Board of Zoning Appeals

AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY LAFAYETTE DIVISION August 15, 2022 The City of Lafayette Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on Monday, August 15, 2022 at 4:00 PM, Members present were: Jackson Bogan, Dave Williams, Dick Murray, Bob Metzger and Cariynn Smith. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Bogan, Mr. Williams moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as distributed; second by Mr. Metzger. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote, NEW BUSINESS: 2022-17 GUSTAVO MUNOZ Multiple requests for property located at 3000 FERRY ST. 1) Variance to reduce the side yard setback (30th St.) to 15) instead of the required 25' (garage) 2) Variance to reduce the side yard setback (30th St) to 9' instead of the required 25' (porch) 3) Variance to reduce the front yard setback (Ferry St.) to 27' instead of the required 40' (porch) Mr. Williams moved to hear and approve the petition; second by Mr. Metzger. Gustavo Munoz, the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Munoz stated that he would like to build a garage and two porches on his property. He would like to have some areas where he and his family can sit outside and he would like to have a place to park his vehicles. David Berkey spoke in opposition of the variances. He said he has lived in this neighborhood since 1952 and he used to live in the house at 3000 Ferry St He approached the table to review the submitted site plan. He expressed his confusion at the Ferry St. setback request and stated that there is not a iot of room between the house and the 30? St. property line. He also believes the garage takes up a lot of green space which will not match the other properties on the block. Mr. Williams said that there is not a request to decrease the required vegetative cover or increase the maximum building coverage. Matthew Shively stated that the proposed porch additions and detached garage meet the vegefative cover and building coverage requirements of the ordinance. The board voted by ballot: 1) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 2) 5 yes O no. Petition GRANTED 3) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 2022-18 THOMAS A & KARAN S. LUCKETT Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 17' instead of the required 25'. Property located at 22 PRAIRIE CT. Mr. Wiiliams moved to hear and approve the petition; second by Mr. Metzger. Thomas Luckett, the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Luckett stated that he would like to construct a porch on the front of his residence. The porch would extend 10' out from the house. The board voted by ballot: 1) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED Before reading the next set of petitions, Mr. Bogan suggested that all of them be heard at the same time since they are from the same petitioner and mostly have the same requests. The board and the agent for the petitioner agreed with this. It was decided that petitions 2022-19 through 2022-24 would be heard together and petition 2022-25 would be heard separately since it has one additional request. 2022-19 TRIPLE R. LLC Multiple requests for property located at 285 S. 8th ST. 1) Variance to increase the building height to 43' instead of the maximum 35' 2) Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 20' instead of the required 25' 3) Variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 1 5' instead of the required 25' 4) Variance to increase the building coverage to 41% instead of the maximum 30% 5) Variance to decrease the lot width to 36.9' instead of the required 60' 6) Variance to decrease the minimum lot area to 3,601 SF instead of the required 7,500 SF 2022-20 TRIPLE R, LLC Multiple requests for property located at 289 S. 8th ST. 1) Variance to increase the building height to 43* instead of the maximum 35' 2) Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 20' instead of the required 25' 3) Variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 1 5' instead of the required 25' 4) Variance to increase the building coverage to 43% instead of the maximum 30% 5) Variance to decrease the lot width to 36.9' instead of the required 60' 6) Variance to decrease the minimum lot area to 3,753 SF instead of the required 7,500 SF 2022-21 TRIPLE R, LLC Multiple requests for property located at 293 S. 8th ST. 1) Variance to increase the building height to 43' instead of the maximum 35' 2) Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 20' instead of the required 25' 3) Variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 1 5' instead of the required 25' 4) Variance to increase the building coverage to 43% instead of the maximum 30% 5) Variance to decrease the lot width to 36.9' instead of the required 60' 6) Variance to decrease the minimum lot area to 3,749 SF instead of the required 7,500 SF 2022-22 TRiPLE R. LLC Multiple requests for property located at 297 S. 8th ST. 1) Variance to increase the building height to 43' instead of the maximum 35' 2) Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 20' instead of the required 25' 3) Variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 1 5' instead of the required 25' 4) Variance to increase the building coverage to 43% instead of the maximum 30% 5) Variance to decrease the lot width to 36.9' instead of the required 60' 6) Variance to decrease the minimum lot area to 3,743 SF instead of the required 7,500 SF 2022-23 TRIPLE R, LLC Multiple requests for property located at 301 S. 8th ST. 1) Variance to increase the building height to 43' instead of the maximum 35' 2) Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 20' instead of the required 25' 3) Variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 1 5' instead of the required 25) 4) Variance to increase the building coverage to 43% instead of the maximum 30% 5) Variance to decrease the lot width to 36,9' instead of the required 60' 6) Variance to decrease the minimum lot area to 3,736 SF instead of the required 7,500 SF 2022-24 TRiPLE R, LLC Multiple requests for property located at 305 S. 8th ST. 1) Variance to increase the building height to 43' instead of the maximum 35} 2) Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 20} instead of the required 25' 3) Variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 1 5' instead of the required 25' 4) Variance to increase the building coverage to 43% instead of the maximum 30% 5) Variance to decrease the lot width to 36.9' instead of the required 60' 6) Variance to decrease the minimum lot area to 3,730 SF instead of the required 7,500 SF Mr. Williams moved to hear and approve the petitions; second by Mr. Metzger. Kevin Riley, agent for the petitioner, presented the petitions. Jeff Rider, the petitioner, was also present. Mr. Riley stated that the petitioner is planning to redevelop the properties listed in the requests. They are currently vacant and sit at the end of a dead-end street. The petitioner is trying to revitalize the properties with single-family homes and it is the first phase of a three-phase development in this area. These properties were offered for sale and the petitioner is the only person who made an offer. The petitioner has been working with the city on a plan to develop this area and part of that plan involves a city project to extend a sewer line to this area. The city is also going to reconstruct the Pearl River so these properties can be built upon it The city is accepting responsibility for these projects in an agreement with Mr. Rider that requires him to develop the properties in question and properties on Oregon St. Mr. Riley believes this will not create a negative impact on the surrounding area since the houses will be brand new. The lots were too small to go through the subdivision process but they would still like to add some new singie-family homes close to the downtown area. Dennis Carson spoke in favor of the variances. He stated that the city has been working with Mr. Rider on this project and would !ike to see it go through. Jennifer Perkins spoke in opposition of the variances, She stated that she is not opposed to the redevelopment of the properties in question but she believes the variance requests are quite significant. She owns one of the oldest houses in the city and she will be looking down at the proposed houses. She beiieves that the petitioner is asking for large houses on smaii lots and thinks smaller houses would make more sense. Ms. Perkins believes the requested height increases on the proposed houses are unnecessary and she has concerns about the requested rear setback variances on the properties. Mr. Bogan clarified that the 15' rear setback requests took the proposed decks into account. Ms. Perkins also brought up the parking issue on 9tt1 St. and said that she has to rely on street parking. The city is going to add bike lanes which will eliminate this parking so she believes the rear of the lots in question could be used for something that would benefit the entire community as opposed to just servicing new houses. She is concerned that these variances will set a precedent for future redevelopment in this neighborhood. Julie Diggins spoke in opposition of the variances. She believes that as Mr. Rider develops these properties, he has the ability to provide access to the house behind hers. She said that Mr. Rider has been using an easement in this area to access an apartment complex he owns and that it has been a nightmare. She believes this apartment complex is a blight on the neighborhood because it is overgrown and is not maintained. They have multiple issues with the police and people use this access as a race track. She does not beiieve he needs this easement since he has other access points to the apartment complex. Mr. Bogan clarified that the Board of Zoning Appeals could not vacate an easement and Ms. Diggins said she understood. She is concerned because the second phase of the project will be behind her house. She would be in favor of the development if Mr. Rider could clean the apartment complex up and other houses he owns in the area that are boarded up. Mr. Rider stated that he understood her concerns and said that part of the overall pian for this area is to bring his other properties up to current codes and standards. The overai! plan has been years in the making and purchasing the properties in question were part of that plan. Other pieces have fallen into place that will ailow him to move forward with fixing the area up. Mr. Rider said he wasn't sure what to do about the easement and Mr. Riley made it clear that the easement has nothing to do with the variance requests. Mr. Riley stated that the parking on 9th St. is not his client's responsibility and his client is not going to add to those issues. They are putting in brand new homes and the idea is that they wil! fit in the area. Without the variances, the lots will continue to stay vacant. Mr. Carson spoke about the bike lanes and clarified that the city's plan is to add the bike lanes along 9th St. from Kossuth St. to Teal Rd. This will not impact the area of 9th St. that was discussed earlier by Ms. Perkins. The board voted by ballot on petitions 2022-19 through 2022-24: 1) 5 yes 0 no. Petitions GRANTED 2) 5 yes O no. Petitions GRANTED 3) 5 yes O no. Petitions GRANTED 4) 5 yes 0 no. Petitions GRANTED 5) 5 yes 0 no. Petitions GRANTED 6) 5 yes 0 no, Petitions GRANTED 2022-25 TRIPLE R, LLC Multiple requests for property located at 309 S. 8th ST. 1) Variance to increase the building height to 43' instead of the maximum 35' 2) Variance to reduce the front yard setback to 20' instead of the required 25' 3) Variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 1 5' instead of the required 25' 4) Variance to increase the building coverage to 44% instead of the maximum 30% 5) Variance to reduce the side setback (north) to 5' instead of the required 6' 6) Variance to decrease the minimum lot area to 3,620 SF instead of the required 7,500 SF 7) Variance to decrease the lot width to 34.9' instead of the required 60' Mr. Williams moved to hear and approve the petitions; second by IVIr. Metzger. Kevin Riley, agent for the petitioner, presented the petitions. Jeff Rider, the petitioner, was also present, IVlr. Riley stated that the only difference on this petition is the additional setback request from the north property line. The petitioner owns the property to the north so this setback request will not impact anyone else. Mr. Riley also reiterated his previous comments for petitions 2022-19 through 2022-24. Mr. Carson briefly spoke again in favor of the variance. Jennifer Perkins asked about the purpose of variances. Mr. Shiveiy stated that communities come up with different development standards for their respective zoning districts, if someone cannot meet certain development standards in their particular zoning district, they can request variances to proceed with their project outside the boundaries set in the ordinance. This allows people to complete projects on properties that may not meet current standards and it gives the community an option to continue with development instead of strictly sticking to the requirements of the ordinance. There are pubiic hearings associated with these requests so the petitioner can state their case and it also opens up the floor for anyone else in the community to show their support or opposition. Ms. PerkEns asked if variances set a standard for buildings in the neighborhood and Mr. Bogan stated that variances do not set a precedent for future variance requests. Ms. Perkins asked if there needs to be a compelling argument when a variance is being requested and Mr. Williams pointed out that the properties in question have a history of development issues and variances are meant to assist in situations like this so we don't have unusable properties. He stated that Tippecanoe County, Lafayette, and West Lafayette have come up with development standards that make sense but may not work in every scenario. Mr. Bogan stated that when new ordinances or standards are adopted, they oftentimes make existing structures nonconforming. IVIs. Perkins stated that she understands what the board is saying but the current requests are for houses that do not exist and she does not understand why they can't be built to the ordinance's standards. Mr. Riley stated that these properties went up for sale two separate times and his client is the only person who bid on them. His client is the only person who has attempted to redevelop these properties and has worked with the City of Lafayette to come up with a plan that they were comfortable with. Mr. REIey also stated that if many of the houses En the downtown area were destroyed, they would not be able to be rebuilt without variances. The board voted by ballot: 1) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 2) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 3) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 4) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 5) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 6) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 7) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED The next meeting of the Lafayette Board of Zoning Appeals will be on Monday, October 17, 2022 at 4:00 PM. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 PM. '^^ ^ ^^^_ Chairip^n / ^ Secretary