Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

All ready to order. Roll call. Sarah Pay [music] here. Peter here. Zuber here. Stage plumber here. Chris Lamb here. on mics. Hello. Okay, guess it's on. Uh, have an opportunity to read the minutes from the last meeting? Yep. Yes. Any changes or modifications? No. Okay. May I have a motion? Move to approve the minutes as presented from the September meeting. Second. All in favor? I. I.

Any changes for us tonight? Okay. If you have a cell phone or a pager, please mute it. Airplane mode or shut it off. [clears throat] I don't believe we have any old business. Moving right along. New business. Open the public hearing for BCA's standard variance 2025-11. Good evening. Uh James Kataret, city planner for Auburn. This first application is a request. It was filed by Matthew Miller. Uh he's requesting a development standards variance to erect a 6-ft tall privacy fence uh within the front yard setback area of his property along Third Street. His property is at 501 North Van Beern Street. The variance requires public hearing was advertised in the star on October 8th and there are actually 10 adjacent property owners sent notice of the request. The property itself outlined here on the map. You can see it actually has frontage on Second Street to the north, Third Street to the south, and Bamb Beern Street to the east. Property zone traditional residential. There's a couple of photographs uh of the of the property. itself showing this is uh from the alley. There's an alley on the west side of the property. This is looking east into the setback area for the property. Um that's an existing fence that he has that he wants to pull closer to uh Third Street. [clears throat] And this is just showing you along the alleyway his existing fence of his existing backyard. is it is about 10t off the alley and one of this is from Third Street looking north at the property. He's

constructing a inground pool on the property and uh wants to have the fence on the uh south side of the pool so he has room to get around the south side of the the pool. This is a an aerial photograph again looking towards the north. Uh so you can see the existing fence in line with the house. He's asking to move the fence and actually he's asking to move it to a location. You can see the property to the to the west. They have a decorative fence that is the location off of Third Street where he would like to move his fence to. It would be in alignment with one another. We did not receive any u comments from any adjacent property owners that were sent notice. There's the neighbors fence in that photograph. It does show their their existing decorative fence which is allowed to be uh up up uh uh in the setback area. So uh the applicant's asking to move his privacy fence to the same distance from the street. This is just another view of the neighbor's fence uh looking north. Again, the dirt mounts where the uh construction is going on on the property is where the fence would be. So, I mentioned that existing fence. It does enclose the the rear yard of his property. It's about 10 foot from the alley. The proposed fence would extend out from the house about 23 feet uh towards Third Street. The fence would then be about 22 feet from the actual pavement of the street. So, it's a it's a wide ride of way there for Third Street. So, there's a lot of grass area that's actually right of way before you even get to the property line. So, his fence would be 22 foot off the pavement. Um, doesn't really show it on the photograph, but if you go across Van Beern Street, there's a couple of houses that are built to the same line, if you would, the same distance off Third Street.

The UDO uh does not require a PR does not allow a privacy fence in a front yard setback area. And that's determined anywhere where you have a street frontage. uh the setback is from the foundation of the home to the property line. So it doesn't matter if that home's if the setback requirement is is a 25 ft there and your home happens to be 35 ft. Your fence has to be 35 foot back. Somewhat of the scenario we have here. Uh this property is um burdened with if I can use that word with the front yard setback on all sides of the property. Um, as far as uh any location for a fence, he has three front yard setback areas. The um applicant, again, I mentioned the pool. So, this would allow enclosure of the pool area as well as they have uh animals that they want to be able to have in a secured environment. Thus, the privacy fence. The uh staff did look at this request. Uh we feel the proposed fence is in a location where it's set back far enough off of the uh the street doesn't create any line of sight issues. Um if you're traveling on the alley, it's not going to block your view uh when you approach Third Street from the alley. Um the request seems to be appropriate for this property, non-intrusive to the neighbors. So staff does recommend you accept our proposed findings of fact and approve this variance application as requested. That concludes staff report

questions. No, no, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Will the please come forward, introduce yourself, spell your last name, and provide any additional information you care to. Matthew Miller and M I L L E R. Anything else you'd like to add? Um, I think he covered it pretty well. Well, um, we also have young kids and we're wanting to have room inside that fence for their trampoline and to put put up a like a play set for him. Basically, we just moved in, so it's kind of empty back there. That' be nice with the pool. Yeah.

Okay. Um, anything else? I don't think so. Okay. Thank you very much. Mhm. Is [clears throat] there anyone in the audience who would care to speak on this subject for or against? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Board discussions. Makes sense. No problem. Great. May we please have the findings of facts. Number one, the approval will not be public health without finding. Yes. Yes.

Will not. Yes. Will yes. Okay. Entertain a motion. Move to approve BCA standard variance 202511 as presented. Second. All in favor? I. I. All set. Good luck. Okay, we will open the public hearing. What's next? 9:02. [music]

Okay. Oops. [clears throat] You're good to go. BZA standard variance 2025-012 report.

Yes, sir. This request filed by the city of Auburn through the fire department. Uh they're requesting to allow in essence a wall sign to be placed on top of the threestory training structure that was recently uh erected on the property as part of the fire department's training facility located at 902 South Grand Staff Drive. Again, this request required public hearing was advertised in the STAR on October 8th and there were nine adjacent property owners uh sent notice of this request. The actual training facility is outlined on the aerial there in yellow. Uh the actual sign location um is the star on the property. This is just a um that this is perspective of the property. I thought it was important to be able to show the existing fire station at the corner of Grand Staff at 15th and then the training facility is to the east of the uh the main station there. couple of photographs. These are the uh the train the train the units um that are container units that are uh placed uh beside each other and interconnected. The sign would go on top of these um container units. The property itself uh the entire fire station property is all zoned institutional. Couple of photographs. This first one is again that perspective showing the view from Grand Staff Drive to the fire station and this is actually up to the east of the fire station building now where you can actually see the container units. This side would go on top of those units that you see. We did not receive any comments from our our notices from any adjacent property owners. So I did I mentioned the uh the site itself uh be would be located on top of

the uh trading structure. The sign would would be an identification for those individuals that would be having training at the facility, might be coming from out of town, um not familiar with the property. They'll be able to see the sign location if it was on top of those container units rather than being an actual uh wall sign, which would be permitted on the units. Uh the UDO does not allow a sign to be attached to the top of a roof or a structure. And that's really what we're talking about is taking a wall sign to put it uh which is allowed to put it on top of the container units. They'd be allowed to have a a sign of 96 square foot. What they're proposing to do would be uh 85 square ft uh in size. The sign would be illuminated um just with a direct light illumination. The sign would face uh the intersection of Grand Staff. It's really intended for again somebody going through the intersection to see where the training facility is located at. The um applicant did submit some proposed findings for your consideration as well as the staff proposed findings. So as staff looked at this request um is it is a unique request. Um I don't know that we've had a request to do a sign uh on a on a roof of a structure. Uh but we do um do feel in this instance the the facility is not easily visible from the intersection. Um allowing the sign to be placed on top of the structure provides that that identification any visitors to the training facility or students that would be going to the facility. Uh the metal design, it is a metal sign, the the letters AFD. um and the logo itself um all part of uh uh uh metal uh to match the metal

shipping containers that are there. Uh so staff does feel in this instance in this location it does seem appropriate to allow the the sign itself and uh we do uh request that you accept this proposed findings of fact and approve the request as presented. questions [clears throat] there. There's no electronics on the sign, right? It's all illuminated from

just illuminated from, I believe, a solar powered light. It um Yeah, they're all constructed of metal. So, there's no lighting component of the site itself. It would just have it in somewhat of a a light to at least have at nighttime. We have nighttime training or something. Thank you very much. Thank you. Would the applicant please come forward, state your names by your last name, and add any additional information you care to?

Good evening. Uh my name is Doug Cox. Last name is COX. I'm the fire chief of the fire department. Um we uh brought this to uh your u for you guys to hear this request tonight just because we are we are very passionate about training at the Auburn Fire Department. We are well known through the state of Indiana uh as a training facility. I feel we have probably one of the best training facilities in all of the state of Indiana and Ohio, Michigan. Um if you have not been there, it's quite impressive. I know Mr. Slimmer drove through there the other day. Um so it is it's a very unique property and we just want to show it off. That's what we want to do. students from East Side Elite program did all the metal work uh for the sign uh donated all that and heman steel donated all the steel. Uh so we got partners in with this also and James Coding here in Auburn is going is doing the powder coating of it as well. So um the whole community came together for this sign and we just we just want to show off our facility.

What are the structures used for? So that uh three-story structure is a live burn training structure. Um so that structure is unique in a way that the first floor is designed for strip malls. So we built it on the inside to mimic strip mall uh occupancies and the second floor is apartments. So we have three apartments built into those structures. And then the top floor, we're designing that right now and building that out to mimic a hotel outlet

with the reoccurring thermal events that occur around there. Um where breakdown of the roof of the canos and things like that. Is there a risk with this load? Are they going to remain loadbearing? How do we ensure safety? The sign won't fall through the roof. So those structures have so the the entire outside of those structure is where the uh integrity lies. Uh the the skin itself will move back and forth, but the the outline of those structures are what's um is is the integrity of them. And that's what we'll be mounting that sign to is the the heavier, thicker steel. And that's one of the reasons we didn't want to put it on the side is just because of that warpage. And also, I mean, we try to keep up on the paint as best we can, but um it does get scorched every now and then. So, uh that's why we want to put it up top just so it protects it a little bit more. Thank you. [clears throat]

Anything else? Thank you very much. Okay. Question. Oh, you said the sign's going to be powder coated. What color will it be? Uh so the letters will be in red and then the Maltese cross will be a combination of red and white. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for against the project? If not, close the public hearing for discussion. The fact that it's not on the center of the that was my big concern was the wear over time, but if it's on the edges and it's a little bit more robust, alleviated that concern. There are fires going on in these three levels, correct?

Just a yes or no is fine. Uh yeah. So, uh the fires that will go on, they're in in certain rooms uh that we can place those fires. The all three floors will not be on fire at the same time. So, we just Yep. One at a time. Great. Thanks. Any other discussion? Okay. Here we have the findings of fact, please. The findings of fact for 902 South

will not. [music] [clears throat] Yes. Yes. Two, the area will not be will not. Yes. Yes. Will will I have a motion, please? Move to approve BCA standard variance 2025-12. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Glad that facility is here.

Okay. We'll open the public hearing hearing for BZA standard variance 2025-013. This request uh it was filed by Craig Miller [clears throat] uh requesting a development standards variance uh to reduce the sideyard setback requirement uh from 5 foot down to zero ft uh to allow a carport addition to the east side of the uh residence the garage of the property that's located at 723 West Ensley Avenue. This two required public hearing advertised in the star on October 8th and there were six adjacent property owners sent notice of the request highlighted where the property is um off of Ensley Avenue. This actually shows the existing garage structure and the roof would be um extended towards the east property line of the property. This is actually a schematic of the uh proposal. So there actually it's a one-story garage. Now he's he is planning on doing a second story to the garage which is allowed at its current location. The variance would allow the roof itself that is going to be a canal leader can levered roof um that would go up to the property line. There would be no side post to the roof. It would just be a canal levered roof that allows a taller clearance for parking of a larger vehicle underneath the canopy. The property itself is zoned R3 residential. Couple of photographs. This shows the one-story garage. There's a concrete pad existing and the property line would be where that chain link fence is located at. This is just kind of back from um the roadway show giving you just perspective of the current driveway and the garage.

This is a aerial perspective of the property itself. We did not receive any uh comments from any of the adjacent property owner notices that were sent out. And again, the uh the carports intended uh be can levered as I mentioned um constructed as part of the addition to the garage that would cover and protect I believe a uh a parked motor home. Uh the request is to reduce it to zero and typically that would be uh you you wouldn't want to have the roof structure to go up exactly to the property line but it would allow by by going I don't I didn't want to have a request of down to three inches or something. It's just that's why the zero foot is to allow the reduction from the required setback. Uh but that is not the intent to go absolutely up to the property line. I'm sure it would be off the property line by a few inches. Um the existing home in that garage built back in 1950. The uh Auburn UDO does allow canalvered roofs and and roof overhangs but only up to three foot and then only still has to maintain a three-foot setback. That's thus the request for the variance. The um there is an existing garage on the adjacent property. It is further set back. it's about 15 foot off the property line. So, in this case, staff, you know, at our analysis of the request. Um, currently, the motor home's allowed to be parked there on that pad. Um, I don't know what, you know, at the time that I visited the property, there wasn't anything parked there, but it is allowed to have a vehicle parked on it. The pad is poured up to the property line. Uh, placing the canopy over the motor home, part of the new roof structure of the garage. We think it's a reasonable request. It's an open uh you know the canopy it's open. There's not a sidewall. There's not any post. Um so

it's not really impeding any views, anything encroachment of that nature. Um but we do feel the carport should not be allowed to be enclosed. Typically when you grant the variance it would allow that would be the new setback was zero. Um in this instance with our part of our recommendation which is a recommendation uh of approval is that the carport shall not be enclosed. Keep it open. That way there's not a a wall along the property line in that location. Uh so again we recommend approval that you accept our proposed findings of fact with that one condition. That concludes staff report. Any questions?

Do they have any issue with that? Do they want it enclosed? Not that not that I'm aware of. No, I just feel it's it's kind of one of those things if we grant the variance, I can't tell them they can't do it in the future because that's the new setback line is zero. So, I just feel it should remain open. If they if they want to, they could come back and make that request. But that neighbor that's most affected, you know, they see, well, it's going to be open. So, would that preclude the only a permanent wall ever being erected or would that be fabric or tactile blocking of that area?

I think it would be any type of enclosure, whatever material they would want to use to enclose that. Um, and that would be I mean the motor home itself could create a wall effect if that's truly we know what's gets parked there, but we wouldn't want to see fabric or any type of That's what my concern was. So, right. Well, the condition you stipulated was the carport structural should not be enclosed. Yeah. Just pretty broad. So, it's pretty broad. It covers Yeah. I mean, covers cloth or Yeah. It could even be, you know, some type of maybe not a permanent uh wall, but yeah, you just don't want to have that effect in any way. Okay. [music]

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Would the applicant please come forward, introduce yourself, spell your last name, and add any other information you'd like to add? Good evening, Greg Miller, M Ler. I'm not looking to enclose this. All I want is I got solar panels and two air conditioners on top of my RV. And what I'm looking at is I just want it protected from the snow and that that's coming off. If I go out five foot, everything's gonna slide right on top of those. And I just want to kind of protect it just a little bit to keep it safe for me anyway when we use it.

Makes sense. Anything else questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Right. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this project? If not, we'll close a public hearing or discussion. Jim, the only question I had was about it not enclosed and it's not even particular to this case, but like [snorts] wouldn't you almost prefer that they would be able to enclose it because like you said, they just put a cloth thing up. That might be worse for everybody else if they did that. Again, I'm not talking to this. I'm just asking

in any case. Yeah. And I think [laughter] it's a broad condition, but it would it would not allow them to even cloth it as a material. It's just no enclosure at all. Sorry. But I think that would be the case. If we were reducing a setback to zero, we would want to ensure that it doesn't get enclosed. Yeah, it's all I had. It seems straightforward. Me and [clears throat] the neighbor next door clearly doesn't have an issue with it. though.

Yeah, zero line setbacks are always a concern, but this is one of those limited applications that I think is reasonable um for the con or the condition that staff recommended. I would probably look to recommend a little bit further of um carport shall not be enclosed with permanent or temporary materials just as it's that way fully specified and very well and clear understood not only just for this homeowner but for whomever he sells that property to down the line as well to reduce any potential for ambiguity. Sounds reasonable. Agreed.

Okay. Ah, excuse me. [clears throat] May we have the findings of fact, please, Mr. Standard 2025 will not be public health, safety, morals and general welfare will not use will not be will notice will not result. Yes. Yes. I'll entertain a motion.

Would move to approve BCA standard variance 202513 with the following condition. The carport structure shall not have any temporary or permanent enclosure. Okay, I'll second it. All in favor? I I I all set. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay, we're now open [clears throat] the public hearing for BZA state of variance 2025-14. This request uh was filed by St. Mark's Lutheran Church. Uh they're requesting a development standards variance to erect a 4- foot tall uh chain link fence within the front yard setback area along the Van Beerren Street frontage of the property uh which is located at 211 West 9th Street. Again, this variance request required public hearing advertise for the start on October 8th. There were seven adjacent property owners notified of the request. The church property, they actually have the entire block. I've highlighted um the the principal part of the property. The applicant submitted um this uh sketch drawing that does show the uh existing church building. 10th Street is uh to the south and Van Beern Street uh to the west. They have an existing uh Fenston area on the uh south side of the church building. They have the bell tower right at the corner of Van Beern and 10th Street. Then this new um fenced in play area would be along Van Beurren Street. Currently it's a grassed area. Um the photograph the property is owned institutional. Uh this is a photograph uh it's looking north along Bambiran Street. It shows the bell tower and the grass area there beyond the bell tower is the location of the new play area. Another photograph again this is looking uh east along T Street. Then this is actually where they would put a gate in to have I believe there's a gate there

that would show have access to the additional play area. This is showing uh the existing fence they have of the play area on the south side of the building. And it's just an aerial perspective of the uh the corner of the property. We did not receive any comments from the notices that were sent out for this request. And again, it would be uh uh the new play area would be a 4ft tall chain link fence uh similar to what they currently have around the playground area. uh the fence it would not enclose the uh the bell tower itself. It would be it would be though constructed along the property line um along Van Beern. The uh church itself uh does extend out uh to Van Beern Street. Uh but that's only a small portion of the building along Ninth Street. The UDO does not allow a 4ft chain link fence uh in a front yard setback area. that is what has precipitated the need for the request uh for the variance. This is another unique property. It has frontage on all four sides of the building. So, uh to do any of uh uh the fencing that they want to do, they're going to they would be required to request a variance under the current code. There's one example I thought that was kind of interesting. Not far from this site, the Auburn Presbyterian Church has done a similar, you know, have done fencing at a corner all the way the corner of the intersection. The thing about these fences are they are open. So, it doesn't block your view in any way. When I travel that particular site, it didn't impede view uh whatsoever. So, it seemed to be a nice way to enclose the uh the yard area of the property. But specifically in this request, in this request we have children playing and obviously want to keep them safe. So staff looked at this

request. Uh we feel the proposed fence is in a location that's that uh does not uh create any line of sight visibility issues or encroachment issues. The the chain link fence is not opaque. So I like I said you could see through it. Um and for this property the fence encroaching into the required front yard area seems appropriate. It's non-intrusive. Uh so we do recommend that you accept staff's proposed findings and approve the request as presented. Questions or comments?

My concern when seeing this was just more about the fence itself being chain link rather than the uh example that you showed of being more of a decorative fence. And I know that this property does fall within the downtown district and I as part of the Auburn 2040 comprehensive plan. I know they were trying to um preserve the [clears throat] um architectural nature of those downtown properties. Is there anything in that plan that requires those fences be of a structure that's of more decorative nature or um that was my concern less about the fence itself but more about the decorative nature of it? Looking at the Presbyterian church's fence,

it does more align with the architectural structure of that church where the chain link fence just doesn't

lend itself to being um in alignment with what I would like to see in the front yard of a beautiful church along one of our corridors to downtown. And that's a good observation. A little bit of the difference with the 2040 plan and we have the downtown plan and the downtown area. Um, this property has a different zoning classification. Doesn't have quite the same standards that a downtown property would have as far as architecturally. I will I'll let the applicant discuss the the reasons for the type of fence, but it's probably to match what they currently have. Uh although that's not along the V vanurren that it does stop short of Van Beern Street. Um I think that that's a good question for the applicant why they chose that fed style. Uh but it doesn't have again from from staff's viewpoint it doesn't have the same standard requirements that you would if you were in the downtown area. Um so it is a loud material for the property.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant please come forward, state your name, spell your last name, and [clears throat] tell us about a decorative fence. [laughter] Uh Rod Knox, KN Ox. I'm president of the congregation and representing uh St. Marks as well as the early learners program. Our enrollments increased. So consequently, we had to enlarge the play area. So, uh, with this we requested a variance. Uh, we didn't really recognize the decorative expectations of the city of Auburn. We just wanted to maintain the scope of what we currently had. So, uh, we didn't take that into consideration. Just kind of wanted to enlarge the play area so we can accommodate increasing enrollment.

I understand. Um there's a fencing that also is decorative but isn't opaque. Well, Christian churches, you drive by that and it's, you know, black looks like ro iron, but it's more expensive, I'm sure, too. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Don. You're not going to [laughter] I don't believe you had anything. Okay. Well, we missed you. So, yeah, [laughter] he said before against

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for [clears throat] or against this project? If not, we'll close the public hearing board discussion. They need to keep those little kids need to keep them safe. As much as I'd love them to have a decorative fence, I can imagine that is significantly more expensive more expensive. And if it's not and with our downtown district corridor that I don't want to sharpen the rules for them. Yeah, I I'm surprised that that falls with outside of the downtown, but it must be just just outside then take it. Okay,

that's it might it's outside that area and they're just continuation of what they currently have. Um ideally we want to improve that area but we have to be within our scope of certain areas that we've already defined. Okay. Thank you very much. May we have the findings of effect please? The find 21 West 9th Street standard variance 2025-14 the variance will not be public health will not the use of property will not be effective adverse

will not [music] application ordinance will not practical difficulties in the use of the property will adopt that Yes. I have a motion, please. Move to approve. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. I'll move to approve BCA standard variance 2025-14. Second. All in favor? I I approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. [clears throat] Okay. Um, no other information, other business.

We have meeting next month. Okay. Any reports? No special projects. [clears throat] Okay. Have a motion to adjurnn. Move to second. All in favor? I [clears throat] I Thank you.