Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission classifies Maple Leaf Crossing lot‑7 change as unsubstantial, approves smaller one‑story retail building
Summary
The commission determined the amendment to Maple Leaf Crossing’s lot 7 — replacing a planned three‑story cigar bar with a one‑story 6,500‑sq‑ft retail/professional building — was an unsubstantial modification and approved the amended site plan, while commissioners expressed design and material concerns for the overall development.
The Munster Planning Commission on July 23 declared a proposed change to Maple Leaf Crossing’s approved site plan for lot 7 an "unsubstantial" amendment and approved the smaller, one‑story commercial building in place of a previously approved three‑story Karma Cigar Bar.
Developer counsel David Beach told commissioners the original three‑story, approximately 12,500‑square‑foot cigar-bar proposal proved financially infeasible and that the petitioner seeks to replace it with a single‑story, roughly 6,500‑square‑foot multi‑tenant retail/professional building that complies with the PUD ordinance’s permitted uses and standards. Beach argued the change reduces parking demand compared with the originally approved restaurant/nightlife use and that the proposed materials and footprint are consistent with other buildings in the development.
Commissioners debated whether the change was merely a minor amendment or a substantial change requiring a full site‑plan rehearing. Concerns included the shift in use profile (from a nighttime entertainment venue to daytime retail), architectural quality and building materials, and whether the approved shared parking and overall circulation would adequately serve the amended use. Several commissioners said they viewed the change as consistent with the master ordinance and the built shells for buildings 5 and 6; others lamented the loss of a more distinctive design that had been previously presented.
By recorded vote the commission found the modification to be unsubstantial, then approved the amended site plan for lot 7. Several commissioners asked staff to monitor that previously promised public‑benefit features and tenant-mix commitments were implemented as construction proceeds; staff noted that parking and overall site circulation for the development had already been reviewed and were not part of this specific amendment.
What’s next: The petitioner may proceed with building permits for lot 7 in accordance with the amended site plan; staff will continue to process permits and monitor compliance with the PUD standards and previously approved materials and landscape commitments.
