04-11-11 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

(I) The proposed use will not he.injurious to the public health safety, comfort,community moral stmuivds,convenience or general welfare; (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area orproperty values therein; (3)Theproposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the Imed uses authorized therein; (4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive plan: 6.The petition of School City of Mishawaka. The staff recommends the Special Use be sent to the County Council with a favorable recommendation for the temporary use for the stated period of time. (I) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public healkk safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; A similar request was approved in August 2009 on Jackson Road for a period of 18 months. Thd staff is not aware of any issues from that prior location. (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein, The temporary use will disturb only one acre of a 58+acre parcel. The size of the parcel buffers neighboring properties. (3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein; . Within the 300 foot buffer,there are only 3 structures. Again,the size of the parcel maintains the agricultural character and use of the balance of the property. (4) The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive plan. The St. Joseph County — South Bend Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map makes no specific recommendation for this property. 7.The petition of Charles S Hayes,Inc. The staff recommends the Special Use be sent to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation. The staff recommends denial of the variances for the lattice type tower and landscaping. (I) The proposed use will not be injurious to the public healt&safety,comfort community moral standards, convenience or general welfare; The site contains an existing tower. The staff is not aware of any issues with the existing tower and the presence of a second tower wwould not compromise the standards. (2) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the use of the adjacent area or property values therein, Since a tower already exists,the addition of a second,shorter tower will not have an adverse affect on neighboring properties. (3) The proposed use will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and the land uses authorized therein, The property is zoned GI General Industrial District. However,the property to the west across Franklin Street was recently rezoned to PUD for Ignition Park,an offtc 4esearch and industrial complex with high development standards. A lattice type tower with or without landscaping would not be consistent with future development in the area. (4)The proposed use is compatible with the recommendations of the Comprehensive plan. The future land use map identifies this area as industrial. City.Ban Objective UD 1.4 Encourage attractim and architecturally appealing designs for buildings to create dfstetecft visual reference points in the community A monopole tower and landscaping would create a moue attractive site. E Wounds el 4Wa&W=Board of Zo .lpyeakLVI t V2I Fehruwy doe