Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Present: Larry Mitchell, Gregory Morical, Steve Schanke, Al Wopshall. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Mitchell Good evening. I’d like to welcome you to the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. The agendas are out in front if anybody wants to get a copy. First item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge of Allegiance Mitchell I’m sorry. The next item is attendance. Mr. DeLong? Roll call. Mitchell Jay Parks is absent. Four of the five are here. There is a quorum. The next item is an approval of the March 27, 2012 and May 22, 2012 meeting minutes. Are there changes from the Board? Wopshall I have one small one. On the March meeting, they had my name down on page 5 and I wasn’t at the meeting. Someone else made that comment. Other than that, I accept that one. Mitchell That’s the March 27 meeting? Wopshall Yes. Mitchell Which also shows that you were present, which is incorrect? Wopshall That’s incorrect. Schanke I reviewed it. It looked complete. Mitchell All right. What about the May 22nd? I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes as presented with the reported changes. Wopshall One change on May 23rd. I was present, but they spelled my name wrong. Fussy today, huh? Mitchell Okay, motion to approve both sets of minutes as amended. Morical So moved. Schanke I’ll second it. Mitchell The motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? All Aye. Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Mitchell Opposed, nay? The motion carries unanimously. The next item on the agenda is new business. I will briefly go over our rules of procedure for everybody in the audience tonight. We have the petitioners come up and speak first. They are given 15 minutes to present their case. The remonstrators, if any, will be given 15 minutes to present their case. The petitioner will be given five minutes for rebuttal and then the remonstrators, if any, will be given the final five minutes. The Board can ask questions as it goes along. That will not be counted against your time, so don’t worry about that. So, the first item on the agenda—and the only other thing is when you come up to the microphone and you’re going to speak, please give your name, your full name and your address of where you live. So, the first item on the agenda is Docket 2012-08 DSV property at 360 S. 4th Street. Would the petitioner please come forward? Koharchik Good evening. I’m Micayla Koharchik. We live at—and this is my husband, Ryan. We live at 360 S. 4th Street. Tonight, we are petitioning that we might be able to build a two-car garage, attached garage on our property that would be able to be built on the property line and exceed the property coverage of 35 percent. I am a 30-year resident of Zionsville and Ryan and I are thrilled to be living in the village finally, so we are hoping that we can make modifications to our home, that this would be a lifetime home where we can stay. In the packet you were given, we have given you our basic reasons, but I’d like to point out that by putting a garage where we will, it will allow us to have recreation space, space for children, for pets. Also, we are able to maintain and improve our home value. We will not be blocking important windows on our property. We need storage space. Currently, we have lawn equipment, trash cans outdoors which can be—animals like to get in. We’re in a situation now where we don’t have space and we need to put these things away. Also, just to conceal our vehicles and all of that, just to make the property look better and our neighborhood look better. We think that this really will improve the look of our neighborhood and the look of our home. We do have, just in case, because I think there was some question about in the original plans when the property was built, the picture showed it as on the easement. We do have a model if you’re interested in seeing how it would look. But, ultimately, we think that these reasons are functional but they will also add value to our home and aesthetically improve our neighborhood. We appreciate your careful consideration. We hope that you will allow us to make improvements on our home so that we can stay in this home for our lifetime as we continue to grow as a family. Mitchell Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Morical I’ve got one question. Is the garage, completely, as you proposed, it on your property or is any part of it in the right of way? Koharchik No, the whole garage would be built on the property. Schanke Then, I had a question. You sent out the letters. Did any of the neighbors respond favorably, unfavorably or at all? Koharchik Um, we did not have any that were unfavorable. In fact, our neighbor directly to our—Mandy Owens, she is definitely in favor of it. In talking to the Davidson’s who live across the street, he and his daughter are as well. Schanke I only ask that because I am making an assumption as there’s no remonstrators. I have a technical question now. I see your rendering and then I also see the surveyor’s drawings. And, it’s not a particularly large garage. Believe me, you’ll Page 2 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 fill it up in a heartbeat. But, is the entrance coming in from what would be the east or is it coming in off Sycamore Street? Koharchik It would come off Sycamore. What we would have to do. Because I did this model this weekend when we found there were problems with the initial layout, so what we will do is that we will turn that drive that is there now into green space and just put another drive in that leads from Sycamore to the garage itself. Schanke I think that’s the same thing that I thought. You look at the surveyor’s report. To push it back even to zero lot line, you wouldn’t be able to get in from the east side to the house there. Does that—changing, adding the impervious surface, maybe this is more for staff, does that count into the square footage calculations or not? DeLong No it’s a driveway. Schanke That was my other point. To look at the surveyor’s report, and I am going back to the deed restriction, it has to go back quite a bit more than the sketch is showing. Wopshall We have an issue with—if you’re going to put the garage, any part of the garage on the lot line, you’re going to disturb town property. The footer is wider than the garage itself. It will spread out so that will be on town property and that’s not a good thing. You’re looking at—the picture that I see shows the garage door different than what you’re proposing, is that correct? Koharchik Correct, because we just realized this last week, so I tried to redesign and reorient the garage so that we could place it on the property line or a foot back as the staff had suggested with the drive going out to Sycamore. The initial pad that is there now which we tried to utilize initially, because it was there, would then turn back into green space, so that you can put another drive and move the drive over basically. Wopshall My next question was going to be on this picture here, that you would have a heck of a time trying to get cars in if the garage were moved back any. But, the way you propose it that takes care of that. Koharchik Right. Wopshall I like your property the way it is laid out. I was looking to see shrubbery or whatever put on where you’re now going to have a garage door to kind of break the look of the garage since it’s going to be right on the property line. Now, you’re going to have a big garage door there so it maybe a little less attractive but— Koharchik Well, I think that—my husband is a designer by nature, but we have really thought about this and we don’t want to put anything on our property that would detract from it, whether that be value or aesthetically. So, the plans that we have, I think that they will end up looking great. We’re going to be sure that it is in the same—the design is in the same vein as the house. So, granted, our original thoughts would that be our ideal, absolutely, but do we think this is going to look great. Yes, because we don’t want anything to detract. Mitchell I do have one question. Your petition as it’s presented to us is requesting a zero setback. Would you like to amend that or are you still asking for a zero setback? Page 3 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Koharchik We would love the zero—again, we would love the zero. If it affects the town property, though, we would concede to, we would amend it to the staff’s suggestion of a one-foot setback, so that the footer can be placed— Schanke That would also agree with the—it would be the southeast corner of the house which is a one-foot setback existing so I would—that would be, to my mind, the minimum, because we do have setbacks. Once we say zero, a) it’s a precedent and b) the foundation underneath the footers would encroach upon what could be—what is city property. Wopshall We are only talking one corner of the garage. The property—it is just a very small area near the line. Mitchell All right. If there are no other questions at this time for the petitioner, I would ask if there are any remonstrators? Seeing none come forward, are there any final questions for the petitioners? Wopshall Okay, you said you are willing to slide the garage back a foot? Koharchik Yes, yes. Wopshall Thank you. Schanke As far as the lot coverage, it does exceed the guidelines but looking at the—now with the aerial photograph, the 355 structure there, I have no idea whose it is, would be significantly more so, so it’s not going to be the only house standing out with, with, you know. I don’t personally have a problem with the expansion into- Mitchell Would you like to turn that into a form of a motion? Schanke Well, if I could figure it out, I will. I move that Docket No. 2012-08 DSV for the property located at 360 S. 4th Street be approved with a minimum setback from the front line lot parallel to Sycamore Street being at least one foot. Mitchell A motion has been made. Is there a second? Morical Second. Mitchell Motion is made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye? All Aye. Mitchell Opposed, nay? Motion carries. Koharchik Thank you so much. Koharchik Thank you. Mitchell Next item on the Docket 2012-09 DSV property at 210 and 220 W. Sycamore and 225 W. Hawthorne Street. The petitioner will please come forward. Evans Good evening. My name is Stan Evans. I am with RSE Realty with offices at 22 E. Washington Street in Indianapolis. I’m here representing the Patrick Henry Sullivan Foundation which is the Sullivan-Munce Cultural Center at 225 W. Page 4 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Hawthorne. The Foundation owns the museum and art center building that are on Hawthorne. In addition, they own two rental homes on Sycamore, 210 and 220 W. Sycamore. We’ve owned—the Foundation has owned those for something in the neighborhood of 15 years. The two houses are currently located on a single lot and they areencroachments of one of the garages across that lot line. The Foundation has undertaken some strategic planning as to long-term needs and ability to finance some or part of those houses. With having the encroachments they could do none of what they want to do in the future. So, we are really proposing to redraw lot lines around the existing structures that are there. Our petition is asking for a variance of lot size from the minimum 8000. Each of the lots is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 square feet. Also, the existing structure at the corner of Sycamore and 2nd Street with the 2nd Street frontage and setback is something slightly less than what is, excuse me, it’s six feet less than required. Twenty is required. The existing house is 14-some away. So, the conditions on the property will not change. This is really looking for more getting each of the houses on their own stand-alone lot and then preserving future growth room for the Foundation and their facilities on Hawthorne. So, this is being done in conjunction with a replat so, in order, to be able to get—we’ll be in front of the Plan Commission next month assuming we are able to get through this hurdle and redraw those lot lines to accomplish this. I believe staff is recommending approval. Mitchell Are there questions for the petitioner? Schanke I think you answered my one question which is why you didn’t split the existing property in half or move it up until you met the 8000 hurdle—I believe you said that was to allow for additional expansion, potential-- Evans Potential, right. Schanke in the future. In reading through the literature, the alley was vacated so I assume you can’t build over that. Can I ask what the garage is used for now? I mean, does the museum use it or does one of the—does property 3 use it? Evans Well, there are two garages on the property. The one along the west property line is rented along with that residence. Yeah, for that western lot. The other garage is used half by the museum and the other half is rented to the Albers who own the family dealership. Schanke So, okay, so it’s not 3’s? Evans No it’s not part of the rental package for that lot. Schanke And I have a question for staff. Just—I know I—just to see if I am interpreting this correctly but um, obviously, the two lots are smaller than the current zoning requires but then on lot size it says they do conform with the other lots in that area. So, what you’re saying is, yes, they’re smaller than the current standards but they’re like all of the others. DeLong In this area, you find lots of this similar size. Not every lot is this way, but this is not going to be a new characteristic to this area. Schanke I thought—I was sure, but just wanted to check myself. Those are the only notes that I have. Page 5 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Mitchell Other questions from the Board? Wopshall The two homes. Does the museum own those? Evans Correct. Wopshall And they are rentals right now? Evans They are rental homes now. Wopshall I’m looking at the future. If you divide those two lots and someone wants to build, you have an awfully small lot to start with. Evans I can’t really speak to what the future brings if they were to be sold and somebody wanted to do something in the future, you know. The lot—you start running into lot coverage issues which we still comply with today in that size lot. We are still within lot coverage requirements with that size structure. So, somebody coming in the future would be limited by lot coverage, also, on what they could put on that. We understand that as a limitation maybe to the museum’s ability to sell them in the future. If somebody is saying, I want to come and build a house that is different than what’s there, they will come across different lot coverage limitations that will apply to that. Wopshall Thank you. Schanke I guess as far as the setbacks go, the lots are there, the buildings are there. We aren’t going to ask you to jack it up and move it over or— Evans We were hoping not. That would be another big ding to the budget. Mitchell Okay. Thank you. Are there any remonstrators here? Please. Sure. Wilson My name is James Wilson. I live at 255 W. Hawthorne Street. I am exactly next door to the museum as it currently stands. This is the first forum I have had to express any reservation about this, so please know that I am aware that the museum owns the lots. I was aware that the museum maybe one day would expand and didn’t really have an objection to that. But, I am objecting to the creation of these smaller lots. My lot is 60 x 120. My neighbor’s lot is 60 x 120. The lots on Sycamore while not being 60 x 120 are larger than these 5000- square foot lots. And, so for me, to create these little house lots would seem to either force these houses to always be rentals or to force them to try to seek commercial zoning. Because, if you look at it, the backyard is only about 24 feet. They don’t have rear garages or one of them will but one of them won’t. I just don’t see how a lot this size could be expanded or the house could be expanded to be in keeping with the value of the other homes in the neighborhood. So, I kind of took this as having your cake and eat it, too. The museum wanted to keep the backyards, but potentially sell the front yard and that just didn’t seem like good policy for the neighborhood or for the town. The only technical question I had though was with regard to the existing garage that was going to be kept with one of the houses? It seems to only have a one-foot clearance from the lot line. I have heard before that one foot maybe works but I couldn’t figure out how you could maintain that garage obviously if your backdoor neighbor built a fence or how you would ever get to your own property. But, again, I just did hear about the one-foot setback so maybe that’s—So, that’s all I’ve got. Thank you. Page 6 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Mitchell Please stay up here, sir, in case we have any questions or comments from the Board for you. Schanke Well, I think the one-foot on the framed garage as it’s referred to here on Lot 2, again, you heard earlier than that was—we don’t like to, but that still is a setback. Again, it’s there and it’s been there apparently for a long time. I had that same kind of question when I was trying to determine why they put it into two lots because if I was going to build something and want to buy them, I would probably buy both of them and put them back together into one big lot. But, I do understand their logic with the houses being there, the property being there. Again, I understand your size question because that was what I asked is why they pushed it back that far. But, again, with that in mind and or, if they did pull the line up to get to the 8,000 square foot, the museum would still own it. If they wanted to expand, they would just have to demolish the houses. Wilson Which was always so I guess that was always my assumption. Schanke So, I understand exactly where you’re coming from. However, the size isn’t necessarily a precedent setter on the size. So, clearly I understand what your issues are. Mitchell I have a question for staff, then as I look at the–or maybe it’s for the petitioner— as I look at the survey, in reference to the garage having the one foot, that’s based upon the lot line prior to the alley vacation? DeLong No actually, that reference, the alley is above that. The one-foot is their proposed new property line from the back of the garage. The one-car garage, not the two- car garage. Mitchell Okay, I’m looking, that’s the one that is loaded off of Sycamore Street? DeLong Correct. Evans That’s actually a five-foot setback. That’s the measurement off the back. That’s a side setback to the old alley line. DeLong So, that’s not one foot? Evans Not from here to here. DeLong Okay. I’m wrong and he’s right. Mitchell It’s not about being wrong. It’s making sure we all understand the same set of facts. So, okay, does anybody have any questions for the remonstrator? Okay, no, thank you sir. I have a question for staff. Maybe I missed it, but I just wanted to be perfectly clear. You made the statement and, correct me if I am wrong, that there are other lots in this area of similar size? DeLong That’s correct. When we looked at the aerial photograph, we had an area validation search of just lots within proximity of this parcel, we found lots that were similar in size. Not every parcel was this size. Now, the question then becomes—and the staff looked at exactly the question of flexing that northern lot line to make these lots the correct size. Would that put the northern lot line within a few feet of the concrete ramp and the museum’s normal operations? We also thought about, you know, where could this move to pick up a few feet, move it Page 7 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 seven feet to the north or 10 feet, nine feet to the north and still maintain side yard setback for the garage. That’s a possibility here. But, at the end of the day, when we’re talking in staff’s view of this, thinking of a couple hundred square feet here or there, to move the lot lines, staff didn’t find the justification. If you move it four feet, then staff’s okay with it. So, this is an excellent opportunity today if there is an interest in making these lots a little larger, there is that flexibility. Certainly, staff could see moving it all the way to the north, I won’t say it’s not practical, but it certainly becomes an impact issue with the operations of the museum. But, there probably is some flex room in there between the existing one-story frame garage and the proposed – Schanke I’m not sure if I can ask and I’m not sure the petitioner knows, do you know if they have a strategic long-range plan for the museum that maybe has some dotted line that goes out, that would go out and require, strategically, realize, you know, just a plan with the lot line being back here versus up closer to the one framed garage? Evans There is not an existing development plan for the museum that specifies that particular lot line location. I mean, if it was consequential, and we were talking about moving it three, four feet, five feet further north, I think we would be open to that. I think it starts to become a problem if we do, if we’re trying to take those two existing lots and just change the lot line, that becomes a little bit more problematic for the future for the museum. Schanke I understand to really get to the 8000, you’re almost up to the alley? Evans Past the alley. DeLong You’re past the alley, somewhere in there, within a few feet of that concrete ramp. For example, picking up, just doing the calculations here rough, picking up nine additional feet on Lot 3 increases the lot size plus or minus 500 square feet. Again, not downplaying that on a 5000-square foot lot, 500 square feet, that’s a lot of area. But again, that’s— Mitchell So, it’s not in compliance now anyway? It’s less than 8,000 square feet. DeLong Well, right now, you have it under the dimensions— Evans Right now, we have two houses on one lot. DeLong It’s Lot No. 4 in this particular subdivision has two homes on it, two primary structures, so that’s where the noncompliance is. So, when you look at this and staff looked at this, is how are we, as long as we’re not increasing the nonconformity, that’s part of staff’s supported position. So, splitting these two homes onto individual parcels is where staff felt comfortable. But, again, flexing of that lot line to pick up additional square footage to increase is— Morical Can I ask a question? I completely understand and appreciate your interest in cleaning up the parcels on these pieces of property. It looks a lot better than— and you’ve also moved the parcels for the rental properties such that it actually covers the garage that bridge the two and I can understand strategically why this new structure is valuable for the petitioner. Would it be a problem for the petitioner if the proposed Lots 2 and 3 were just one lot that would be over the 8,000 square feet? Page 8 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Evans Well, it eliminates a flexibility for what we, what the museum may do with them over time. It does mandate then that they both be sold together and it’s just a flexibility issue for the museum. I think, long-term, the museum would prefer to be able to hang on to as much land as they can and, keeping that as a single lot, would reduce that flexibility. But, um, and then obviously, still leave us in noncompliance. Schanke I understand what you are saying but if the museum were to expand back and then take one of the lots and make it into a parking lot, we wouldn’t approve that more than likely because that other house would be an island. I kind of look at it the same way. I mean, yeah, it’s got two units on it but it’s the same as it is now and just subdivide it into, that would be three rather than four, one of them being over 8000 square feet with two existing properties on it. Mitchell Not to make the petitioner’s case for him, but I mean, I think that the gist of theirs is having it split they could sell them individually as opposed to having to sell them both at the same time and, in some ways, this is cleaning up something that was done a long time ago where you have the two houses on the one lot. Evans Yes, that’s correct. Schanke That’s a valid point. Morical Is it fair to say that strategically for the petitioner the goal is being able to have these such that they could be financed? Evans Correct. Potentially financed separately as well. Morical Which could not be the case today because—But, under what we’ve just discussed of putting the proposed Lots 2 and 3 into a single lot, so call it proposed Lot 2 that would allow the petitioner to then separately finance them? Evans If we had just the two, turn it into two? Well, we would have to then encumber both of the rental properties. What we, what we struggle with is if we’re to finance, in an organization with a small budget and, you know, if you’re trying to finance and you say, well, something changed down the line, funding changed and so forth and we were losing something, you know, you would prefer not to lose the whole south end of that property. So, I mean, to the extent that we would be able to finance independent of the other, would be preferable; it’s not the end of the world if we had to finance them together, but, um— Morical I think the challenge that we are hearing, trying to understand what the petitioner’s needs are and what the remonstrator’s needs are and the concerns about separating now and how that could lead in the future that could put us in a position that would be perhaps less desirable than more desirable but also, understand, there are two structures on there today that we have to deal with. Evans Yeah, and so— Morical And your needs are legitimate. Evans And, you know, you know, I guess I would point out that if someone were to buy them independently and decide to build on them, there are constraints to what they would be able to do. Having a new house on there, even within those constraints is probably better than what’s there today. Um, and we’re, I think, Page 9 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 roughly at about 25% lot coverage for both of these lots as it sits today so there’s actually some room for something to get in here that would have more coverage than exists on the sites today. So, you know, I see, I do think there is potential—if one were to be sold, that somebody could come in and actually put something on that is more than what is there today. Whether that is good, bad or indifferent, we could debate that differently, too, but I don’t see the valuation of these properties being adversely affected by this change. If somebody comes in in the future and builds new, I think that’s potentially better. It may limit, it may not be as big a house, it may not be as big as Mr. Wilson’s house or the house immediately next door, but there’s certainly lots of cases around the village where there are larger houses next to smaller houses. It’s sort of one of the charms of the village at some level. Mitchell Any other questions for the petitioner? Sir, would you like to say anything else or? Wilson No. Mitchell Just trying to give everybody an opportunity to speak. Okay, is there any further discussion by the Board? Schanke No, I’d just like to comment that I think we’ve reviewed it and I think visually, if this passed, we wouldn’t see any difference than it if didn’t pass but it does clean up a lot of property lines to the buildings and everything that do exist. So, with that in mind, I’ll make a motion that Docket No. 2012-09 DSV for the properties identified as located at 210 and 220 W. Sycamore Street be approved as presented. Morical Can I comment on that? Mitchell Well, let’s get the motion on the floor. Is there a second to the motion? Wopshall I’ll second the motion. Mitchell The motion has been seconded so therefore it’s open for discussion. Morical Okay. Um, I would suggest that we not approve that as stated in light of having our minimum lot size of 8000 square feet. These likely older homes that have a likelihood of not being around for an extended period of time, rental properties, probably pretty prime for a teardown as their highest and best use. As we have determined or that zoning has determined that there is an 8000 square foot minimum lot size, I think that it would be in the town’s best interest to have those proposed lots changed to one combined lot. I am not hearing from the petitioner that it seriously hampers their ability to do what I believe it is that they need to do or they are saying they need to do which is to be able to finance those properties separately. I think it still facilitates their priority which is to allow for future expansion and to clean up the various parcels, so I would suggest to the Board that we not approve the three proposed lots but instead require that Lots 2 and 3 be one lot itself meeting the 8000-square foot. Evans Could I address--? No? Mitchell Uh, no, I think we’re— Page 10 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Schanke But, I don’t, if someone were to come in and want to build on an 8,000-square foot property and there are older homes like that, don’t you think, I’m not thinking for anyone else but they would just buy both of them? Morical If they were both for sale. Schanke Well, they are both rental. I’m assuming they would have to buy them from the museum board. Morical The challenge of having the two different parcels separate like this today is that it’s certainly very possible that one or both could be sold even to those renters and then it restricts or artificially limits, if somebody isn’t willing to sell, which— Schanke Oh, I know— Morical Even though—so it forces any—there’s a reasonable likelihood that any future development of these pieces of property will need to be constrained within that 5,000 or less square footage which, in light of what we’re hearing the petitioner say what their needs are, in light of the concerns articulated by the remonstrator, in light of our own 8,000-square foot minimum lot size, I believe that having those two lots as one lot which is essentially what they are today with improvements suggested in terms of moving the line is actually the best. Mitchell Is there any further discussion regarding the motion? Hearing none, I will call for a vote on the motion. Are those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? All those opposed, nay? All Nay. Mitchell The motion fails. I would entertain a new motion. Morical Even though I’m a lawyer, this is my second meeting, so can I ask you a question? Mitchell Absolutely. Morical Can we propose a separate approval or is it up to the petitioner to let us know whether or not they would be willing to do something other than— Schanke Again, typical of meetings, but it’s a lot of questions. If we approved it with the stipulation that what you identify as Lots 2 and 3 become one parcel and if the Board agreed with that, could they still go before the Plan Commission next month or would it delay them so they would have to come back to us in two months, you see what I’m saying, Carol? Drake I don’t know where they are on— Schanke He indicated— DeLong I can speak to that. We are, this is a secondary plat approval plat amendment. Those extra approvals are delegated to the building commissioner in an administrative function so whatever timeline they are on, there isn’t a way to follow. Page 11 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Schanke He had mentioned, the petitioner had mentioned that if it was approved here that it would go to the next, but it’s really, it’s an administrative set of approvals. DeLong Yes. DeLong The other thing I would note is that it’s great that the petitioner is being proactive in planning for the future. It doesn’t sound like there is an imminent need to take action at this time, to do it, to take the right steps. Mitchell Okay, so where we are right now is basically that the petition has been made and turned down. So, Schanke What about an amendment? Mitchell Well, I don’t know that we could without new findings of fact being presented on the amended—counsel, would you please weigh in on this? Drake I would recommend asking the petitioner if the petitioner would like to amend their request. They have heard your vote on the existing request and really, pass it back to them as to whether they want to amend in which case you might make an appropriate motion. Otherwise, I believe the motion covers the pending application. Evans I have discussed—I have Kelly Mason, president of the Board of Directors and David Ruther who is the Executive Director of the museum with me. We would be in a position to agree to move that separating east/west line, the north line of the house lots north by some measure, you know, something that would keep us away from that current garage so, if that is, looks like 16 feet, if we were moving the lot line, you know, another five feet north, if that were material, we could do that, but, uh, we do not want to amend the petition to have both of those houses still remaining on a single lot. Schanke But, I believe 15 feet doesn’t make the 8,000— Evans No, we won’t get to 8,000 feet, you know, that won’t happen. Schanke September. Is that the next meeting? Morical Do I need to make a motion on— Mitchell Okay, well, it sounds like the, it’s up to the petitioner to offer a solution. Unless I heard something differently from this group, what they are offering is still not agreeable to the Board, so, thank you. Evans Okay. Drake Mr. Chairman, I would recommend an official motion on that, on whether you accept or do not accept the amendment as proposed. Schanke I will make a motion that we do not accept the proposed amendment to the petition 2012-09 DSV to increase the property, the lot sizes of the proposed Lot 2 and Lot 3 to a value that is less than the current zoning requirements which, I believe, is 8,000 square feet. Drake Therefore, you are denying the design standard variance requested? Page 12 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Schanke Therefore, yes, therefore, denying the amended design variance request as presented. Mitchell Does the Board understand and does anybody wish to make a second? Morical Second. Mitchell The motion has been made and seconded. Staff? DeLong Just a point of clarification. With this matter, we need to either continue it to adopt negative findings of fact or— Drake No. Mitchell Counsel says no. All right, any further discussion on the motion in front of the Board. Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye? All Aye. Mitchell Opposed, nay? Motion carries. Thank you. Now, onto old business. We have four items, three items that need to be considered. We will take them in order. Is it a matter of simply just signing the findings of fact? DeLong We are in a position to provide you the findings of fact for these prior petitions, 04-DSV, 05-DSV and 07-DSV. These matters were approved previously. These are just the findings that were not signed prior. Schanke and outlined in the minutes as approved. Mitchell Are we going to get time to look at them before we sign them or? Drake These simply incorporate the findings that were in the staff report at that time, so— Mitchell I didn’t know— Drake --so that you have written findings as opposed to just motions. We certainly could, Mr. Chairman. Mitchell I didn’t know if it would be something like the minutes of our meetings where we would like to look at them and verify them before we sign off on them. DeLong These are the same exact findings that were obtained in the staff reports that were presented. I’m happy to, I’ll pass these draft copies down. Mitchell Well, that’s fine. Are there any questions on those? We will pass them down, but— DeLong Everybody gets one stapled copy? Drake Um, yes. Page 13 of 14 Board of Zoning Appeals July 24, 2012 Mitchell Okay, I would ask the Board to scan these such that they will be comfortable with what is found in these findings of facts that we will actually be signing to meet what— Morical Carol, can I ask you a question? Drake Yes. Morical I did not participate in any of these. Should I be signing off on them? Drake I would recommend no. DeLong You need to pick one copy and feel free to— Schanke I’ll quite remarking on— DeLong I’ve got fresh copies here. We have an official copy for signatures. Morical These are all findings of fact that relate to the May 23, 2012 meeting. Is that correct? Schanke Just me, Al and Jay and Jay’s not here. Mitchell So, there’s--? DeLong All three were from the May meeting. We both weren’t here so we need, Jay, Mr. Parks to sign the rest of them. DeLong And also for tonight, we have tonight’s ____ that needs—I’m happy to send those two down, those sets. There is one for each variance, for the setback and— Mitchell So, going forward, we’re going to sign these the night of— Drake We’re going to work towards that depending on your discussion your discussions bring up points or concerns remonstrators bring up that you want to incorporate, then they will be revised and returned back to you. Mitchell Great, thank you. Schanke So, wouldn’t we have a denied on that? This one is circled approved. Oh, we have that. Never mind. Okay. Well, we need to add the setbacks, we need to add that we approved with a minimum one-foot setback. DeLong These findings are already set up with that. Morical Does it make it clear that the garage is not going to be in the right of way? Schanke --one-foot minimum. Mitchell All right. No further business to come before the Board? The Board is adjourned. Thank you. Page 14 of 14