Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
Kosciusko County Board of Zoning Appeals approved petitions for a new restaurant and condominium unit south of Lake Tippecanoe during a meeting Tuesday.
In January, the BZA heard from two different petitioners regarding a property at 70 EMS T16 Lane, Leesburg. This is the site of the former Pie Eyed Petey's restaurant. Stefan King, the owner of HopLore Brewing; and local attorney Steve Snyder, on behalf of petitioner James Anderson, attended that meeting to request petitions for the property.
King and Anderson are both seeking to divide the property, with King looking at placing a HopLore location into the former Pie Eyed Petey's building. Anderson is planning to build a residential condominium east of HopLore.
At the January meeting, King presented a petition for a variance which would permit allowing 55 parking spaces in a commercial district when 72 spaces are required. Anderson filed four different petitions, including an exception for the purpose of allowing multi-family use in a commercial district; allowing a residential condominium with three parking spaces per unit; permitting a garage structure and dumpster enclosure to be 25 feet from the east road right-of-way; and allowing nine units with 150 feet of shoreline where ordinance requires 180 feet in total.
Following those presentations, the BZA moved to table the petitions to February to further study parking concerns at HopLore and to allow remonstrators against the condominium additional time to present information to the BZA. Both King and Snyder attended the February meeting to discuss petition updates.
King presented a revised parking proposal to the board.
"We tried to address the issues that were mentioned during the last meeting," said King. "Flow, concerns with the practicality of the plan. All of the specs with this design meet parking standards."
King told the board the proposal includes angled parking spaces on the west side of the building, improving traffic flow "quite a bit."
"Our two entrances at the back are preferred," said King. "Both are available. One is a two-way entrance, the other is a one-way. We tried to think of delivery trucks, things like that that would be coming in and out."
King also noted all of the proposed parking spaces meet the Indiana Department of Transportation's requirements.
Randy Lea, president of the Tippy Mobile Home Park, which is directly west of the property, attended the meeting in opposition of King's request. Lea expressed concerns with parking at the restaurant and safety, noting a lot of children play in the area of T17 Lane.
"Our residents park in front of there," said Lea. "That road is very narrow. If we have a business there, and we're not in opposition of HopLore being there, but we have kids who play out there. You open that up to traffic ... we'll be signing death certificates for accidents."
Lea said T17 Lane is part of the mobile home park's property and is not maintained by the county.
In response, Snyder said T17 Lane is public right-of-way, even if it is not maintained by the county. He also noted the lane would only be utilized by HopLore customers for exiting the restaurant. King said he was also willing to consider making part of the western parking area for employees only, or for smaller vehicles such as golf carts, to alleviate safety concerns.
For the condominium, Anderson withdrew all but one of his petitions. Snyder said Anderson was only requesting the BZA approve an exception for the purpose of allowing multi-family use in a commercial district.
With Anderson's plan, Snyder said changes were made to the layout, including moving a property line to address concerns about the units being too close to the shoreline. This change also allowed HopLore to increase its number of parking spaces.
Snyder also said a dumpster is no longer in the condominium's plans, with each unit to have its own outdoor trash can.
Area Plan Commission Director Matt Sandy said he consulted with an attorney representing those who attended the January meeting in opposition of the project. Following the dismissal of the other petitions, the attorney told Sandy there was no contention from the group.
For just the single petition presented on the condominium at the February meeting, Sandy said his department only received one email from a remonstrator who was against the condominium project overall.
