant. They are requesting a special exception to allow apartment dwellings above commercial structure on a CB district. The use is from 2.11 from the Unified Development Ordinance. Mislisted, so can we please have the staff report?

Yeah, so in this case, the petitioners have actually submitted a request for a continuance because they recognize that they haven't provided adequate information to be able to have the board fully consider this. I'm not sure if they're here tonight or not, but a lot of times when a request for a continuance is made like this, the petitioner isn't, which we would want them to be here to discuss it. So assuming the board is willing to accept that continuance, then we would not present a staff report tonight. We would wait and discuss this at the next board meeting, which time hopefully we would have additional information to be able to revise the staff report as well.

I'll make the motion that we accept the continuance until the end of the meeting. I'll second that.

First and second, roll call, please.

Mike Nichols. Aye. Sam Payne. Aye. Scott Highlander.

Aye.

Isaac Chavez.

Aye.

Charles Bates. Aye.

All right, keeping us moving along here, take a look at new business. Public hearing for docket. To 0 to 6 dash 0, 1, 8 petitioner is Caitlin dear question a special exception to allow a home occupation. Which is class 2 on a be residential district. This deals with use 5.06 from the unified development ordinance requesting a continuous.

Yes, so maybe so I would make a motion to approve it.

All right, firstly or second. I'll second. I'll get a roll call, please.

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Scott Highlander.

Aye.

Sam Payne. Aye. Isaac Chavez. Aye. Charles Bates.

Aye.

Okay, keep things moving here with new business public hearing for docket. 2026-019 petitioner is Mark Timmons requesting a developmental standard variance for a lot size variance on a B residential district. Table B from 304, this deals with Table B 304 from Unified Development Ordinance. It's listed, so can we please have the staff report? Okay.

I can. So this site is 808 Dolson Street. And as you mentioned, there's a lot size variance to have each. The desire here is to divide these lots out of common ownership and be able to sell one. And ideally to replant them into a different configuration before selling them. So once they were redesigned, each lot would only have 5,900 square foot instead of the required 7,200. And then the existing house... depending on how he reconfigures this, could have a rear setback of three foot, or alternatively, on the south lot, there's an existing garage. If it's still there, you'd need a rear setback of five foot. So he's asking for the necessary variances to have options to reconfigure these lots so that additional home site can be placed here. And then when he files with the plan commission, he'll use whichever variances end up applicable. It'll roll forward from there. So this property is zoned B residential. It is a conforming single-family dwelling use in its zoning district, as is all the properties surrounding it. This is at the northwest corner of South Paris and Dolson. It's lots 7 and 8 in the home addition. There's a roughly 800-square-foot single-family dwelling already there that was built in 1945, as well as a detached garage. The applicant would like to add, and is actually adding currently, because there's no reason he couldn't start the construction process with both lots together, a 400-square-foot addition on the south side of the existing home. The existing lots, well, he could just come for the lot size variance, and one of the setback variances in Salomas is. They're very narrow and very, very deep. The applicant thinks if he replats and turns that dividing line 90 degrees, then they will actually be more favorable for allowing a more reasonable layout for houses and yards. However, in either case, to separate these lots, there's not 7,200 square foot, which is what the current ordinance requires, the previous ordinance before 2023 requires. this number wasn't quite as high. In order to have these options, he's requesting the variances, and if he receives them, then his plan is to replat into the configuration he needs through the city plan commission. On the second page, you can see a parcel map there. Everything is zoned B residential, so I didn't show that, but this shows you how lots seven and eight are currently arranged, and then down below, I've drawn in red approximately where the line will be once this is turned. and how they would be ranged after that. They would still be lots seven and eight, but they would be more square. On the third page, there's just some photographs of that house and garage and those lots. The new lot line would pass close to where that garage is shown in the first picture. You can see the development standards reference if you want to look at that, but in terms of granting it, we have a series of findings that have to be found affirmatively. First, that the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. So this house has been here for many years without causing anything injurious. We would expect normally in a residential area that adding an additional house would not create a damaging effect. Allowing the setback variances for the lot configuration to shift would also not appear to be harmful to the neighborhood. The finding would appear to be met. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. So there's no record of any complaints about either the existing house or garage. This property is well-maintained, and while it was never built on, there have always been two platted lots here that if they'd been in separate ownership instead of common ownership, they would simply be legal nonconforming and not need to come to the BZA for discussion. Adding an additional house here still is within the average density of the ordinance of six homes per acre, and all of the surrounding homes are on single original platted lots, not double lots. So if this density is permitted, it is still consistent with the neighborhood. This is an outlier, not what is around it in most cases. So this finding would appear to be met. And three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So lots seven and eight were platted before there was any subdivision ordinance governing land division in a modern way. There's no way for the applicant to make the lots bigger so they each meet the minimum lot size of today's ordinance. It also would be impractical to move the existing structures farther from lot lines or proposed lot lines if replatted. Without the variance, lot 8 is unusable as a building site regardless of whether it remains platted in its current way or is replatted for more usable lot shapes. This finding would appear to be met. Consequently, staff would recommend to approve the developmental variances from UDO 304 to allow 5,900 square foot lots and rear setbacks of three foot on the west side of the existing house or five foot on the north side of the existing garage, respective to the existing or new lot lines are the final configuration. With the condition that the setback variances are only for existing structures, any new house that's built on the additional lot must meet all rear setbacks or come back to the BZA.

Thank you. At this time, when I call the petitioner, if you'd like to add anything, Mark.

All right.

Thank you. At this time, we'll go ahead and open public discussion. Any comments from the public?

My only question is, if you replant with the south portion of the West Paris address, it would be built. Oh, I'm sorry. It would be Dolson.

Yeah, they're both based Dolson. Instead of a 45-wide lot with a 35-foot after setbacks, it would be a 66-by-90. It's a red line, yes, Mark. I haven't seen it, Sam.

The red line is where the new lot line approximately would be.

No, no, no, no, two. Instead of long, skinny lots like this, they're 45 by 132. I'm going to flip them, and now they'll be 66, so you can actually get a three-bedroom home with a garage and still have a 90-foot.

The reason I ask, if you look at the neighbor over there, according to the picture that she's got here with the lot on the north side of it, the house, is that the north or south side?

You would be looking at east or west if you're looking at the pictures.

Looking at your picture, I'm looking at...

In the front of the house?

Paris Street.

Yeah, that's on Paris.

You're two lots. It's your lot that you want me to buy, correct?

They're both set together, Sam. They're...

They're... Here's what I was looking at. See how these are... going out here, see this house, this garage, I'm thinking you wouldn't be doing anything different than what they've already got here.

Well, that is running the same way as these two. And if I flip these where that red line is, that'll give a rear yard here of almost 50 feet. And then this will be the same. That garage is on the other lot. So you can basically Okay.

And, Casey, for the final address, if, as he said, he faces Dolson, it will be a Dolson Street address. But if he sold it and the buyer built the house facing Paris, then it would be a Paris Street. The driveway will determine the address or the front door.

The front of the house will determine the address. Yeah. I imagine it would be Dolson because— It's wider.

hearing no other further comments or closed public discussion I'll know open discussion for board any additional questions or comments for the board I guess the only questions I would have with you about site yard fencing this is granting this replant gonna affect The view of Paris Street.

No, it's both of beyond Olson and actually it would be better because it's 66 foot wide instead of 45.

Yeah, I'm not opposed to it. I'm just concerned.

He would have to come back for a variance. You're not granting a fence variance, so he will have a corner lot that's currently a deep lot. So he could not put a fence any closer than the front setback on either Paris or Dolson without needing a variance.

It would be a lot nicer once you turn him around. Yeah. Yeah. More room.

He would need another variance.

He would. He's not asking for a fence variance. No.

Any other comments, concerns, questions?

Hearing none, I will close discussion for board at this time. We will now open a motion to the board. I'll make that motion. I'll second. First and second, roll call, please.

Mike Nichols. Scott Highlander.

Aye.

Sam Payne. Aye. Isaac Chavez.

Aye.

Charles Bates. Aye.

I just want to clarify the motion didn't actually say that we're going to recommend to approve based off the staff report, right? Right.

Both the condition and the findings. And the findings.

Aye. Absolutely.

All right. The petition carries. Let's keep things moving here. Take a look at public hearing docket 2026-020. Petitioner is... James Esperanza and Nick Harshman, they are requesting a special exception to allow a contractor's office on a central business district. This use deals with 9.34 from the UDO. At this time, can we please have the staff report, Ms. Listissel?

Yes, as you noted, this is a request for a special exception for a contractor's office with storage. The property is owned central business, as is everything around it in all directions. It's also in the downtown historic district. The site's on the west side of North Main Street between the railroad and West Morrison. There's an existing zero lot line building on it that is vacant. applicant wants to repair and restore the building and then use it for his contractors business there would be offices in the front and then general storage for material and vehicles and the rest of the building behind that there's a location map and then on the second page a picture of the site and then that last picture is a conceptual it's a plan for how he plans to modify the front of that building from what it is right now so it actually be more conforming currently in the downtown district and We wouldn't let somebody put in garage doors as a new look, so he'll actually be eliminating one of those legal non-conforming garage doors and turning that into a storefront window. On the third page there, it just shows Table A, where that's a special exception, and we've got a series of findings that we need to examine and determine if they're met or not in order to approve. First, the proposed use conforms to the district provisions in which it will be located in the general regulations of the ordinance. A contractor's business is a special exception in the central business district, so it may or may not be appropriate in a given location. There's no additional standards in the UDO for this use, so assuming the BZA grants a special exception, then the use will conform to the district regulations and the general regs of the UDO. The finding would appear to be met. 2. The proposed use shall not involve an element or cause a condition that may be dangerous, injurious, or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with the performance standards herein. So while this use does require a special exception, this particular contractor has stated that he can fit everything he needs inside the building, including parking his equipment and staff vehicles, so the outside of the building should not change its downtown appearance. This finding would appear to be met. Three, the proposed juice shall be sited, oriented, and landscaped so the relationship of its buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties does not impair health, safety, general welfare of comfort, nor adversely affect the values of adjacent properties. So again, everything will be inside the structure. No new structures are being built. The remodel will make the building more consistent with the downtown look, as one of the garage doors will be eliminated, so the finding would appear to be met. For the proposed use shall produce a total environmental effect consistent with not harmful to the environment of the neighborhood and not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses already legally permitted in the district. And as long as all storage and parking are inside the building, there should be no difference in how it affects the neighborhood. Repairing the exterior of the structure should actually improve the appearance from neighboring properties and be beneficial. So the finding would appear to be met. Five, the proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize conflicting traffic movement on adjacent streets. So if this were not in the central business district, central business for a permitted use does not require off-street parking. But if this were not central business, then it would normally require four parking spaces based on the square footage. For special exception cases, the BZA can look at parking needs and options and determine what's appropriate because... Lacking parking could be a reason not to grant a special exception and that that use might not work. So in this particular case, the applicant has one employee in addition to himself. He hopes additionally to have someone run the office. The on-street parking in front of this building is far enough from the center of downtown that it's not restricted to that three-hour limit, but there are only a few spots available in front of the building. So staff feels as long as there is indeed room, as he stated, for his employees to park inside the building while they're out working and they're not blocking alleys or customer parking, the finding can be met. Six, the proposed use has taken or will take adequate measures to provide utilities, access roads, drainage, and other facilities that are necessary. And in this case, the property already has all the necessary infrastructure in place. The inside of this building is pretty large and spacious and open already, and they're not planning to modify or rebuild a structure, so there's no concerns here. We did, as the board previously had decided to, along with the application, send around you know, the sheet to the utilities and everything like that before this was filed and everybody did sign off that they had no concerns. Finally, the proposed use will promote the objectives of the ordinance and be consistent with the City of Frankfort's comprehensive plan. And as far as the unified development ordinance, this is clearly a special exception use, which may or may not be appropriate, but is considered legal if it's approved. This building does need a reuse, so as long as everything associated with the contract's business remains inside the structure, it would appear no different from the outside than other downtown buildings do. As a result, approving the use to have a reuse versus having something deteriorate would appear to promote the objectives of the ordinance. And then in terms of the comprehensive plan, the plan generally notes the downtown area should maintain downtown standards and businesses that attract people. This is not a retail business, but the applicant will repair the building, which will maintain its character in the downtown. And as long as equipment and supplies are out of sight inside, this business does not conflict with the plan. So the finding would appear to be met. In terms of a recommendation, staff would recommend approving the special exception based on the findings with the conditions that, one, there be no outdoor storage of supplies or equipment. And two, no more than one of the on-street parking spots should be used by employees. Employees that are parked at the site all day should pull their vehicles inside the building so that the two to three spaces in front are available for customers.

Thank you, Liz. At this time, we'll call the petitioner. Would you like to add anything else?

My name is Nicholas Harshman, owner and operator of H&W Home Solutions. I've been in business since March 23, 2023. I lived in Dennis out of my house, so I'm trying to expand and grow bigger. And as I grow bigger, like she said, I'll have my employees park inside. Everything will be stored inside. And, you know, it would be beneficial to actually fix the building up and make it look better, as the picture I showed you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay at this time we'll open public discussion. Any comments from the public in regard to this petition?

The only thing that I noticed is that at some point the city has repaired those sidewalks so they're not actually curb cuts for a driveway. I just want to bring that up. I asked Liz and apparently there's since they're existing garage doors we could do but that would be my only concern for the days.

I noted it too, and I did the staff report, because if there was no garage door in the front, he wouldn't be able to add one. The downtown district doesn't allow new ones. But there's doors on the rear and the front, but if he doesn't remove the garage door, we can't. I mean, it's predating. It's not something, you know, I went back and looked at this building. He's not adding. But certainly if the city won't allow him to drive over the sidewalk, that's not something that's in the planning side.

I believe that's the state right away anyway. It is. So, and we have the state to do the sidewalks, not the city.

You know how the state, but I did notice that there was no ramp, so I assume the previous owner of the building was just hopping the curb, obviously when nobody was parked there, because there's also parking right in front of the door.

My next question is, how does he access this property?

There's an alley to the north of it, and there's an alley behind it, so the garage doors for him to park inside and move equipment in and out are on the back side off the alley. And so I don't know if he can further add how he's planning to maneuver that, but I know Rob and I talked about that.

Before the new sidewalk was put in, the sidewalk actually was lower where they could drive in and out of both those garage doors.

You come off of Wal-Mart on to where that

Walnut Street.

Come off of Walnut. I'm going west. It can't be Walnut.

There's a railroad to the south. You mean come off of Main or off Morrison from the north? Or you could come off Columbia.

I'm thinking about the one out from 28 West.

Oh, no. This has three different options for how we could enter this alley. Off Main, off Columbia, or off Morrison.

Yeah. Was the building out on 28 West what seems like this from what I was looking at?

Yeah, they do have a similar one-story front. I kind of see how you got there.

My old minister is driving over sidewalks.

Yeah, no, I don't disagree with you philosophically. It's just not a direct zoning. I mean, I guess the only thing is, do you plan to use— Sorry. Do you plan to use that door in the front with the heightened sidewalk?

I was thinking about using it in the front, paying to have the sidewalk redone right there.

So you'd have to talk to the state. So I guess the only thing we could do is we could add a condition that states that in order to use that front garage door to actually pull vehicles into, he needs to get NDOT to modify it. Rob?

Main Street is not. Why is the state? It's not. Yeah, it's Main Street. Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on. Hold on, Sam.

Sam confused all of us.

That has nothing to do with... Nope, Sam confused all of us when he was talking before. I was out on 28th. So then...

Let me rephrase that condition. You could, as a condition that states that unless the city allows him to drop that sidewalk down, which would be a permitting issue, he can't pull a vehicle in and out. If he gets permission to lower the sidewalk and repaint the parking spot so there's a pull-through, then that's not really on the zoning side, but making sure he's not damaging sidewalk.

And we'd be losing parking. Can I speak real quick?

on behalf of this. The sidewalk in front of that building has been controversial for almost two years that I've been in office. That was done under a previous administration. It was done by Campos Construction on the 50-50 sidewalk program. They were told to put it in that way because at the time, the surrounding area whatever it was, did not want anybody else to go in there because there was a certain situation. Somebody wanted that building that they made it so the front doors could not be used. So that was a plot to keep that building from selling. I have worked with Nick several times on several different jobs. We've discussed this building heavily. This building has sat abandoned for several years. And if you look at what he has presented to put there, the look that that building will have, the building connected to it now to the south is going to look like a dump. So to say no because of the sidewalk would be crazy because the sidewalk can be corrected.

Well, I don't think the discussion was saying no.

I think it was if we should require it to be corrected. I think it should be if they're going to use it. If they're going to use that door as an entry or an exit.

It would have to be permitted. That's correct.

We would have to lower the sidewalk. We would have to lower the curb height and make an entry just like you do into a residence. But you are correct. If you do that, then you're going to lose a parking spot.

And I think his concern with hopping the curb would damage the sidewalk.

But if he's parking inside, then he's not going to cause the problem.

You still have parking at the rear, though, wouldn't you?

I think you're only going to lose one parking spot because those are angled.

And maybe not even that, depending on if he'll drive in.

He's got plenty of access. It actually backs up. This property actually backs up to Tornado Roofing, which is the old Sneed and Sign Company. So you know the lot. You know how big it is back there. I don't believe that Tornado would have an issue of him swinging his trailers around and pulling into the building because that lot back there is primarily unoccupied all the time.

But I note for the record, we can't give someone permission to trespass. So that's between property owners, where they drive and how they get in and out.

And Tornado was actually the other person interested in purchasing the building. So we had actually had three people going for it at the same time. And I'd say that's pretty impressive since it's sat there for 10 years, 15 years. Sam, you probably know more about it than I do. It's been vacant for a long time.

It's been vacant for a long time, although I did not know that Campos Construction was told to do it a certain way.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That was... It would have gotten done if that's... And I... I don't have written proof on that, but I have been told that by a couple different folks that are involved in the city organization.

I can guess where it came from.

Well, I bet you can also because you've sat in the same office that I sat in.

I think at the end of the day, the point is if there's a concern about him hopping the curb and damaging it as currently created, which is valid, then just add a condition that if he wishes to drive in and out of that door versus just opening it, the curb needs to be rebuilt to allow for a drive-through.

You can. Once you pull in that front door, you can drive clear out the back of the building if you want to.

Sam, that's the wrong one.

He's looking. You're looking at the wrong one. You're looking at the wrong one again.

I'm in the wrong house. Come on, Sam. I'm looking at a different one. This front door.

Oh, yeah. It's got these two front doors, and he wants to remove this door and do this configuration and then have an entry door. Okay. We got Sam on the same page now. We got Sam on the same page now.

Okay.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound hateful or anything like that, but I have been working for two years to try to get somebody in this building. No, I think you just misunderstood.

The discussion was denying it. I think the discussion was if we wanted people jumping that curb and then breaking down the sidewalk. I agree.

If you want somebody to use that front door, you're going to have to reconfigure the sidewalk. And I don't think that's going to be an issue.

I think if the city approves the parking, I mean, it's public parking, so if the city approves the parking modification and redesigning the curb so we're not damaging things and there's enough concrete thickness on that sidewalk for somebody to drive without breaking it up, then... And just that permitting would go through the building services? Well, and probably, I'm guessing, street department on reconfiguring the parking. Well, I... Rob, do you know if that's street department to redo the parking?

Yeah, with the applicant.

And any drain issues, too, I was told by the street department, not the street department, but the other that signed off that.

County survey.

Yes, and finding a drain next to the building there for any water.

Oh, that's probably utilities. That's probably storm sewer, if he's talking about putting a drain in next to the building.

Yes.

Anything else for public discussion? Hearing none, I'll close public discussion. At this time, I'll take any additional concerns or questions from the board.

Liz, this has to do, this is more of a general question than anything, not so much specific about this thing, but you have these recommended conditions, and we do those from time to time. In this particular one, you talk about no more than one on-street parking should be used by employees, blah, blah, blah. Who enforces these sorts of things?

So typically what happens is, I mean, yes, staff could drive by and happen to notice it. But what normally happens is you get a complaint called in. So let's say this is approved with these conditions. And let's say the neighboring business starts calling building services and going, we have no parking because there's eight spots all being used by his employees. And they're parked there all day. They don't come and go. Our customers have nowhere to go. Well, then building services is going to take this. And initially, I usually recommend... You call because you have contact info, and you go, hey, you're not within your conditions. You need to fix that. If they don't fix it, though, then you could send a letter to fine them. Or I had a case, not with CPC, but with APC and Colfax, where they perpetually wouldn't follow a condition. It involved the number of cars. So we actually, under state law, can initiate an action through the BZA to remove their approval from them completely. And then if they continue to operate— You take it to court to order them to cease and desist because they no longer have their special exception. That's the only one in 20 years that we couldn't get them to get back in their conditions or come back. So we finally initiated an action to remove their entire special exception approval and make them illegal. That didn't happen overnight. That was... A process. Ultimately, if you remove the special exception and they don't remove themselves from the property, then at least in terms of their business, then it would be filed in court to the city attorney and they would be subject to a $300 a day fine and injunctive relief, whatever the city felt they needed to ask for.

That's sitting on the street, correct? We're talking about parking on the street.

If your condition is more than one employee, so this wouldn't be about if their customers can park there, but if all their, say their employees who are going out and doing work at houses, he grows, they'll park on the street.

No matter who you are, if you're an employee or what, if you're parked on the street longer than three hours.

Not here. This actually is not three-hour parking. It is unlimited. I went and looked to see if there was what the signage was.

It doesn't continue north of the railroad.

Yeah, north of the railroad is just public parking. Okay. So, because I'll be honest, if there was a three-hour limitation here, I probably would have recommended that they not even have one employee in the front because if you're there all day. But there's no limit, so there wouldn't be any violation for the police. Okay, thank you.

Any other comments? Hearing none, I'll close the board discussion at this time. I'll open the motion to the board.

I'll make a motion that we approve the special exception based on the staff report and the following conditions. No outside storage of supplies or equipment. No, more than 1 on street parking spot should be used by an employee at the site all day should pull their vehicles inside the building. So the. Spaces in the front are available for customers and I'd like to add that any. Use of the drive in the front is permitted appropriately Do I hear a second Second first and a second roll call please Mike Nichols.

Hi Scott Highlander. Hi some pain Isaac Chavez. Hi Charles Bates Petition carries

We will take a look at the last new business public hearing, docket 42026-021, petitioner's Elmer Mangere, requesting a special exception to allow apartment dwellings.

Now you're in the wrong place. You just lost me. Apartments? I don't remember that. There just must be some sort of dark cloud over our meeting.

None of us can say where we belong. This is for Elmo Manjari and Yesenia Fotos. There you go. Special exception for a commercial garage categorized as use 7.02 and variances from West State Road 28 overlay. Deals with standards in the UDO 402.16, 402.17, and 402.21. This will be for automotive sales categorized in the UDO under 7.01. May we please have... That's a typo.

It's the first use you quoted, 7.02 for commercial garage is the correct one. There's not going to be automotive sales on this.

Not a 7. Okay. So for 7.02 in the UDO. You're going to use for what?

Commercial garage.

Not for sales.

Are you ready for me to go through the staff report?

Yes, please.

So, as noted to clarify, this is a request for a special exception for a commercial garage, use 7.02. This property is owned industrial, as is the property to the south, east, and west inside the city. North of the site is in the county, and there's a mix of general business and light industrial. There is an auto sales use immediately to the east that predates the ordinance, and thus, per the ordinance, is assumed to have a special exception because it was in existence at the time the rules were adopted. The site is on the south side of West State Road 28 between South Blinn Street and South Prairie Avenue, but it actually fronts on McKinley Avenue with an immediately adjacent right-of-way to State Road 28 in this location. McKinley basically dead ends into the site and literally into the building. The applicant wishes to operate a commercial garage, specifically a body shop, in this location. He hopes to use the property as follows. His work would be inside the building, two cars at a time. Four can be stacked to wait for work outside. In addition to the parking spots for cars awaiting repair, he plans to have four parking spots for cars to be picked up, four employee parking spots, and eight drop-off parking spots. The 20 total parking spots will be arranged around the perimeter of the fenced area behind the building. The applicant would like to place a temporary promotional banner on the front of the building and then replace it with a permanent banner for signage after the grand opening. The applicant did not submit any plans for paving, outdoor lighting, fence modifications, et cetera. The site has a legal nonconforming building with respect to setbacks and the overlay. And this is a weird building because I'm actually going to note that 20 years ago, this building was conforming. And then State Road 28 expanded and took additional ground, creating a legal nonconformity. So it's a little bit different than some of those that were built there. Nobody meant to build this building in the middle of the road. It just... The road came to it. So... In 2021, other than this issue with the setback, the site was conforming to the ordinances. There was an illegal addition of gravel and fencing that occurred without following rules. Looking at aerial images, it looks like that happened around 2021. And any approval granted by this board needs to include a plan to bring this property back into compliance with the ordinance for the improvements that do not comply, since they did not either receive a variance nor apply for a variance. and they were not legal non-conforming. The overlay standards were adopted, I believe, in 2004, so we're not even close. There are some pictures there on that second page. You can see the zoning map. There's just a mix here in this area. I've given you an aerial view just for you to be able to compare. I pulled one from 2018 and then one from 2026, and you can see where all this gravel has just been dropped. that would have been required to be paved and would have had to have buffer yards. We're going to have to deal with the rest of this lot separately, but they're not here to apply, so we're discussing just this specific site, which is in separate ownership. You can see on there at the bottom pictures of this property. The building's actually pretty nice looking as a structure. It looks like a commercial structure. And the road right-of-way for 28 is running, like, right real close to where the front of that building is. And then you can see the gravel and the fence to the back, which does not appear to be maintained well, at least for how it is now, hopefully with a business there at all. it'll be taken care of a little bit better. So I've included references as to the different ordinances for your convenience that we're discussing, but I'm going to kind of move into an analysis for the special exception. And unless you want me to do otherwise, I was going to go through the special exception and then the variances, and then you can discuss them all at once. But if you prefer, I can divide them.

Do it however you would like.

Okay, I'm going to do them all together in this case because I think in this case the conversations between the two overlap, because if you don't deal with the variances and discuss some of the other standards, well, then he's not going to be able to comply with the ordinances, which then would make it impossible to meet the first finding under the special exception. So your first finding on the special exception is the proposed use conforms to the district provisions in which it's located and the general regulations of the ordinance. So a commercial garage is a special exception in the industrial district, so it may or may not be appropriate. They also have standards in the unified development ordinance they need to comply with. They're required to have a buffer class E, which refers to how much landscaping needs to be around them, and a parking class M, which is two parking spots per service stall plus one per employee. This is an existing site for the building and the lot size, but the parking lot is not legal nonconforming. It was added between 2018 and 2021. The standards from UDO 505 for a commercial garage are as follows. It needs typically a minimum lot width of 132 foot, but in this particular case, even though it only has 55 foot of frontage, it's legal non-conforming because it was first used as a commercial automotive use previously, and under that ordinance, it did not have a requirement for a minimum lot width. That was added in the 2023 ordinance. It was a muffler shop at one point in the past under the previous 1960s city ordinance. Number two, fuel pumps shall be at least 15 foot from right of ways and canopies meet the standards. This does not apply in this case. We don't have any fueling. Three is no outdoor storage of discarded auto parts. The applicant states they understand the site needs to be operated neatly. As long as they do so, the standard will be met. Four is that except for vehicles being serviced, vehicles of employees and service and tow trucks owned by the establishment, no vehicles shall be parked on the premises. Vehicles awaiting repair cannot be outside for more than seven days, and they cannot be stored in the right-of-ways. So as long as the applicant maintains the site neatly, as they've stated they will, and according to their plan for what they're doing with vehicles, the standard would seem to be met. Five is that permanently disabled vehicles not awaiting repair cannot be stored there at any time. Again, the applicant understands that. Six is that access shall be from an arterial or a collector. There is a little bit of interpretation involved with deciding if this is met or not. Staff feels the standard is probably met, but the board should decide if they agree. So this is technically at the end of McKinley Avenue for road access, which technically is a neighborhood street, not an arterial or a collector, because it only serves two sites and it does not collect traffic from other roads. However, the site literally also fronts on West 828. West Area 28, which is an arterial street and would meet the standards. And the 28 right-of-way comes up to the building, even though they don't have a direct access onto 28. So staff kind of felt like the standard was probably met, but this is a weird one. You could argue this either way. So if the board feels differently, that would be something that you need to discuss. Number seven is parking areas, vehicle stacking spaces, and lighting. She'll meet the applicable section of the ordinance. So as noted, aspects of this are legal nonconforming. However, signage, lighting, parking, and landscaping are not legal nonconforming, and so the applicant needs to comply unless they were to apply for variances, or in this case, receive variances to some of those. If the applicant complies or obtains variances for all standards, the standard would be met. In terms of rental trucks and trailers on item eight, that does not apply because this is a commercial garage. Same with item nine in terms of likely they're not going to have underground tanks, but if they were to, they would have to remove them according to items rules at the point of which they cease to operate there. The second finding is the proposed use shall not involve an element or cause a condition that may be dangerous, injurious, or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with the performance standards herein. So this is... Right up against a long-standing auto sales site, it doesn't seem that another automotive use next door would have a negative effect as long as the applicant maintains the site responsibly within the standards of the ordinance. The finding would appear to be met. Three, the proposed use shall be sited, oriented, and landscaped to the relationships of its buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties, does not impair health, safety, general welfare, or comfort, nor adversely affect the value of adjacent properties. So the applicant does not plan to make any additions nor changes to the interior floor plan or parking lot proposed if the approval is granted. All changes to this property will be improvements on aesthetics that are required by the State Road 28 overlay. There should be no difference in how this property affects adjacent properties as long as it's responsibly maintained, so the finding would appear to be met. For the proposed use shall produce a total environmental effect consistent with and not harmful to the environment of the neighborhood that will not impede the normal and orderly development. and improvement of the surrounding property for uses already legally permitted in the district. The general neighborhood environment's not going to change if the approval's granted as long as the site is maintained in compliance with the ordinance. Again, there's another automotive use adjacent, so the finding would appear to be met. Five, the proposed use to organize vehicular access and parking to minimize conflicting traffic movement on adjacent streets. This is again on a dead-end road. up against the end out right away there is adequate space for the required parking as long as it's properly managed so vehicles do not accumulate the standard would appear to be met. 6 the proposed use has taken or will take adequate measures to provide utilities access roads drainage and other necessary facilities. Neither Frankfurt new utilities nor the county survey or have highlighted any concerns or issues when they were informed of the filings of the standard would appear to be met and finally the use to promote the objectives of the ordinance be consistent with the city of Frank for its comprehensive plan. So, the UDO clearly states this is a special exception use, so it may be appropriate to approve in the industrial district in some situations. The applicant has indicated they're willing to meet the standards of the UDO, other than what they are requesting variances from, to bring them in line with its objectives. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan generally notes this area is for industrial zoning and uses, and on page 5, it states that Frankfurt employs a mindset of being open for business, encouraging both local businesses and corporate headquarters. This is an application for a local business that would reuse an existing building that, frankly, is very awkwardly configured in terms of reasonable reuses for an automotive use next to another automotive use. The finding would appear to be met. So now I'm going to move over to the request analysis for the variances. I do think in this case you're either going to approve everything, deny everything, or work out an alternative arrangement with the with the applicant because if you don't grant the variances, they can't meet the special exception findings. So there's three findings that need to be met in order to grant variances. First, the approval will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. So in this case, variances are being requested because of the existing characteristics of the property, both the legal nonconforming ones and the illegal ones changed by previous owners. Some items, like landscaping, do not exist on the neighboring lot and probably could be minimal on this one without significant effect. But others, like paving and dumpster screening, are ultimately needed, and a partial variance may be more appropriate, allowing some time for them to comply. Variances should not be permanently granted in areas that need to comply for consistency along the corridor and the community's gateway. This is, since I've been helping you guys, I think the third case we've discussed in the 28 overlay. So trying to maintain some kind of consistency in what you allow. you know, due to practical difficulty and what you know, like, for the good of everybody and the look, we need this to follow. So it appears the finding is met with regards to partially granting some of the requested variances for a period of time. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. So in this case, again, these are requests coming because of the characteristics of the property. And very similarly to the last finding, we have some things that just don't exist in this area. This is the very beginning of the State Road 28 overlay. And honestly, this development was here when it was adopted versus you get further out where everything's new and is completely complied. You get sites like NHK out by the interchange where you've got the full effect of the overlay. So it would appear that giving some time to comply and granting a partial variance would be appropriate and be within being able to meet this finding. And three, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So immediate compliance in all areas does appear to be a hardship, as the applicant did not know upon buying this, that this lot and some of this was illegal, and they cannot use it at all without some approvals. Some landscaping that is required under the overlay is impossible to place, not due to the applicant's opinion, but because NDOT physically owns the land coming up to the building and will not allow landscaping to be placed in their right of way. And I did call and personally speak to NDOT about this particular site because it's so unusual to figure out how they would handle it. Placing a roof on the dumpster enclosure also creates a difficulty in that trash trucks typically come in to grab dumpsters and empty them when it's just a simple dumpster enclosure versus when you're looking at when this ordinance was written, people were picturing factories where you would have a bay that might open up and your dumpster would be inside of it, so of course it would be under roof. But on the other hand there doesn't seem to be a true Practical difficulty on items like modifying the fence screening the dumpster adding some landscaping and paving and marking the parking lot So this finding again would appear to be met with regards to partially granting some of the requested variances for a period of time So consequently staff would recommend first to approve the special exception based on the findings in the staff report with the conditions that First, all applicable standards of UDO 505 for commercial garages must be continuously met, including no outdoor storage of auto parts, no vehicles awaiting repair longer than seven days, and no dismantled or damaged vehicles parked within sight of West State Road 28. Two, all the applicable standards of the 28 overlay will be met within a year, except as specified in the items specifically addressed in the variance below. This would include extending the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk in the right-of-way, which NDOT will permit. They just need to get a permit from INDOT to do that, adding the landscaping and adding screening for dumpster and storage areas. Those things would need to be done within a year. They need to comply with any interior building requirements the building and or fire inspectors need under building and fire codes when they walk through this to look at issuing the CO. And then noting just because of the situation with this building and INDOT was still doing some research on the exact location of the right-of-way line, that approval is subject to any conditions or requirements INDOT may have on the site or the building. because of part of it potentially being in the area NDOT owns. In terms of the variances, staff would recommend partially approving the developmental variance requests from UDO 402.16, 402.17 and 402.21. As follows, with respect to 402.16, Grant a complete variance from the green space landscaping requirement, which that requires the berming and landscaping in front of the building that would be 60 foot deep. There is no way to get those in there at all. And then a complete variance from the parking lot interior plantings. This is not a big site. There is not enough room in this parking lot to put... a row of spaces with interior berms and landscaping behind the building. So there seem to be practical difficulties there. Two, with respect again to 402.06, grant a partial variance from the foundation plantings to reduce them to being planted only on the east and west sides of the buildings with no minimum planting bed width, meaning they only need to make it wide enough to actually get something in there. and reducing it to at least three shrubs, ornamental trees, or perennial vines or evergreens on each side of the building within those planting areas. So that's a decrease but not a complete elimination. Again, 402.16, grant a partial variance from the parking lot perimeter plantings to require them only on the east and west side of the lots with a three-foot minimum planting bed width, which is reduced, and at least three trees on the west side and five trees on the east side of the lot. Next, with regards to 402.17, grant a temporary variance from the paving standards, giving the applicant three years to pave the lot with asphalt or concrete. This is similar to how we looked at the one in the downtown that had a non-compliant lot, although that one was legal non-conforming, but same thing, with the exception of the ADA compliance space, which must be paved for the CO, along with a path to the building entrance so that its customer can use before the certificate of occupancy is issued. From UDO 402.17, staff would recommend granting a complete variance from the requirement of pour-in-place curbs because there is no storm drainage connections from the city out in this location. So adding curbs would create a flooding issue in Teller unless the city extends that infrastructure, and that is a practical difficulty. And finally, relative to 402.21, And the only condition staff would recommend there is that. There'd be a condition that if the road right-of-way that NDOT currently owns is vacated in the future because NDOT said that they mistakenly held onto this and they will probably be transferring it back to the city, and then the city may choose... to work with the applicant at some point in the future to vacate part of it back to them so they own their own building. But if indeed this is vacated, then the applicant would need to add some landscaping and green space in front of the building to the degree there's space on land that they would then acquire to comply with the ordinance. So that waiver from the green space is dependent on them not owning that ground. And if NDOT transfers 40 foot to the city and they end up getting 40 foot off the city and now all of a sudden they have some room, they'd be expected to put something in. So I hope, I know that that's long and this one's complicated. Happy to reiterate anything that was confusing, but I think that sums up as best I can. You don't want to hear my report, do you? I'm not the sole opinion. My job is just to work my way through the ordinance. You guys can find your own findings and go a different way if you like.

Number one, that was an automotive, it was not an automotive repair shop to start with.

Not originally. It was a hobby shop. A CO was issued by the city for a muffler shop in 2021. I actually pulled the permitting records.

Let me finish what I'm telling you. There was a driveway there that ran from the fence all the way back around. It was an old repair shop for electric motors. That's what that building was for. When the person bought it to build all this work, those motors were still in there. So he come up to the office and he asked if he could put some gravel on that driveway so he could get them trucks in and out. Those trucks were heavy because he got all those gears and all that stuff had to be taken out for him to be ordered to put his cars in. So he put that gravel in there. He had permission to do that. Yeah.

Well, I would note then staff made an error because the ordinance from 2004 on required everything in the overlay to be paved, and this board should have heard that and granted a variance. I disagree with that.

Then the people that owned the car lot, he was parking his trailers and stuff out there, said they owned back to where that fence is. That's the property line, right down that fence road. He didn't get a permit for the fence. That drainage, there was a tile just before you get to the drive that goes back behind the building. There was a tile there in that corner that drained that lot. I don't know if it's still there.

And I don't know either. Dan didn't have any objection to the request, so I assume if it is, it's not an issue.

When I left the office, that was an issue because the water was coming down out of that field and going in that back door.

So I looked on the records on this, and there were not permits issued for the parking lot or the fence.

He didn't have to have a permit because the driveway was already there. All he asked Chuck for was permission to put gravel in there.

So if you look at the flyover from 2018, there's no driveway there. There's no gravel.

Then how'd they get them trucks out of there?

So I assume they were just driving off the end of the right-of-way with whatever was there.

The door's in the back of the building.

I mean, this is tillable around the back of this lot on that 2018.

If you could go back over here to the storage room, there should be a file in there on that property showing pictures of what it looked like. It's all recorded. Yeah.

I mean, I guess at the end of the day, the overlay says that it... needed to be paved that this whole thing both on the auto sales and on this needed to be paved needed to have perimeter landscaping the auto sales should have interior landscaping that's big enough they shouldn't have you know so well the city wouldn't have had to pave it no behind there's a I don't think we're looking at the same thing all of this Back here. Not this up here. This up here pre-existed.

I'm talking about from here, where you come in along the alley and come down here like that to this gate.

Yeah, that's not where I'm talking about. And that's all paved. I'm talking about back behind the building. And then on this lot back here, all this gravel.

That gravel is what he put in there. He had permission from Chuck to do that because there was already gravel back there.

Look at this. That's tillable. That's 2018.

Which is after 2004. They didn't use it. That shop was closed for about 20 years.

There's farm equipment grooves across that.

I'm saying that building was empty for about 20 years. No, I know that it was. So there was nothing in there.

I guess I can just look at flyovers. I mean, it's going to be up to the board to decide. If they feel that that parking lot is legal non-conforming and predates 2004, then it would not need variances, nor would the auto sales behind them that owns the rest of that lot.

There's no sense sitting here and arguing with you. I know what was there and I see it myself.

I'm done.

Are we on public discussion? Would the petitioner like to add anything? At this time, I will open public discussion.

no comments from the public public discussions close i will now open additional concerns and questions from the board so my first question is we are only concerned with this rectangular area not and going off the aerial 2026 view um the area that's owned by lc lcd realty we're not

They are not a petitioner. Anything there would be an enforcement action, and they would have to file for a future conversation.

Everything you're talking about is specifically the rectangle portion.

Just what's on the rectangle portion is all that we're discussing tonight. Well, it all went in. Whatever happened, whether it was a redo or whether it was, which if they redid it, they still should have brought it up to standards. But either way, whatever it was, the part that's not owned by this lot is not part of this particular conversation or any variances that you might grant. They would have to apply for their own variances or make their own case for why they're legal nonconforming and predated 2004.

Any other comments?

I guess there was two things I wanted to highlight. All changes are required. No dismantled or damaged vehicles within sight of State Road 28.

Yep, so in this case, technically, if you just look at... I added that with inside of State Road 28 because if you look at 505, they can't... You know, they can have a damaged or disabled vehicle for up to seven days that's awaiting repair as a commercial garage. But the State Road 28 overlay says those things can't be within sight for any length of time. So wherever they're parking any vehicles that... are dismantled or damaged, they don't look like they're fully operable, even if they're just there for a day, it cannot be visible from 28. Whether they do that by landscaping screening, by changing their fence, by pulling them inside the building, I mean, they can take a million approaches to that. But that's why that additional clause is there, is because you've got two sets of standards that play together.

What do you mean by changing the fence?

Well, if they wanted to have damaged and dismantled vehicles there for no more than seven days that were awaiting repair and put them further back behind the shop where you could see them from 28, a chain-link fence isn't going to screen that. So if they change that, say, to a solid privacy fence, well, now they have screening. Now they're not in violation of the 28 overlay.

You know that the people that owned the car lot absolutely had it fit because the cars were getting over on their lot. That's why that fence was put in.

Yeah. If the fence remains changeling, I mean, that's okay, but they can't say that it's screening the storage of a disabled vehicle.

Thank you. Any other comments? I will close discussion for the board at this time. We'll now open the motion for the board.

So, Liz, we need to have really two motions. Is that correct? Special exception?

You can do them as two separate motions, given the length of both of them. You might want to do that, but I will note that if your intention as a board is not to... grant the variances, then you would not meet the first standard to be able to grant the special exception, the first finding. The variances are needed in order to meet the first finding for the special exception. So just make sure before you start making motions that you're all on board with what you're doing, and then you can do them as two separate motions.

I'd like to make a motion to approve everything we need to approve here, but I don't know how to word it and where to start. In other words, So I think you could state... Do we start with the staff recommendations?

That's where, if you're not adding or subtracting from them, that's what I would say is your simplest option is you could say something to the effect of presuming that the variances are granted, then you would... be making a motion to approve the special exception for the commercial garage with the conditions in the staff report and according to the findings of the staff report.

Could you do the variances first and then the special exceptions?

Actually, you could because in this particular case, these are variances from the overlay, not specific to the fact that it's a commercial garage. They would apply. I mean, we'd have the same conversation if it was any other use going in there.

So if you started on page seven of the variance.

You could do it that way.

And then the next one to follow up would be. Starting on page six.

So I'd like to make the motion that we approve the variance recommendations on page seven.

Would that be a motion to partially approve the variance requests as detailed in the staff report and according to the findings in the staff report? And would that be with the condition in the staff report that if the right of way in front of the building is vacated in the future, then they would need to add some landscaping there. Okay.

It's about the only way you could agree. They don't have to go back.

So Sam is making the motion. Is that correct?

According, I'll make that motion the way she had it worded.

There you go, Mike. Take the words right out of your mouth.

Would you like to make a second, Mike?

Sure, I'll make a second.

Thank you. All right. Get a roll call, please.

Mike Nichols. Some pain. Scott Highlander. Isaac Chavez. Charles Bates.

Do we need to read these in?

not if you're adopting them as stated. So there is a distinction here. State law says that if the staff report is published at least two days before your meeting, then it's part of your official record, same as your agendas and other stuff, so you can make a motion off of it. Now, it can happen if, like, say I was really busy and I didn't get you the staff report until within 24 hours of the meeting. It's still a valid staff report. We can read it. But that's where we would technically want to read it in because we can't refer to it as part of the... the record.

Aye.

Oh, sorry. I guess you never did say aye.

Well, I just want to make sure we didn't have to read it all. No.

Okay, the petition carries. Do we have any other new business?

You still need to deal with the special exception part of that motion.

You've only halfway approved them. We did the variance. All right. Special exception. We will now open. I'm sorry. We will now open a motion for the special exception for the board.

That was on page six. According to the staff report and the findings in the staff report.

And would that include the four conditions in the staff report?

I'll second. Can I get a roll call, please?

Mike Nichols.

Hi.

Sam Payne. Hi. Scott Highlander. Hi. Isaac Chavez. Hi. Charles Bates.

Okay, now petition carries. Okay, do we have any other new business?

I don't. Rob, do you have anything?

Okay, nope, I think... All right, anything lingering? Any other old business?

Well, obviously, we've got two cases tonight. You continue. That'll come back up at your next meeting, which I guess I'll announce just in case anybody here is following those. The next meeting will be October 14th at 5.30 in this same meeting. So if for any reason you were here for Grant or Deere, those will both be...

further discussed at that meeting you're okay I just checked with grace so I'm not smart either I just any other news for the good of BCA from any board members here now I'll take a motion to adjourn