1607 VALPARAISO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Regular Meeting Minutes May 16, 2017 The regular meeting of the Valparaiso Board of Zoning Appeals was held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 in the Valparaiso City Hall Council Chambers. Elizabeth Lynn presided. Members present were: Elizabeth Lynn, Diane Worstell, and Trish Sarkisian. Also present were Attorney Ethan Lowe, Tyler Kent, citizens, and representatives of the press. MINUTES: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve the April 18, 2017 minutes as submitted. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: VAR17-006 - A petition filed by Robert Coolman, 359 S. Franklin Street, Valparaiso, IN. The petitioner requests a variance from the North Hampstead Planned Unit Development, to vary the required rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet, to allow for a rear yard setback of thirteen feet and seven and two tenths inches (13.7) feet. The property is located at 1812 Cheney Drive, in the North Hampstead Planned Unit Development. Mr. Robert Coolman presented. We built the house at 1812 Cheney Drive last fall and later found out that we violated the rear yard setback. The requirement is 15 feet and we are at 13 feet 7 and 2/10 inches. This property abuts up against the neighborhood park so this does not affect any other property owner. We are seeking a variance to allow the reduction in the rear yard setback to rectify the situation for the homeowner. while at the same time the petitioner will take notes and respond at one time. No one spoke, therefore the public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Motion: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve VAR17-010, and amendment to an existing PUD, to vary the required rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet, to allow for a rear yard setback of thirteen feet and seven and two tenths inches (13.7) feet. Such approval will not be injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner; arises from practical difficulties in the use of the property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner will comply with all Ordinance parking requirements as required. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0. VAR17-011 - VOID VAR17-012 - A petition filed by BSK Storage, c/o Todd Leeth, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, IN. The petitioner requests a variance from Article 11, Section 11.305(G), of the Valparaiso Unified Development Ordinance, to vary the requirement that parking shall not be located in front of the principal building, to allow for three parking spaces located in front of the principal building. The property is located north of West Street between Horseprairie and Marsh Street, in the (INL) Light Industrial Zoning District. Attorney Todd Leeth presented. BSK storage is adding a new climate controlled building to their existing facility on two lots of fronting on West Street. The lot falls within the US30 Overlay which does not allow parking in the front. We are requesting three parking spaces to be allowed in the front. The Overlay is intended for properties fronting on US30 and this property does not, but is inside the Overlay District. We need to have parking near the front entrance of the building to allow for loading and unloading. while at the same time the petitioner will take notes and respond at one time. No one spoke, therefore the public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members.
1608 Tyler Kent advised that the US30 study was done in 2012 and the recommendation is as redevelopment occurs that buildings are moved closer to the road and parking is located on the side or rear. The Overlay includes any property within 600 feet of US30. McMahon has submitted an landscape plan that will buffer the parking spaces and the City is comfortable with this request. Q: There is no room on the east side of the building for parking? A: No. Because there is a residence to the east we have committed to enhanced dense landscaping and a fence on that side in lieu of hardscape. Motion: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve VAR17-012, to vary the requirement that parking shall not be located in front of the principal building, to allow for three parking spaces located in front of the principal building. Such approval will not be injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner; arises from practical difficulties in the use of the property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner will comply with all other Ordinance parking requirements as required. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0. VAR17-013 A petition filed by Steven and Aaron Ingram, c/o Todd Leeth, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, IN. The petitioner requests a variance from Article 9, Section 9.301, of the Valparaiso Unified Development Ordinance, to vary the required driveway length of 20 feet to allow for a driveway length of less than five (5) feet. A variance from Article 3, Section 2.303, to vary the required rear yard setback of three (3) feet, to allow for a rear yard setback of zero (0) feet. A variance from Article 2.303, to allow for a garage to be located in front of the primary structure. The property is located at 108 Washington Street, between Chicago Street and Jefferson Street, in the (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Zoning District. Attorney Todd Leeth presented. The Ingrams are renovating the house at 108 Washington Street which is located on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Chicago Street. Since it s a corner lot there are two street views. There is an existing garage that sits almost to the sidewalk today that they would like to replace as part of the renovation. The zone is NC-60, Neighborhood Conservation. Three variances are needed to complete the project. To allow the driveway to be less than 20 feet in length, to allow the rear yard setback to be zero feet, and to allow a garage to be located in the front of the primary structure. We are asking for the zero rear yard setback to allow the new garage to be placed where the exiting garage is located currently which also sits closer to Chicago Street then the house does. Chicago Street is the side yard of the house but since it s a corner lot it is also considered a front yard. The proposal is to raze the existing garage and build a new 24x24 detached garage in its place. The garage is only two feet off the sidewalk. The premise of the 20-foot driveway requirement is to prevent cars parked in the driveway from blocking the sidewalk, but since this is a small downtown lot (only 66 feet wide), on street parking is common. If Mr. Ingram were to conform to the requirements it would remove, almost entirely, his back yard. He has a family and needs back yard space. Aaron Ingram and his family plan to reside in this residence. while at the same time the petitioner will take notes and respond at one time. Mr. Bill Novella, 703 Washington Street, states he is in full support of the petitioner s requests. Mr. Dan Davis, 103 Franklin Street, states a new garage will be great and he supports this. He also questions since the ally way is used as a thoroughfare for the church day school, will the construction be an issue when the students return in August? Attorney Leeth s rebuttal: The intent is to begin as soon as possible and be completed by the time school resumes in August. There should be no issues for the church. Mr. Ingram is staging construction in the yard, not the ally. The public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Q: Will cars be able to see pedestrians?
1609 A: There is no mechanism in place, but most vehicles have backup cameras. A convex mirror is an option should there be an issue and the petitioner commits to careful existing. Motion: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve VAR17-013 to vary the required driveway length of 20 feet to allow for a driveway length of less than five (5) feet; to vary the required rear yard setback of three (3) feet, to allow for a rear yard setback of zero (0) feet; and to allow for a garage to be located in front of the primary structure. Such approval will not be injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner; arises from practical difficulties in the use of the property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner will comply with all other Ordinance parking requirements as required. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0. VAR17-014 - A petition filed by Amy Smith, 2601 Chesterfield Drive, Valparaiso, IN. The petitioner requests a variance from Article 3, Section 3.501 of the Valparaiso Unified Development Ordinance, to vary the required rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet, to allow for a rear yard setback of sixteen (16) feet. The property is located at 260 Chesterfield Drive, on the corner of Knights Bridge Drive and Chesterfield Drive. Mr. Don Bengel and Mr. Tim Reisinger presented. Ms. Smith would like to put an addition on to rear of her existing home. The addition will be extend to the north to the end of the house and take the place of an existing deck. The area already has a number of extended rear yards because the development was in the County when it was originally built and later annexed into the City therefore changing the setback requirements. while at the same time the petitioner will take notes and respond at one time. Ms. Kelly Maldia, 2505 Chesterfield Drive, states she is in full support of this petition. Ms. Sarah Welsh, 2503 Chesterfield Drive, states she is in favor of this petition. Mr. Thomas Sibo, 2453 Knights Bridge Drive, states he is in favor of this petition noting it is consistent with the existing home. Mr. Danny Cannon, 2501 Westminster Drive, representing his parents that reside behind the Smith property at 2563 Knights Bridge Drive, states there is limited space here and kids already play in the front yard. He wants confirmation that construction will not affect his parent s yard in any way. He also questions if they are building up and out or just out? Mr. Bengel s rebuttal: Mr. Chris Smith spoke, stating they are using the existing space where the deck is located now. The hedges will remain in place as is. There will be no effect to the neighboring properties. Mr. Tim Reisinger also noted that a silt fence will be in place to make sure there is no abuse to neighboring properties. The public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Tyler Kent advised that this area was annexed in the mid to late 2000 s and the requirements changed. The City is comfortable with this request. Motion: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve VAR17-014 to vary the required rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet, to allow for a rear yard setback of sixteen (16) feet. Such approval will not be injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner; arises from practical difficulties in the use of the property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner will comply with all Ordinance parking requirements as required. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0.
1610 VAR17-016 A petition filed by First Partners, c/o Todd A. Leeth, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, IN. The petitioner requests a variance from Article 5, Section 5.303(E), of the Valparaiso Unified Development Ordinance, to vary the requirement that signs shall be permitted in an area of the façade between the top of the ground floor windows and 12 inches below the sill of the second floor windows, to allow for a sing that is located outside of the sign band requirements. A variance from Article 5, Section 5.303(E), to vary the maximum vertical dimension of signage in this area from the required one and one-half feet in height, to allow for a sign height of 18 feet. A variance from Article 5, Section 5.303(E), to vary the requirement that sign shall have raised trim or a raised border of some fashion other than paint. A variance from Article 5, Section 5.303(E), to vary the requirement that the sing includes individually raised letters within the sing band. A variance from Article 5, Section 5.303, to vary the maximum thickness of projecting sign face in the Central Business District of one and one half (1.5) inches, to allow for a projecting sign face with a thickness of eight (8) inches. A variance from Article 5, Section 5.303, to allow for an internally illuminated sign within the Central Business District. The property is located at 150 Lincolnway, between Napoleon Street and Lafayette Street in the (CBD) Central Business District. Attorney Todd Leeth presented. Mr. Chris Campbell and Mr. Larry Yurko were also present. 150 Lincolnway is commonly known as the Centier Bank Building. Centier Bank plans to add awnings to the outside of their building in an effort to provide shade to the indoor work areas. This does not require a variance. The awnings will advertise the bank s name and will be applied to the 132 feet per building face that we are allowed. The existing sign is outdated and they would like to refresh it when doing other cosmetic enhancements. The proposed sign is vertical with a working clock at the top. It will be located above the first floor and will be sleek and fitted to the building and offering a somewhat vintage look. The sign will have a boarder pop, raised lettering, and halo effect lighting at night. There are two types of lighting offered. One requires an internal illumination variance and one does not. Gooseneck lighting is not a viable option. The proposed location requires a variance because it is outside of the 18-inch sign band area. A clock tower feature is unique, and the vertical direction does not disrupt the architecture of the building. The vertical dimension is 18 feet versus 18 inches being allowed. There are raised letters and the thickness is 8 inches. while at the same time the petitioner will take notes and respond at one time. Mr. Bill Grinell, 702 Washington Street, questioned the total square footage of signage, and would like major institutions to reach out to neighbors ahead of just appearing at a meeting. Ms. Danielle Dar, owner of the four buildings across the street from the petitioner s property states she has concerns with the proposed sign and not following the downtown sign requirements. Gooseneck lighting is not fashionable, but it is dictated by the Ordinance. She has concerns with the illumination and the giant letters being too much. She requests that the sign is toned down. Mr. Michael Buncheck, owner of buildings across the street also, states he does not want light pollution and is concerned with setting a precedent. Of the two sign options presented tonight, Option B, the opaque with outline, is better. Attorney Todd Leeth s rebuttal: The public seems to prefer Option B that has less lighting and is more muted. The total signage allowed is 132 square feet per building frontage and we are at 40-45 square feet total. A new sign is an improvement. Awnings are both an improvement and serve a practical purpose. The public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Q: What is the particular difficultly in this case? A: The sign band is very narrow between the first and second floor, and with the awnings it won t allow for effective signage within the sign band.
1611 C: Tyler Kent advised that the Porter County Museum website had a photo that included a projected clock at the corner of this building, and Staff likes that they have incorporated that history into their new signage. The City s preferred option would be Option B, the halo lighting with raised letters. That will be more consistent with the Downtown Design Standards. R: Attorney Leeth noted that it will serve as a landmark. Not everyone knows where the Centier Bank building is located and the street trees have leafed out which does diminish the sight of the building. Q: Will the apartments on the second and third floors of other buildings be affected by the lighting? A: We don t believe there are any apartments across Lafayette Street, but possibly across Lincolnway. Using the Option B sign, they will not be negatively affected. If you are living downtown there are street lights at your level and blinds or curtains are almost a certainty. Q: If sign Option B is used what variances are needed? A: Location, thickness, and vertical dimension. Motion: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve VAR17-016 to allow for signage using halo lighting with raised letters (Option B presented) and to allow for the vertical dimension with the condition that the sign is specific to this sign and specific user (Centier Bank). Such approval will not be injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner; arises from practical difficulties in the use of the property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner will comply with all other Ordinance parking requirements as required. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0. UV17-002/VAR17-017 A petition filed by Larry Hitz Development, Inc., c/o Todd A. Leeth, 103 E. Lincolnway, Valparaiso, IN. The petitioner requests a Use Variance from Article 2, Section 2.201, of the Valparaiso Unified Development Ordinance, to allow for a Single-Family Attached Dwelling unit to be permitted within the NC-60, Single Family Zoning District. A variance from Article 3, Section 3.501, to vary the required street yard setback of 20 feet to allow for a setback of 15.5 feet. A variance from Article 3, Section 3.501, to vary the required maximum lot coverage of 50% to allow for lot coverage of 66%. The property is located at 256 Chicago Street, located between Academy Street and Napoleon Street, in the (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Zoning District. Attorney Todd Leeth and Mr. Larry Hitz presented. 256 Chicago Street is currently a vacant lot, zoned NC-60. Mr. Hitz is proposing two single family attached homes similar to his development to the east at Chicago and Napoleon Streets. The units will include garages increasing lot coverage to 66%. The dwelling itself complies at 43% but the overall lot coverage does not at 66%. The front yard setback is 15.5 feet versus the required 20 feet. This is a narrow downtown lot which makes it very hard to comply with all the requirements. This will be an upscale development. while at the same time the petitioner will take notes and respond at one time. No one spoke, therefore the public hearing was closed and questions/comments were heard from the Members. Q: Does outdoor space count as lot coverage? A: The dwelling does not and we comply at 43%, but with the garages, driveway, patios or decks, etc. we do not comply at 66%. C: Mr. Larry Hitz stated that his goal is to an infill project with the units being at the $400,000 price range and he already has deposits. This will be an improvement. Q: Are these taller units than the Chicago and Napoleon Streets units? A: The drawings show a grand walk-up unit because the slope from the back to the front is quite significant. The units appear taller, but they still meet the standards and it is because of the grade of the property. C: Tyler Kent advised that the former St. Paul School property is going to be developed soon and it will also have some height. Motion: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve a Use Variance from Article 2, Section 2.201, of the Valparaiso Unified Development Ordinance, to allow for a Single-Family Attached Dwelling unit to be permitted within the NC-60, Single Family Zoning District. Such approval will not be injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the
1612 community; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverst manner; arises from practical difficulties in the use of the property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance; arises from a condition peculiar to the property; arises from unnecessary hardships if the Zoning Ordinance is strictly applied; does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan adopted; and the petitioner will comply with all Ordinance parking requirements. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0. Motion: Diane Worstell made a motion to approve Developmental Standards variances to vary the required street yard setback of 20 feet to allow for a setback of 15.5 feet, and to vary the required maximum lot coverage of 50% to allow for lot coverage of 66%. Such approval will not be injurious to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; will not affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a substantially adverse manner; arises from practical difficulties in the use of the property in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance and the petitioner will comply with all Ordinance parking requirements as required. Trish Sarkisian seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and unanimously carried 3-0. STAFF ITEMS: None. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the May 16, 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Damon Colby, President Tyler Kent, Executive Secretary