Warsaw BZA Tables Petition For Oak & Alley Parking Lot Variance
September 27, 2022 at 1:23 a.m.
Warsaw BZA Tables Petition For Oak & Alley Parking Lot Variance
By David [email protected]
With the city attorney not present at Monday’s meeting, and a legal question about how strict they have to be on those findings, the BZA on Monday tabled a petition for a variance to allow a parking lot at 2321 E. Market St. If a special meeting can’t be scheduled to consider the petition further, the BZA will discuss it at their 7 p.m. Oct. 24 meeting.
The findings of fact include that 1.) the approval won’t be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; 2.) the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance won’t be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and 3.) the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.
In introducing the petition, Assistant City Planner Bekah Schrag said the petitioner, Tim Polk, who owns Oak & Alley and the property at 2321 E. Market, requested a variance from development standards to allow a parking lot at 2321 E. Market St. The parcel is bordered by commercial districts to the north and east and Residential-2 zoning to the south and west.
Polk wants to use the parking lot for customers of Oak & Alley.
Based on the site plan received, the parking lot dimensions would be 63 feet by 60 feet, cover over 47% of the lot and span the entire width of the property. The parking lot will contain a maximum of 12 parking stalls to meet minimum stall square footage, Schrag said.
The ingress and egress for the parking lot would be through the alley between the parcel and Oak & Alley.
The parcel is included in the East Market Neighborhood Plan and is within the area aimed to stabilize the residential neighborhood. The comprehensive plan states that these areas should be “strictly managed to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood,” she said. Moreover, according to current code, parking facilities in residential districts are permitted except “in a front yard or the street side of a corner lot.”
The surrounding area includes two other parcels in the R-2 district that contain parking lots along city streets. These parking lots are located on the same parcel as the business they serve.
If the board approves the request, the petitioner will be required to conform to all design standards including, but not limited to, stall minimum dimensions, grading for proper drainage, adequate lighting and screening from residential uses, she said.
“While approving this request will not be injurious to the public health, safety and morals of the community, it could adversely affect adjacent properties through reduction in a transition zone between commercial uses and residential uses. Furthermore, the comprehensive plan identifies this area as needing to be preserved for residential and this variance could reduce the possibility of the parcel to be used for residential purposes in the future. However, there is a need for more parking for the adjacent property and this request may be a solution,” Schrag said.
Based on the surrounding context and use of the property, the Planning Department believes the Board could approve or deny this request when delineated with the findings of facts.
BZA President Tom Allen asked what the lighting restrictions would be for the parking lot. Schrag said city code states that adequate lighting shall be provided if facilities are used after 6 p.m. and shielded from surrounding uses. Asked what “adequate lighting” for the parking lot would be, Schrag said that probably would be up to the city’s planning department. BZA member Tammy Dalton asked if the lights could be on later than a certain time at night. Schrag said the lights would need to be on during hours of operation. Oak & Alley is open until 10 p.m.
The only input from the public before the meeting was an email from Zach Evans, who owns the property, with Amy Evans, next to the property in question and use their property at 2307 E. Market as a short-term rental. They expressed two concerns with the parking lot plans.
The first was visibility and privacy. “The proposed length of the fence is not long enough to block the view of the parking lot from our kitchen and living room windows. We would request that either the length of the fence be extended past the parking lot to the north wall of our house (back door) at 2307 E. Market St. or the fence wrap around the south side of the parking lot facing Tim’s house. Additionally, we would request the fence be 6-foot tall.”
Evans’ second concern was fence maintenance. If a fence needs to be on his property, he stated that they don’t want to inherit a maintenance burden. “Therefore, we would want clear agreement that Tim would fix any broken fencing ... And we would want the material to be zero maintenance like vinyl.”
He said they were “totally fine” with the parking lot itself, but want to ensure their concerns with the fence are satisfactorily addressed.
During Monday’s meeting, Polk said as far as the house at 2321 E. Market, it’s rented and the tenant was moving in. The house isn’t being demolished, but Polk wants to convert the back yard into the parking lot.
Zach said they weren’t opposed to the parking lot, but they have their concerns as expressed in the email and the lighting, which they had not thought about before. The fence was the bigger question. Polk said the fence will be 6 feet high - the maximum allowed in the city - and will be vinyl and on the property line.
BZA Vice President Rick Keeven asked Zach if anyone talked to him about how the parking lot would affect his property’s value. Zach said no. However, Amy, who is a realtor, wasn’t concerned about the home’s resale value.
It was Keeven then who brought up the findings of fact.
“The city attorney is repeatedly telling us that we need to follow these three criteria on this sheet. The last one says ‘the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.’ The property is being rented. What is the practical difficulty in the use? How is this an exception? And I got the impression from the city attorney that this wasn’t kind of a ‘do whatever you want’ sort of thing. You needed to find these three facts or else you don’t have an exception,” Keeven said, adding that he doesn’t see a practical difficulty.
Jeff Johnson, BZA member, agreed that as the property sits now, “Number 3 doesn’t apply.”
Keeven asked if they could table the petition. Allen explained that as a “quasi” government organization, they have to follow the codes and they have to follow the three findings of fact to approve or deny a zoning petition. He agreed with Keeven that the third finding “did not fit” the petition and they want the city attorney’s opinion on the matter.
Polk said he’d like a decision before the weather gets bad. Allen said they could have a special meeting, but as the petition sits now, they can’t approve it and he wants the city attorney to comment on it. Schrag wasn’t sure they could have a special meeting, but Allen and Keeven said they’ve had them in the past.
Schrag said state code requires all three findings to be met in order for a petition to be approved. She said the Board has all the information they’re going to get and the city attorney wouldn’t be able to add to that. Keeven said he’d feel more comfortable if the city attorney gave his opinion on it.
The petition was tabled until the BZA can meet again.
Latest News
E-Editions
With the city attorney not present at Monday’s meeting, and a legal question about how strict they have to be on those findings, the BZA on Monday tabled a petition for a variance to allow a parking lot at 2321 E. Market St. If a special meeting can’t be scheduled to consider the petition further, the BZA will discuss it at their 7 p.m. Oct. 24 meeting.
The findings of fact include that 1.) the approval won’t be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; 2.) the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance won’t be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and 3.) the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.
In introducing the petition, Assistant City Planner Bekah Schrag said the petitioner, Tim Polk, who owns Oak & Alley and the property at 2321 E. Market, requested a variance from development standards to allow a parking lot at 2321 E. Market St. The parcel is bordered by commercial districts to the north and east and Residential-2 zoning to the south and west.
Polk wants to use the parking lot for customers of Oak & Alley.
Based on the site plan received, the parking lot dimensions would be 63 feet by 60 feet, cover over 47% of the lot and span the entire width of the property. The parking lot will contain a maximum of 12 parking stalls to meet minimum stall square footage, Schrag said.
The ingress and egress for the parking lot would be through the alley between the parcel and Oak & Alley.
The parcel is included in the East Market Neighborhood Plan and is within the area aimed to stabilize the residential neighborhood. The comprehensive plan states that these areas should be “strictly managed to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood,” she said. Moreover, according to current code, parking facilities in residential districts are permitted except “in a front yard or the street side of a corner lot.”
The surrounding area includes two other parcels in the R-2 district that contain parking lots along city streets. These parking lots are located on the same parcel as the business they serve.
If the board approves the request, the petitioner will be required to conform to all design standards including, but not limited to, stall minimum dimensions, grading for proper drainage, adequate lighting and screening from residential uses, she said.
“While approving this request will not be injurious to the public health, safety and morals of the community, it could adversely affect adjacent properties through reduction in a transition zone between commercial uses and residential uses. Furthermore, the comprehensive plan identifies this area as needing to be preserved for residential and this variance could reduce the possibility of the parcel to be used for residential purposes in the future. However, there is a need for more parking for the adjacent property and this request may be a solution,” Schrag said.
Based on the surrounding context and use of the property, the Planning Department believes the Board could approve or deny this request when delineated with the findings of facts.
BZA President Tom Allen asked what the lighting restrictions would be for the parking lot. Schrag said city code states that adequate lighting shall be provided if facilities are used after 6 p.m. and shielded from surrounding uses. Asked what “adequate lighting” for the parking lot would be, Schrag said that probably would be up to the city’s planning department. BZA member Tammy Dalton asked if the lights could be on later than a certain time at night. Schrag said the lights would need to be on during hours of operation. Oak & Alley is open until 10 p.m.
The only input from the public before the meeting was an email from Zach Evans, who owns the property, with Amy Evans, next to the property in question and use their property at 2307 E. Market as a short-term rental. They expressed two concerns with the parking lot plans.
The first was visibility and privacy. “The proposed length of the fence is not long enough to block the view of the parking lot from our kitchen and living room windows. We would request that either the length of the fence be extended past the parking lot to the north wall of our house (back door) at 2307 E. Market St. or the fence wrap around the south side of the parking lot facing Tim’s house. Additionally, we would request the fence be 6-foot tall.”
Evans’ second concern was fence maintenance. If a fence needs to be on his property, he stated that they don’t want to inherit a maintenance burden. “Therefore, we would want clear agreement that Tim would fix any broken fencing ... And we would want the material to be zero maintenance like vinyl.”
He said they were “totally fine” with the parking lot itself, but want to ensure their concerns with the fence are satisfactorily addressed.
During Monday’s meeting, Polk said as far as the house at 2321 E. Market, it’s rented and the tenant was moving in. The house isn’t being demolished, but Polk wants to convert the back yard into the parking lot.
Zach said they weren’t opposed to the parking lot, but they have their concerns as expressed in the email and the lighting, which they had not thought about before. The fence was the bigger question. Polk said the fence will be 6 feet high - the maximum allowed in the city - and will be vinyl and on the property line.
BZA Vice President Rick Keeven asked Zach if anyone talked to him about how the parking lot would affect his property’s value. Zach said no. However, Amy, who is a realtor, wasn’t concerned about the home’s resale value.
It was Keeven then who brought up the findings of fact.
“The city attorney is repeatedly telling us that we need to follow these three criteria on this sheet. The last one says ‘the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.’ The property is being rented. What is the practical difficulty in the use? How is this an exception? And I got the impression from the city attorney that this wasn’t kind of a ‘do whatever you want’ sort of thing. You needed to find these three facts or else you don’t have an exception,” Keeven said, adding that he doesn’t see a practical difficulty.
Jeff Johnson, BZA member, agreed that as the property sits now, “Number 3 doesn’t apply.”
Keeven asked if they could table the petition. Allen explained that as a “quasi” government organization, they have to follow the codes and they have to follow the three findings of fact to approve or deny a zoning petition. He agreed with Keeven that the third finding “did not fit” the petition and they want the city attorney’s opinion on the matter.
Polk said he’d like a decision before the weather gets bad. Allen said they could have a special meeting, but as the petition sits now, they can’t approve it and he wants the city attorney to comment on it. Schrag wasn’t sure they could have a special meeting, but Allen and Keeven said they’ve had them in the past.
Schrag said state code requires all three findings to be met in order for a petition to be approved. She said the Board has all the information they’re going to get and the city attorney wouldn’t be able to add to that. Keeven said he’d feel more comfortable if the city attorney gave his opinion on it.
The petition was tabled until the BZA can meet again.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092