Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Mr. Smith roll call, please Here Here

Here.

Okay. Mr. Acting Chairman, just for the record, with only three members present, in order for something to be approved, all three have to vote the same.

Okay.

Next up, we have the approval for the minutes for October 28th, 2025, February 24th, 2026, April 28th, 2026, and June 2nd, 2026. Do I have a motion?

Move to table, all four days.

Okay. We have a motion to table. You have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mrs. Morris-Smith?

Yes. Yes.

Next up number four will be old business. Z-26-04 petition for Reyes Dream Casas Incorporated for developmental variance regarding TS 3.30A to allow reduction in the minimum width and lot area required to build a single family home located at 2633, 164th place with an R1U urban single family residential district in the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, just at the last BZA meeting, we voted to table this particular case. Inadvertently, their request actually was to be tabled until the July meeting. I think I misspoke and said the June meeting, so we're just asking.

um that it be uh tabled again to the end of july and then tom have you you haven't heard anything further from them as to whether that is still going to work for them yeah i mean they haven't updated they haven't said it hasn't but they haven't really said no they did request um about the dates to send out the notifications and things like that the other week so For now, I assume they do intend.

Okay, so I guess the request stands. It's just, again, to table it to the July meeting.

Okay. May we request this old business to be tabled until the July meeting? And do I have a motion?

Motion to table.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. Mrs. Smith, roll call, please.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, we are doing that. Okay.

Next up, Z-26-11, petition for Raw Korea for the variance in use regarding TS 8.11, six conditional uses for the C2 Shopping Center District to TS 3.10 permitted uses in an R1U Urban Single Family Development District to allow an event space general facility in RU Urban Single Family Development Residential District located at 1424-30, Michigan Street within the City of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. Is the petitioner here?

Hold on. Shannon, would you correct me if I'm wrong? Since this was tabled, there weren't any new notifications. Okay. I'm sorry. It goes back to the notification.

Gotcha, gotcha. Okay. Mrs. Smith, a notification has been sent out.

So none were required. Well, none were required. Thank you. Okay. So to kind of help set the stage for tonight, the case was tabled from the last meeting. We had gone through the presentation about the – We went through the public hearing. We closed the public hearing. And one of the outstanding issues was the documentation from the building commissioner regarding the life safety, whether or not there was going to be the secondary emergency exit on the rear of the building, which then dictates what the calculation is for the occupancy limit of the event space. and so um and correct me if i'm wrong is that pretty much the outstanding issue tom yeah that is okay so um if the petitioner wants to proceed with uh clarifying the question of the um life safety and the the ramp and and and all that that that would that's where we're at okay

Can you please state your name for us and sign in, and your address?

My name is Raul Correa, and my address is 5535 White Oak in Chicago, Indiana.

Thank you. It's all yours.

Okay, so the red rays are made of the drawings.

So you engaged with Wallen Gomez, right? Was the name of the architect Wallen Gomez Architects? Yes. Okay, yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So I don't know, you guys received the safety plan. So you have that or not?

Yeah, so we received the safety plan and a revised site plan as well. And the life and safety plan, it did demonstrate that The closest exit is within 63 feet from the back corner to the front door, which will be an ADA compliant entrance. You know so we had Bob Vail building commissioners look it over. He looked more into chapter 10 of the international building code and even with the 63 foot travel distance You know was determined that a secondary ramp secondary emergency exit would be required which would mean an ad a compliant ramp in the one of the rear doors and And so the understanding was, you're at the 49, due to chapter 10 of the international building code and fire department determination, you're at 49 maximum occupancy. But when you construct that front ADA ramp, which is required no matter what, if you construct the rear ADA ramp, so you have two ADA code compliant emergency exits. then you could be eligible for the higher occupancy. Also, there were a few improvements made. You also had a site plan drawn up with a few improvements, right? Yes. Yeah, did you want to bring up any of those things?

Mr. Carrera, you understand that what the building commissioner has explained to us. So at this point, are you telling the board of zoning appeals that you will construct the secondary ADA ramp on the rear of the building? Yes. Okay. And Tom, do we have any technical plans on the construction details of that?

No, we do not but I'm sure they'll be forthcoming.

Okay. It's a yes or no question. Okay. All right, and so Mr. Carrera, it would be your responsibility to provide us the technical details of the construction of the ramp so we have it on file. Okay.

Okay.

All right. So for the board's benefit, with the statement that the petitioner has made regarding the construction of the ramp that is as a requirement of the building code that does allow for the opportunity to increase the occupancy from the 49 to the ratio based on the number of parking spaces. Now, one of the things that I'm not sure if you have been told, Mr. Carrera, but in discussions with the staff, I think there still is an outstanding question on the site plan when it comes to the location of the parking spaces in proximity to the front ramp. And so some of the sizes for the van accessible space, I think is what was in question and the location of that. So there are some technical details that still need to be resolved regarding the parking lot. I do not think it's going to change the number of spaces on that plan, but it may change the design and location and adjusting some of that.

Okay.

Okay. All right.

So we're at the point. Yes, we're number five now.

Yeah, I think also for the record, it's worth pointing out that on this revised site plan we received, there was also a few things added, like some perimeter landscaping, planning of a few trees, replacement of fence, and things like that. Did you jump ahead?

Yeah, right. You're starting to do the report, right?

No, well, I did want to get it. Yeah, okay.

I'm sure it's good. We'll wait for it, though. So let's follow protocol. And with the chairperson, I think we're at the stage, you know, we're past the public hearing stage.

Okay. We're right here, number five. You can do that.

Yeah. Okay. Actually... Okay. All right. That sounds good.

All right, board members, do you have any questions for the petitioner?

No.

No, nobody has any? Okay. All right, Mr. Novak, we're ready for the staff report.

Thank you, y'all. Yeah, you're welcome to sit, sir. Yeah, so like I said, the Wallen and Gomez architects of Chicago, they engaged with, and we got an updated site plan, as well as the life and safety plan. And it should also be noted on the life and safety plan, certain things like there will be a fire extinguisher available with less than 50 feet at all points, and other things like that. You talked about the ADA bathrooms before where there was one of the stalls' walls needed to be moved over in the women's restroom. And it's indicated on that plan that it will be moved over so that both men's and women's have one ADA-compliant stall. And then on the site plan, there was A number of improvements made beyond just the fact that we went from 28 to 30 parking spaces in a kind of a newer configuration. The dumpster enclosure was moved, I think, to a more congenial spot at the southeast corner off the alley. So now they are proposing that they would have a fenced in dumpster area, that they would extend the privacy fencing. They've considered ornamental fencing in the front, stuff like that. A few new landscaping areas with trees. I believe in my report I stated it. I'm sorry, yeah, so I mean we're talking probably 2,000 square feet of new landscaping by 2020. So, I mean, I think those things are well appreciated, and we understand that they may be phased in over time, but we appreciate that effort to, you know, aesthetically improve things. But, you know, as indicated, the front ramp has kind of been given its dimensions and how long, you know, the runs will be. There will be two runs, and the landing will be at least five feet wide per code. So hopefully we see some kind of design for the rear ramp similarly to what we saw for the front in time. But beyond that, I think those were the big updates. Beyond that, we're looking at the staff recommendation for the variance of use in C2611, which reads as staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA forward the petition for a variance of use to the city council with the favorable recommendation should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following eight conditions. One, events on weeknights, Sunday through Thursday, shall end no later than 1.10 p.m. and no event any day of the week shall begin earlier than 9 a.m. Two, screening, fencing, dumpster enclosure and landscaping improvements proposed in the site plan or similar enough improvements should be completed in a timely manner. Three, resurface and restrike parking lot to contain at least 30 code-compliant off-street parking spaces inclusive of the two ADA code-compliant spaces, substitute technical corrections at the ADA spaces, dimensions, and location. Four, construct ADA code compliant ramp to front door, aka the main building entrance, using a licensed contractor. Five, rough and final approvals by City of Hammond on all required inspections of work performed to bring this event space into code compliance. Six, follow all fire safety regulations set forth by both the Hammond Fire Department and the National Fire Protection Association, or NFPA codes and standards. Seven, compliance with Hammond City Code Chapters 94, 97, 98, 101, 132, 150, and 160, and in particular sections enforcing noise, litter, junk, and the harboring of a public nuisance as maintained sanitary, safe, and aesthetically pleasing property. and eight maximum occupancy shall be set at 49 persons. The BZA grants authority to the staff to increase the maximum occupancy to 90 persons per the 30 off-street parking spaces upon confirmation that the second ADA code compliant ramp is constructed at the rear exit. Thank you.

Any of the board members have questions about the staff report?

No, so just the last part. So as it sits right now, it's 49. Once he presents the plans, you as the staff will be able to go in to change that to 90.

Once our, it's not just a matter of once he presents the plans, once he completes the construction and the permit has been issued and verified and occupancy has been issued. We will coordinate with the building department, the inspections department as a part of the occupancy permit that is now up to the 90 persons.

Gotcha. Okay. Yep, that's all I wanted to know.

Yeah, and I'm sure the fire department will make sure the little plaque on the wall reflects that too.

Yeah, that's what I was figuring. That's all I had.

Okay, great. Anybody else? No? No questions? Okay. Anybody have any questions about the staff report findings of fact? No? I need a motion to approve all the staff report as findings in fact.

Motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mrs. Morris-Smith, roll call, please. Dan Faulkner?

Yes. Thomas Gazzanino? Yes.

Roger Brown?

Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions.

Motion to pass. Mr. President?

Yes, Commissioner.

I'd also like to make a motion that the BZA forward the petition. the variance used to the city council with a favorable recommendation subject to the petitioner meeting the standards that's listed in the report.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Yeah, we have a motion and a second. Mrs. Smith, can we order our roll call, please?

Dan Faulkner? Yes. Thomas Gaspierre is that? Yes.

Roger Rodgers? Yes.

Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Congratulations. I mean, you guys are welcome to stick around, but you're also welcome to leave whenever you want. Good luck, everybody. I'm sure we'll be in touch.

Okay, next up is new business. Z-26-12, petition for CD Holdings LLC for a conditional use regarding TS 18.71-03 outdoor seating to a restaurant outdoor seating in a C4 general commercial district located at 6525 Indianapolis Boulevard within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. Oh, it's you guys, okay. Will you please sign in and then state your name and address for the record, please.

Okay. You need to ask the question about the notifications.

Oh, this is a Morris Smith and location in that. Okay.

Okay. And Mr. Chairman and to the petitioners, the way we're going to conduct this, because we have multiple cases related to the two separate addresses. First of all, we have to separate the addresses and those presentations are going to be separate. And for the first one, I want you to speak only to the conditional use, and then we'll deal with the variances. But you have to establish that the conditional use is approved first.

Okay. Yes. Brian, would you like me to provide some general background on the project before jumping into the details of each item?

Okay. I mean, that's pretty much what the conditional use is establishing. You're going to establish a whole general background of the potential development and then hone in on the Chipotle's conditional use for the outdoor seating, not the other details of the outdoor seating, but the actual outdoor seating.

So good evening BZA members and staff. My name is Greg Lorig, DVG team, 1155 Troutwine Road, Crown Point, Indiana. DVG is the surveyor and civil engineer for the project. With me today is Corey Dedimore of CLD Holdings. He's the developer for this project. We're here seeking a conditional use to allow outdoor seating in a C4 general commercial district for a new Chipotle. Just again, setting the stage, there will also be additional variances related to that. A little bit of a background, we're proposing to redevelop the property currently located at 6525 Indianapolis Boulevard, more commonly known as the New Petros Restaurant Site at the southeast corner of Indianapolis Boulevard and 165th Avenue. Existing 1.46 acre property is proposed to be subdivided into a north lot and south lot, affects both the development variances we're here for tonight. Without jumping into too many details, I will just give the history that we were here before redevelopment commission and had a completely positive feedback from redevelopment commission regarding the developments. And then we were here a couple of weeks ago for a plan commission at which point our final plat was approved. So honing into the conditional use, For the proposed Chipotle site, which is the south parcel on this property, we are proposing 38 indoor seats and 20 outdoor seats. The patio will be mostly enclosed with a three foot tall fence. And by city code, we require a conditional use because there are nine or more outdoor seats. operating hours we're looking at are 1045 to 11 p.m., with outdoor seating closing at 10 p.m. Basically, as indicated in our submittal, this is a very tight site, and the best use of the space in front of the restaurant is outdoor seating, which is kind of a corporate standard for Chipotle. They like to have outdoor seating out there. Nice for people to eat outside, have fresh air, or even have overflow seating outside. So that's something they like to do on all their projects. If you go to any of the Chipotle's around here, vast majority have outdoor seating, and that's what we'd like to do here. So we have the space for more seats, which triggers the conditional use, and we would like to get the outdoor seats as proposed in our plan. And that's what we're requesting.

Okay, for the benefit of the board, there are two types of outdoor seating that the ordinance allows, and it's relevant to this case and to the other cases, that they are seeking a general outdoor seating, and that's what triggers the conditional use permit. So Greg, have you prepared addressing all the nine criteria of the conditional use?

Yes, I mean, I can go over verbatim what we've spelled out in our scenario.

Why don't you summarize it?

Okay.

Bear with me.

I've got not as much paper as I've delivered to City Hall, but I have a lot of paper here. So as far as conditional use approval not being injurious to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, It will not be, rather it allows customers to enjoy eating outside in fresh air and the benefits of sunshine. One thing we'd like to point out is this is over 1,000 feet away from the nearest residences or apartments, which are south of the Hutamaki Paper Products Factory. So it's already a noisy intersection, commercial area, roads, traffic. We're not expecting any nuisances. As far as not having an effect on density of the adjacent area, there's not an excessive number of similar uses in this area. I think Brian spelled that out in his staff report. Outdoor seating in adjacent restaurants is currently very limited, such as Wendy's, Subway, Domino's, Pepe's, Popeye's, which have none. Transportation network will not be negatively affected while We want these projects to have good business, hence some more traffic coming to the site. We are working with NDOT on our permit for that and likely going to be a write in, write out modification for that driveway. It's not going to directly correlate to I'm sorry, the outdoor seating is not going to directly correlate to any additional trip generation beyond what Chipotle would normally generate, so it's kind of mute there. We're not expecting to have any adverse impacts on environmental or natural resources, historical, architectural, cultural, or archaeological resources. This does not interfere with the city's comprehensive zoning plan. It is a Approved use. And this will be in compliance with the applicable provisions established elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. I think that covers most of them.

And then just 9 is not applicable.

I'm sorry?

Edition number 9 is not applicable.

Yes, as far as the conditional use approval will provide for reasonable accommodation pursuant to section 2453 is not applicable.

Okay, so going back to the transportation thing, you talked about the NDOT uh, conditions on, on the curb cut. Um, as, as you presented to the plan commission, you also talked about the secondary access off of 165th street. And so, um, any further comments about that?

Um, where that drive is currently proposed to remain, um, as you know, there, there's been a desire to try to accommodate that property, uh, to the north. That's still potentially in the works, but what has been submitted to date is completely on the property itself.

Okay, and then within the plat, there is a cross-access easement that allows for the Chipotle traffic to cross the other property to get to that 165th Street exit?

I believe so, correct. Okay, all right.

Any commissioner comments, or just another petitioner?

None for me.

Okay, next up, public expression.

Yeah, technically, you have to go through that.

Yeah, technically, yes. Okay, we're opening up a public expression. Anybody in the gallery or online, here's your chance. Speak up. Anybody in the gallery or online, speak up. ANYBODY ONLINE IN THE GALLERY CAN SPEAK UP. ALL RIGHT, PUBLIC EXPRESSION IS CLOSED. ANY BOARD MEMBERS, ANY LAST-MINUTE COMMENTS? NO? ALL RIGHT, MR. NOVAK, WE'RE READY FOR THE STAFF REPORT.

D-26-12, conditional use for general outdoor seating as an accessory use for a patio that is about 350 square feet, about 16 by 24. It will be on the front of the building facing Indianapolis Boulevard. Staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the conditional use should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following three conditions. Approval by BZA of concurrent developmental variance cases known as Z26, 13, A, B, and C, and their conditions of approval as determined by the BZA. Two, final technical review and approval of building, site, civil, and stormwater pollution prevention plans by city staff. and three recordation of the cld commercial edition subdivision plat by the current owner of record recordation of cross-access easement document and finalization of the sale of the property thank you any board members have questions about the staff report no okay anybody have any questions about the staff report regarding findings of fact nope

I have a motion to approve the staff report as findings of fact.

So moved. Staff report and the proposed findings of fact as findings of fact.

Okay. Proposed findings of fact as findings of fact. Excuse me.

So moved.

Second. And a second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please, Mrs. Smith.

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casimirzak.

Yes. Roger Brown.

Yes.

Be ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Mr. President. I'd like to move to grant conditional approval subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Okay. It's not conditional approval. It's approval of a conditional use.

Sorry. Move to approve the conditional use subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Mrs. Smith, roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Now that you've established that, I would advise the chair to call Z13A, B, and C at the same time, and they can make the presentations, but the motions would have to be separate.

Got you.

Okay.

Next up, we have Z-26-13A, petition for CDL Holdings LLC for a developmental variance regarding TS 18.75.061 outdoor seating to allow an increase of the ratio of allowed seating seats from 33% to 60, the number of indoor seats for customers in a C4 general commercial district located at 6525 Indianapolis Boulevard within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. And next we have 7.02613B, petition for CDL Holdings LLC for development of various regards, TS 1871.081, outdoor seating to allow for not fully enclosing the proposed outdoor seating area on all four sides in a C4 commercial district located at 6525 Indianapolis Boulevard within the City of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. And Z-2613C, petition for CDL Holdings LLC for development of variance regarding TS 18.71082, outdoor seating to allow not having any other entrance nor an entrance to proposed outdoor seating area through the principal building interior of the C1 commercial district located 6525 Annapolis Boulevard within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana.

Thank you. So yes, all the three of these variances are related to the outdoor seating for the proposed Chipotle we're just speaking of. So Z2613A, we're requesting to allow an increase in the ratio of allowed outdoor seats from 33% to 60%. Again, that's based on what I noted before. We've got 38 indoor seats and 20 outdoor seats proposed. So per code, that's over the amount normally done. As I mentioned before, we would like to have a ample amount of seating in the front as is the general corporate plan for these Chipoles. As I mentioned before, great for fresh air and also overflow seating if needed and it is the best use of our space in that area given our tight site. Secondly, As far as not fully enclosing the proposed outdoor seating area, we are enclosing it on two sides completely, the north and the west with a three foot tall aluminum fence. We have also looked to add another section of panel on the south side. You should be able to see that in your packets. We really can't fully enclose it and it will kind of tie into our next variance for two main reasons. The site is tight. And we have to have ADA compliance from not only the patio area, but from the door coming out of the Chipotle, which is right next to a curb ramp that comes into our parking lot and leads to the ADA parking. Aside from that, speaking with the architect, doing the layout for the fencing around there, We also just need adequate space for ingress, egress, and fire safety. We need that area open to allow people to come in and out. And if we close that off completely, it just creates a bottleneck that doesn't work. Related to that, the, Z 26 13 C petition. Um, we are requesting to allow not having the only entrance or exit to the proposed outdoor seating being through the principal building. Again, if you look at the seating plan or that main door is into Chipotle, it's, it's just already kind of a funnel of as far as traffic, whether you're going to the outdoor seating or into the space. Furthermore, if we looked at closing that off and add a second door, it just really doesn't work for the building design and we really can't redesign the entire interior template, corporate template that corporate approves to get a second door there. So we feel what is proposed is a good compromise and we've worked with staff to try to accommodate this as best as we can with some additional fencing there. Again, I think our application really speaks for itself as far as why this will not be detrimental to public health or safety. And I went over some of those things before. This is not next to residences that may be complaining about people eating outside and talking loudly. It's in a loud area. It's a huge benefit for not only businesses but customers, for people that want to maybe come across the street from YMCA or Sportsplex. have the ability to eat outside. It's just a nice bonus for everyone to have. Happy to answer any other questions on those three.

Any questions from the board members?

No. Okay.

I'd like to open up now for public expression. Anybody online or in the gallery wants to speak, come up now. Anybody in the gallery or online who wants to speak? Anybody in the gallery or online who wants to speak? Hearing none, public expression is closed.

Okay, so Mr. Chairman, we have to take each one of these individually for motions? Yes.

Okay. Okay, I'm sorry.

But Tom, was there anything that needs to be clarified at this point for the first case for A? without going into your report?

No, you know, I know that there have been varying site plans that have shown 38, 34 indoor seating. We went ahead with the more generous one of 60% from the 33% just to cover any unforeseen changes. You know, I think there was like a loss and then a gain of a high table or something like that in the interior layout. So 60% may not exactly... add up to the current site plan, but it does offer a little buffer space.

I think that's important.

Right now, there's seven tables and 20 seats outside.

Greg, can you answer that? Has that interior arrangement changed?

This is a prototype floor plan, Brian, with Tripoli Corporate. Other than if we were to have made any changes to a drive-through, they would have already have happened. So the number of seats inside of that is the final building plans that are going to state and have been submitted to state. So if it's 38 seats, it's 38 seats. The few tables are picnic tables, guys, that they are, like, not picnic tables. They're just small fours, which they sometimes have four seats at, but they might even get delivered with two on them. So they... Corporately, they supply that through their preferred architect that they want those number of seats because that's what's boilerplate across the country. It might even come less than that for the exterior. But we are asking for that approval. Interior seats are 38.

Okay, and Tom, does our staff report reflect the 38?

I mean, it discussed how the original request was for 34 and that the newer one indicates 38. I believe it would change it from 60 to 52 percent or something like that. Okay. I did math before.

So the new information that we're clarifying here is it's 38 inside and 20 outside. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And so whatever the percentage is, so the wording should be up to 60 percent because it probably would be –

Yeah, the difference is with 34 seats, it would be 59%. With 38 seats, it would be 53%. Okay. So the 60%, I think, is as low.

So that's a clarification in the staff report that it's up to 60%. Okay.

All right, any of the board members have any questions? The last question is for the petitioner.

Yeah, just based on that, So if we change the wording to up to 60%, then would that then allow them to add two additional seats outside? Because then 60% of 38 would actually be 22 point something seats.

Well, I mean, you can understand. Thank you for the math analysis of that. Yeah, it's 22.8. I think that that is something that the board can consider that if you want to limit it to the 20 as what the prototype is based on the information, you can certainly do that.

Okay. In that case, it would be 53%.

Yeah, I'm fine with the up two. I just wanted to make sure.

Well, I have to tell you that the outdoor seating is very tight, and I'm not sure if two seats are even physically possible.

Yeah, that's what I'm just saying. But this would give them the option. I just wanted to make sure that... if we use the up to 60%, they would have that option then based on that wording.

I mean, cause I mean, that's what the petition said. The petition was based on 60%, but I think that's where I think we have a math issue that has not been, was that previously been brought to my attention that there was a math issue here on the 34 versus 38. So it is quite concerning at this point in time on how to approach this.

I'm fine with the 26 as approval. I don't need a percentage.

Yeah, so if we can, so based on the language in the staff report, what would be the best way to amend this then? Can we just put a hard cap at 20, or does it have to be percentage 4?

Again, you have to be true to what the request was. It was increase from 33% to 60%, so I don't think we can change that. But you can then say a maximum of 20 seats.

Okay, so up to 60% with a maximum of 20.

That is something that...

That is something that the staff report should be amended and then therefore you would accept that amendment.

Should we add that as a condition of approval? No more than 20 seats? Yes, you should. Okay.

Okay, so that'll be number two then.

Yes, yes. And there's a slight discussion of this on the top of page two of the staff report. So I'm glad we had this discussion now. So we set the percentages out loud for the record.

Any more questions? No. All right, Mr. Miller, I'm ready for the staff report. Okay.

Staff recommendation reads that the staff has reviewed, well, in the case of Z2613A, staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance to increase the 33% seating ratio of title section 18.71.06A to 60%. Should the Board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following conditions. One, approval by BZA of concurrent developmental variance cases. Well, this did originally read Fs and I don't know why it changed. Approval of BZA of concurrent conditional use case Z2612 and developmental variance cases Z2613B and C and their conditions of approval as determined by the BZA. And two, that this ratio of 60% account for no more than 20 outdoor seats.

How about saying that- The outdoor seating- That the outdoor seating is capped at 20 seats.

This is limited to 20 seats, yes.

Does that complete your staff report, Mr. Novak? Yes. I'm sorry, that's my fault.

There's also a findings of fact on the next page. Yes.

Okay, the next up is, there were some changes to the findings of fact. Everybody's okay with that? I need a motion to approve it.

To the conditions of approval.

The conditions of approval. Thank you.

I think we just, when we move to approve, we just have to say as amended, correct?

As amended, yeah.

if there are no changes to the proposed findings of fact and yes your brochure would be that we accept the staff report as amended and the proposed by the fact as far as the fact do we have a second will call for we missus yes yes

whatever that one you need the next motion okay we actually so i'll make the motion to approve z-26-13a developmental variance subject to the condition standards and conditions set forth and staff as amended as amended here a second second roll call hopefully mrs smith dan faulkner yes thomas casimir yes yes

one more for anybody make motion for c you have one we got one more to go do we we have to do the staff report for beast over okay yeah for c b and c okay we got a minute to go okay sure okay so um i suppose you want staff report for b um

So for Z-26-13B, in the matter of enclosing the outdoor seating area on all four sides, staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following conditions. One, approval by BZA of concurrent developmental variance case. Cases Z2613A and C and conditional use case Z2612 and their conditions of approval as determined by the BZA. Installation of no less than the single four foot wide fence panel along the south edge of outdoor seating area, connecting it to the west side of the enclosure fence at the outdoor seating area's southwest corner. And three, installation of landscaping on the west and north sides of the fence enclosing the outdoor seating area.

You do understand our request about the landscaping?

I would like to discuss that a little bit because as we were discussing with you and Tom throughout, that was not something I recall coming up.

It's in the ordinance that there is required to have landscaping around the outdoor seating.

Taking a look at the site plan, if you guys can pull that up, can you see that? I've built a lot of these Chipotles with these outdoor seatings. A lot of this is a very small area in front of a outdoor seating. We all know that this main drive lane coming into this. Guys, we're in northwest Indiana. Snow plows everything that's going to be dead. They do collect garbage, potential of debris. And if you look at kind of how that traffic flows and different things of potential, Walkway slash impervious surface in front of that is why it was drawn like that in case there is somebody that so they're not walking off into a parking lot if they exit or cross over into another store next door or something like that as well. So I get it. We've seen it before with landscaping in front of it. It does not last and it will get destroyed. So that's why we typically pour all the way out to the edge of curb. So we have solid improvements through that. Greg did just bring that up to me from your staff report. happy to do the normal landscaping in other areas, but that's why it wasn't originally drawn on there.

Yeah. Unfortunately, this issue should have been brought up a lot sooner.

Brian, I saw your staff report about what? Five hours ago?

Yeah, no, no.

So I'm just talking it through. I saw the staff report, and I was just made aware of this while sitting right there. I'm just bringing up what typical normal developments of killing plants and salt in northwest Indiana would happen.

I understand that. All I'm saying is that collectively this should have been brought up, and I say that about my staff members. Okay. Because to have this issue at this minute is very difficult for all of us. So would that be a variance that had to go through if I was not putting it would have been in a perfect world, we would have addressed it differently than the way it was addressed. Okay. Okay. So understanding that your concerns are based on some practical issues, um, And I don't want to have a long discussion on this because I really haven't looked at your landscape plans in any greater detail. But you do have landscaping requirements elsewhere on the property. And so I think that's something that we can discuss at a staff level is to some type of relocation compensatory inclusion of landscaping in a better suited area.

Yeah, I think I'm happy with that. If you can see from existing conditions of what the current Petros has is 100% impervious parking lot on all of it, correct? So to me, to be adding curbs and adding green spaces around buildings of two separate buildings, I'm adding more additional landscaping to the community as well.

Yeah. So that being said, Okay, I'm sorry. Where are we at?

And to be clear, it states the seating area shall be enclosed by approved landscaping and fencing. So it is being potentially considered by this variance. And I suppose the devil is the details of what the word approved means.

All right. So I'm going to suggest an amendment to this condition.

Okay.

And I'm trying to formulate the language in my head here. OK. What? That number three is gonna be replaced with language to the effect of that the staff, subject to the staff and the petitioner work together to identify compensatory landscaping elsewhere on the property.

Ready to read the staff report? I'm sorry? You ready to read the staff report now?

Do we need to, do I need a motion to amend? Oh yeah, because did you make the motion?

Okay, so this discussion came after Tom has presented these conditions, correct? Yes. So the staff report has already been presented. We went into a discussion as to the concerns of the petitioner, and I have offered an amendment to the staff report for item number three. So it is at this point that the board is to approve accept the staff report as amended, plus the proposed findings of fact as the findings of fact.

Okay, so then my first motion would be to approve the, to accept the findings of fact as a finding of fact, correct?

Accept the staff report as amended and the proposed findings of fact as findings of fact. So moved.

Do we have a second?

Yes, we do.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Mrs. Smith, roll call, please.

Ann Faulkner. Yeah. Thomas Gatsby. Yes. Roger Brock.

Yes.

Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

And then I'd also like to make a motion that we grant the developmental variance for Z-26-13B subject to the conditions as amended in the report.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mrs. Smith, roll call again, please.

Dan Faulkner? Yes. Thomas Casmierza? Yes. Roger Robb? Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed. Okay.

Are we on to C now?

Mm-hmm.

Next up is Z-2613C.

We're at staff report.

Yes, Mr. Novak, we're ready for a staff report on that.

Yes, I heard. It's only a matter of Z-2613C to waive requirement for exclusive access to a general outdoor seating area via the interior of principal building. Recommendation reads as follows. Staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following condition. One, approval by BZA of concurrent conditional use cases Z2612 and developmental variance cases Z2613A and B and their conditions of approval as determined by the BZA. The following page is the proposed findings of that.

And board members have any questions about the staff report? No?

Okay.

I need a motion about the staff report as findings of fact.

I will make the motion to accept the staff report and the proposed findings of fact as findings of fact. There you go. Second.

And we have a motion and a second. Mrs. Smith, roll call, please.

Dan Faulkner? Yes. Thomas Casmier? Yes. Roger Frye?

Yes.

A, B, I, 0, A, 0 distinctions. Motion passed.

Okay.

We do these all separate, now we're doing three again.

You can take 14 A and B, all at the same time. Thank you. We still have the, oh, I'm sorry, do we have something?

Yeah, I'd like to make the motion to grant developmental variance Z-26-13C separate conditions set forth in staff.

Do I have a second? Second. Yeah, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please, Mrs. Smith.

Yes. Yes. Okay, now we can move on to Z-2614A.

Petition for CDO Holdings LLC for developmental variance regarding TS18.71.031 outdoor seating to allow limited outdoor seating while there is no indoor seating for the proposed Dutch Brothers coffee shop in a C4 general commercial district located 6515 Indianapolis Boulevard within the city of Hammond Lake County, Indiana and Z-2614B Petition for CDL Holdings LLC for developmental variance regarding TS 1871.071 outdoor seating to allow furnishing, i.e. tables and chairs outside during evenings and overnight when the business is closed in a C4 general commercial district located 6515 Indianapolis Boulevard within the city of Hammond, Lake County, Indiana.

Thank you again. So as far as Z2614A goes, I think this one is pretty straightforward. We are proposing eight outdoor seats, which means that we fall into the limited seating category. And it's in a little irregular situation because the amount of those seats is based on a percentage of the number of indoor seats. But as noted in what was just discussed and our submittal, Dutch Brothers is a drive-through carry-out only. They do have a walk-up window as well, which is a huge benefit for the outdoor seats. So if we go off the ratio of indoor seats, that means we can't have any outdoor seating. So what's been proposed and what's submitted to you is essentially two picnic table-like size tables with benches on each side. So you got two people at each bench. You end up with eight seats. So we are basically asking to waive the requirements of that ratio based on the indoor seats and allow us to have the eight outdoor seats as proposed. The Z2614, did I say that right? One, I'm sorry. That was Z2614B moving on to Z2615.

Oh, that was, that was A, now we're moving on to B. Oh, okay. That's what you meant, yeah.

Yeah, no, that was A. Now we're on B. Thank you, Tom. Oh, yes. This one is also pretty straightforward. Per the code, the seating needs to be removed when not during operational hours. we are requesting that we'd be able to leave furnishings, i.e. these tables and chairs outside during evenings, even when the business is closed. As I noted before, that those tables and benches are, under the canopy actually if you look at the building views right next to the walk-up window that whole area is concrete flat work and they will actually be fastened to the concrete out there so they are permanent so hence we'd like to leave them out there because they are permanent outdoor furniture and again they will be protected from the elements so that is our request for b

Any questions from the commissioners?

Yeah, I do need to make a technical correction to the petition. Your presentation said waive, and it's not a request to waive. It can't be. It's a request to reduce the percentage from 33% to 0%. I agree. Thank you, Brian.

Any commissioner comments?

None for me.

Okay. All right, Mr. Novak, we're ready for you. Staff report.

Did you go to public hearing?

Are we going to do public hearing? Sure. I'd open up for public hearing on this. Anybody in the gallery or online wishing to speak, say it now. Anybody in the gallery or online wishing to speak, say it now. Anybody in the gallery or online wishing to speak, say it now. Public hearing is closed.

OK. So in the case of Z-26-14A, I will note that the patio is approximately 320 square feet. It'll extend 11 and 1 half feet out from the south wall of the building. And it will be about 28 feet wide. It'll be on an elevated concrete base with a canopy over it. There will be three. pillars supporting the canopy on the outside south edge the walk-up window will be under the canopy as well on its west end so the walk-up window and the limited outdoor seating area of eight or less seats as proposed now as eight seats would be in that 320 square foot area so um Looking at the recommendation, staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance. Reduce the 33% seating ratio of TS 18.71.06A20 should the board feel the petitioner has met the standard subject to the following conditions. Approval by BZA of concurrent developmental variance cases known as Z2614B and Z2615 and their conditions of approval as determined by the BZA. Two, the number of outdoor seats shall remain at eight or less, and the outdoor seating area will not extend beyond the boundaries of the canopy which covers it. Pursuant to no indoor seating being provided. Three, final technical review and approval of building site civil and stormwater pollution prevention plans by city staff. And four, recordation of the COD commercial addition subdivision plant by the current owner of record. Recordation of cross-access easement documents and finalization of the sale of the property. On the next page, in fact, on the following two pages is a Opposed, findings of fact, which also bring up the fact that the outdoor seating, while protected by the canopy, should also be a weather resistant material. So as to be able to survive the elements.

Any questions from commissioners?

No.

I'm gonna need a motion for staff report and the proposed findings of fact.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Roll call please, Mrs. Smith.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Also need a motion.

I'll make that motion to grant developmental variance Z-26-14A subject to the standards and conditions set forth in stat report.

Any second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, Mrs. Smith.

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Gatsby-Arizet. Yes. Roger Brown.

Yes.

Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

They were moving on to 7-2614B.

Yeah, staff report regarding Z2614B, which is in regard to title section 18.71.071. Which goes over specifically in restaurant limited outdoor seating that furnishings should be put away during off business hours. In this case, again, they will be located under a canopy. They will be of weather-resistant materials and well-maintained, protect from weather, keep up their appearance. They'll also be bolted to the ground, so theft shouldn't be an issue, and removing them at night would be not really possible. So staff recommendation. Staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and recommends that the BZA grant the developmental variance should the board feel the petitioner has met the standards subject to the following conditions. One, approval by BZA of concurrent developmental variance cases known as Z2614A and Z2615 and their conditions of approval is determined by the BZA. And two, the tables and chairs shall be kept in a well-maintained condition appropriate for outdoor weather conditions. Again. Following one page is the proposed findings of fact.

Any questions about the staff report from the commissioners?

No.

Yeah, I'm going to need a motion for the staff report as findings of fact as findings of fact.

I'll make a motion to adopt the staff report, the proposed finding of facts as findings of fact. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Roll call, please, Mrs. Smith.

Dan Faulkner? Yes. Thomas Kazimierzak? Yes. Dr. Pratt?

Yes.

I have a motion and a second.

Roll call, please, Mrs. Smith. Yes. Yes. Yes.

We're going on to 15. 15 is by itself. No, 15 is by itself. Thank you. All right, next up is Z-26-15, petition for CDO Holdings LLC for developmental variance regarding TS21.23C2 signage to allow up to 4.3 times the lot frontage on the square feet for the gross signature of signage area which is an increase from the 2.5 X allowed for the C4 General Commercial District located 6515 Indianapolis Boulevard within the city of Hammond Lake County, Indiana.

And just as a matter of record, I do want to update, it's reflected in the staff report, but we did change the 4.3 times to 4.45 times.

Well, I think to further explain the chart before you guys. Well, I just wanted to make a correction to the agenda.

I understand. Obviously, we'll discuss it, yes.

What it comes down to is when we look at the calculations from the chart and the documentation provided, and, Corey, I think this goes back to one of our earlier meetings. It's that monument sign that has four sides to it. okay when they presented based on how we read the calculations they presented only one side and it should have been two sides two of the four that's how we would normally calculate it and some of the dimensions were not complete so we kind of made a guesstimate and so that's where um on the chart when they list the um that that that tom is talking about the chart that we modified um, went from like 23 square feet to 34 square feet based on including that second side.

Okay.

And then that, that obviously affects the total, which then affects the ratio that we're changing.

Okay. Well, uh, Tom and, uh, Brian, appreciate you clarifying that Tom did, uh, all the days are blurring together tom i can't remember yesterday you talked to me or friday last week but you did mention that you guys were counting that up a little bit differently than you have so we do appreciate the amended request for the slightly higher ratio 4.45 times the lot frontage Just some background on this. There was quite a large signage package submitted. This is not the only community I've seen with this requirement. Most communities are based on your lot frontage width. As Corey can tell you, there's not many good properties left, and what we're able to work in here with these two sites results in a very narrow lot. So not only in addition to that, just the nature of Dutch Brothers being the business that it is and wholly relying on drive-through and circulation and people having a good experience, they do have more menu board signs than most. There's signage in here for the walk-up orders, which is added convenience for their customers. So we are following corporate standards for signage on this that is workable for functionality and have been coordinating with Tom and Brian to try to make this work. Again, I think our application speaks for itself that this is not going to be injurious to the public or adverse on any neighboring properties. This is a heavily commercial, busy area. The signage is necessary for safety and circulation. Happy to answer any questions beyond that. Oh, thank you, Corey, for pointing me to something. As outlined in the staff report, which I very much appreciate and what I was trying to get to about the functionality of this site, 20 of the 29 signs on our site are for drive-through or directional related. So if we can't get this variance, we are basically only left with 40 square feet for our wall and monument signs. So again, what is driving this is largely our drive-through and directional signage. So again, happy to answer any questions more on that.

Any questions from the commissioners?

No, I just, speaking to that, I've seen similar businesses and other Dutch brothers. I do realize without the increased amount, it just slows everything down. And it is, I do understand it is to increase the flow and make things much faster than they would if you just had the one menu sign. So yeah, I completely understand that point of view.

Now time for a public expression. Anybody in the gallery or online wishing to speak, forward now. Anybody in the gallery or online wishing to speak, come forward now. Anybody in the gallery or online who wishes to speak, come forward now. Public expression is closed.

Any other questions?

Anybody from the board? Any more questions?

No.

Okay, Mr. Novak, we're ready for you. Staff reporter, please.

So anyways... Yeah, in the case of Z2615, developmental variance at 6515 Indianapolis Boulevard, Dutch Brothers requesting that normally the limit is two and a half times the frontage, which here is 79.98 feet. So under the current regulations for C4 General Commercial District, it would only be allowed 199.55 square feet. 158.65 square feet of that is the... directional signs and drive-through menu boards and walk-up menu boards. So, you know, under the current regulations, I would leave only 40.9 square feet to cover all the wall and monument signs. I mean, that would cover one wall sign or monument sign, maybe two wall signs. But so, you know, with this increase to 4.45 times the 79.98 foot frontage, We now are able to cover the 354.23 square feet total between the 29 signs. It comes out to like 355 square feet or so. We'll give you one extra. You know, we kind of note in this that none of the signs are really oversized. They top out at 34 square feet. Some of the other signs are, you know, 32, 21 square feet. So there's nothing really outsized. It's more the number of signage and having double the menu boards for drive-through and things like that. Next door, Chipotle, their largest are 34 square foot wall signs. There are larger signs next door and across the street. Obviously, this is for the overall signage ratio, though. being at all in mind uh... staff recommendation is that staffers review the petitioner's request and recommends that the busy grant the development of variance to the board feel the petitioners but the standard subject to the following three conditions one approval by pca of concurrent development of various cases known as the twenty six fourteen a and b and the conditions of approval as determined by the pca Two, all signage does not contain any moving parts and shall meet the requirements of the FHWA's manual on uniform traffic control division for streets and highways. That's federal regulation. Three, no individual wall, freestanding pole, nor monument sign is greater than 35 square feet. The next two pages is the proposed findings effect. But you get into stuff like, okay, that 158.65 square feet, that's a 45, so 45% of all signage is just for the drive-thru and directional related, which I think is certainly a higher percentage than most fast service restaurants. Things like that. The 20 of 29 signs proposed, that's 62% of the individual signs are directional or drive-thru menu related.

Any questions from the commissioners about the staff report?

None.

Okay, we're having none. We need to make a motion to the staff report on findings of fact as findings of fact.

Yep, I will motion to adopt the staff report on the proposed findings of fact as findings of fact.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please, Mrs. Smith.

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Tasmierza. Yes. Roger Brown. Yes. Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

I'd also like to make a motion to grant developmental variance Z-26-15, subject to the standards and conditions set forth in the statute report. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Mrs. Morris-Smith, roll call, please.

Dan Faulkner?

Yes.

Thomas Gazzanier is that? Yes.

Roger Brown? Yes.

Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Okay. I'm sorry to kind of revisit this, but... When you, how did we address this with the, because the agenda says two and a half times, increase it.

The staff report has the corrected version. Only the agenda had the original. Okay.

Yes, Brian, that's why I came in earlier at the beginning of this to state that before he gave his presentation.

The actual staff report does say increase from 2.5.

And so your motion said, what was the wording of your motion?

His motion to accept the staff report condition.

Subject to condition set forth in the staff report.

Because the staff report's correct. It was just the agenda that was incorrect.

Okay. All right.

Yeah. Because, I mean, on page two of, is it page two? On the third page, maybe not even the third page.

No, it's top of page two in the staff report.

yeah top of page two it does say uh increase the ratio from 2.5 to 4.45 and not the 4.3 whatever was that was listed on the agenda well on the agenda it just says oh it does say 4.3 okay that kind of goes back to my question is that um

Even though you accepted the amendment to the staff report, which increased the ratio, I think there would have been a better motion to have stated that you're increasing the ratio to deal with the conflict of how the agenda was requested.

So what would then need to be done? How do we correct that?

I mean, it's the staff report as presented.

Yeah, because it was... I mean, even though you accepted what he said as a staff report, the distinction is it was advertised as 4.2.

But is the staff report actually been amended? Because this is the staff report as presented to us.

Well, I mean, and that's kind of why I'm revisiting this, because we just gave you a staff report that has the new figures in it. So we have this. This is what the agenda said. This is what the staff report said. So you have to formally acknowledge that you're accepting this change from 4.3 ratio to whatever the new ratio.

So do we need to redo that? The second motion?

Yes.

So first you need a motion to approve the staff report as amended to reflect the change from the agenda number.

To reflect the change from 4.3 times to 4 point whatever. For the second motion?

To accept the amendment to the staff report showing the reflect the increase from 4.3 as listed on the agenda to the 4.45 as shown in the staff report.

Fair enough.

Make that a motion. Give me a second. We have a second. Roll call, please, Mr. Morris-Smith.

Dan Faulkner. Yes. Thomas Casimir. Yes.

Roger Voss. Yes.

Three ayes, zero nays, zero abstentions. Motion passed.

Does that then cover everything?

I appreciate you guys doing that because it just... goes back to again what what was formally asked versus what we're granting and you have to you know if you're making if we're granting something more or different we have to acknowledge that make sure it's very clear in the record um you know one of the things the dangers of saying we just accept the amendment um in the future we're going to forget what what happened unless it's in the motion yeah i i would just say that

from where we're sitting i wouldn't have viewed it viewed it as an amendment as you would have because i wasn't subject to any other number but the one in the staff report so without it being noted that there was an amendment i guess we can't We can't make that motion unless we know it was amended.

And I think your point is a fair point. And that's kind of why I was going along with it until all of a sudden I realized, wait a minute, you know, because I know this evolved. Because we just gave you the report tonight. I know it was evolving. So that's where... not to belabor this any further. I think we've fixed it. Okay. And then we can move on and we'll just hopefully next time not have a situation like this repeated.

Perfect. Let's hope not.

Oh, oh. All right. We're getting punchy. Yeah.

All right. Only eight more to go. I think we're done.

Good. All right. I want to thank you. Thank you.

Good luck to you guys. I'll be over. Yes, definitely.

All right. I'll meet you with the shovels.

Okay. To the staff members, excuse me, to the board members. Sorry about that.

Um, We have two other items on the agenda.

We had a memo in your packet that we said we anticipated that the petitioner would withdraw the petitions. And that was stated at the moment in time that the packet was prepared. And as of today, I have officially received the email that says that they are withdrawing these two petitions.

Okay.

So we don't need to do anything concerning these?

No, just acknowledging that they've been withdrawn. We don't, you know, nothing was advertised because we knew where this was going. Okay. So Z26, 16, and 17 are just dropped.

Yep. Okay. Good. And then we'll move on to commissioner's comments. You guys have one, go ahead.

I was gonna bring it up during this last part, but it was kind of more relevant to the previous regarding the Chipotle. The variance we approved for Dutch brothers was to make it so they didn't have to move tables and chairs inside. I'm assuming then that Chipotle will be taking their tables and chairs inside every night.

Under a general outdoor seating, you're not required to move them inside. Okay. This is because this, because this was Dutch brothers is a limited. Okay. And it's the eight because it was, it's it. The definitions are important because of what was expected on how they'd be applied.

Gotcha.

That was all I had.

Anybody else?

I mean, that's why I have to admit, when I was working on those reports, I kept on changing the language of outdoor patio, and I kept on saying this is a general outdoor seating area. You have to continue to use that language to be consistent so we know we're talking about because there's the limited outdoor seating.

Gotcha.

You know, it may be a patio, that's fine, but this is what the ordinance uses that terminology.

And next up is staff comments.

Yeah, I hope you're all ready for another fun meeting at the end of July. We are expecting a lot of cases.

We'll see if they... Could it be easier than these? Good question.

I don't know how to answer that question.

Very encouraging, Brian.

I think the general rule is you should bring your thinking cap on.

All right. Oh, yeah. Sixth grade, I like that. Next up, public comment. Anybody in the gallery online want to make a comment? Anybody in the gallery online want to make a comment? Anybody online or in the gallery want to make a comment? Well, the comment is closed. I need a motion for adjourn. Hey, wait for me. Give me a second. Come on. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye.