Laserfiche WebLink
(1) The proposed use will not be injzrrious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral <br /> standards, convenience or general welfare; <br /> (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property <br /> values therein; <br /> (3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the disirict in which it is located and <br /> the land uses authorized therein; <br /> (4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 6.The petition of School City of Mishawaka. <br /> The staff recommends the Special Use be sent to the County Council with a favorable recommendation <br /> for the temporary use for the stated period of time. <br /> (1) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral <br /> standards, convenience or general welfare; <br /> A similar request was approved in August 2009 on Jackson Road for a period of 18 months. The staff is <br /> not awaze of any issues from that prior location. <br /> (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property <br /> values therein; <br /> The temporary use will disturb only one acre of a 58+acre pazcel. The size of the parcel buffers <br /> neighboring properties. <br /> (3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located <br /> and the land uses authorized therein; <br /> Within the 300 foot buffer,there are only 3 structures. Again,the size of the pazcel maintains the <br /> agricultural character and use of the balance of the property. <br /> (4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> The St. Joseph County — South Bend Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map makes no spec�c <br /> recommendation for this property. <br /> 7.The petition of Charles S Hayes,Inc. <br /> The staff recommends the Special Use be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. <br /> The staff recommends denial of the variances for the lattice type tower and landscaping. <br /> (I) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral <br /> standards, convenience or general welfare; <br /> The site contains an existing tower. The staff is not aware of any issues with the existing tower and the <br /> presence of a second tower wwould not compromise the standards. <br /> (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely a„�'ect the use of the adjacent area or property <br /> values therein; � <br /> Since a tower already exists,the addition of a second,shorter tower will not have an adverse affect on <br /> neighboring properties. <br /> (3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located <br /> and the tand uses authorized therein; <br /> The property is zoned GI General Industrial District. However,the property to the west across Franklin <br /> Street was recently rezoned to PUD for Ignition Pazk,an office/reseazch and industrial complex with high <br /> development standards. A lattice type tower with or without landscaping would not be consistent with <br /> future development in the area. <br /> (4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> The future land use map identifies this area as industrial. Ci Plan Objective UD 1.4 Encourage <br /> cmractive and architecturally appealing designs for buildings to create distinctive,visual reference points <br /> in the community. A monopole tower and landscaping would create a more attractive site. <br /> E:IBoards ofZonfngAppealslArea Board ofZoningAppeals120111(2JFebruary.doc <br />