Crown Point board defers variance request to split 9611 N. Washington after traffic, process concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Crown Point board voted to defer petition 25-45, a request by SLB Brothers Properties LLC to subdivide 9611 North Washington Street and allow a 0-foot side-yard setback for a shared drive; residents and church leaders urged a traffic study and raised safety concerns at the Broadway/96th intersection.
Crown Point City board members on Dec. 22 deferred a requested zoning variance from SLB Brothers Properties LLC that would allow a 0-foot side-yard setback between two future commercial lots at 9611 North Washington Street.
The petitioner, represented by Russ Posen, asked the board to approve a shared-drive setback reduction from the AB-3 business-zone standard of 10 feet to 0 feet so the existing parcel could be split into two lots. Posen said the east lot is being marketed for a convenience store with gas pumps while the west lot has no identified user yet. "We're here before you for a side yard development variance," Posen told the board, and said site-development engineering would follow if the variance were approved.
The petition drew repeated concern about traffic and safety at the nearby Broadway and 96th Place intersection. Dafkos Makowski, president of the board of Saint Pierre and Paul, speaking for the parish, said the intersection is hazardous and recalled a recent crash: "In April, we had an accident there, and one of our parishioners almost lost their life." A resident who identified herself as Mariam said heavy truck traffic from nearby Amazon facilities and the existing Casey's convenience store leave the area congested and warned, "This is gonna create a nightmare scenario when it comes to traffic."
City staff summarized the technical request: the AB-3 side-yard setback is 10 feet and the petitioner requests a 0-foot setback for the created middle lot line to allow a shared drive aisle. Staff also reported receiving several calls of opposition and that notices were properly mailed and published.
During deliberations board members questioned the timing and completeness of the application. Several members said they would prefer the petitioner first obtain site-development approval that defines exact lot lines, drive locations and parking, and then return for any variances. One board member explained that smaller buildings could be designed to meet existing setbacks and that the current proposal could represent a self-created hardship. Posen acknowledged that a traffic study would normally accompany site-development submissions and said the engineering work would proceed if the petitioner received approval.
Faced with uncertain lot lines and unresolved traffic impacts, the board shifted from an initial motion to approve (which was withdrawn) to a motion to defer the petition. Board member Jeremy Taylor moved to defer, and the motion was seconded by John Marshall. The board voted to defer the petition pending more detailed site-development plans and likely a traffic study; as transcribed, the roll call recorded affirmative votes and the petition was tabled.
Next steps: the petitioner said engineering and a formal site-development petition would be filed if the variance is pursued further; the board expects the matter to return with final lot lines, a site plan and technical studies that address traffic and circulation concerns.
