Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Storage Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves variance for indoor storage building on Whipple Avenue
Summary
The Elkhart Board of Zoning Appeals approved a developmental variance to allow a new indoor storage building at 2709 Whipple Ave. with conditions including a 20-foot concrete apron and a paving schedule for the lot.
The Elkhart Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 11 approved a developmental variance to allow a new indoor storage building at 2709 Whipple Ave. in an M-1 district, granting relief from front- and side-yard setback requirements and allowing storage use in the front yard where the ordinance would otherwise prohibit it.
Surveyor Deborah Hughes, representing the petitioner Thomas m Nickel Investments LLC, told the board the property contains two existing nonconforming buildings built in 1958 and 1965 and that the proposed new building would be 8.3 feet from the north (front) property line where 25 feet is required (variance ~16.7 feet) and 10 feet from a side yard where 15 feet is required (variance 5 feet). Hughes said an alley vacation on the east side could later add 12.5 feet to the lot and eliminate the side-yard variance.
Planning staff recommended approval and proposed two conditions: a 20-foot concrete or asphalt apron adjacent to the new building (to provide vehicle access area in front of unit doors) and submission of a paving plan and schedule for the remainder of the property within 90 days, with the timeline for full paving to be negotiated with staff. The petitioner agreed to both conditions.
Staff noted the site is in an industrial area at the end of a dead-end street and that indoor storage is a permitted use in the manufacturing district. The project had passed technical review for drainage; the petitioner confirmed the project will include drainage ditches and that future paving will follow the existing drainage patterns. Twelve mailed notices were sent and no written objections were returned.
Board member motions adopting staff findings and conditions carried unanimously (Mulvaney: Yes; Osborne: Yes; Lightman: Yes). The board approved the variance with the two staff conditions; the decision concludes the variance action required for final project approval but required follow-up by the petitioner to submit the paving schedule and meet building-permit requirements.
