Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Larry Mitchell, Greg Morical, Steve Schanke, Al Wopshall, Jay Parks. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Mitchell I would like to call the August 13, 2013 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. There are agendas out in front for everybody that would like to get one. First item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge. Mitchell Next item on the agenda is the attendance. Mr. Secretary will you please call the roll? DeLong Certainly. Mr. Mitchell? Mitchell Present. DeLong Mr. Morical? Morical Present. DeLong Mr. Schanke? Schanke Present. DeLong Mr. Wopshall? Wopshall Present. DeLong Mr. Parks? Parks Present. Mitchell All five members are here. Therefore, we have a quorum. We will conduct business. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the June 11, 2013 and July 9, 2013 meeting minutes. Schanke I will make a motion that we approve the, I went through them and they look fine, the June and the July minutes. Wopshall I’ll second that. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Drake One point of clarification, Jay Parks was not present at the July 9 meeting and so that should be deleted from those minutes. Schanke I thought that was corrected though wasn’t it? Yeah. Mitchell Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. All right for those of you that have an agenda we have an item 3A that we need to move and per our Board operational rules we hear all requests for continuances at the beginning of our session. We’ve had two requests for continuances and they are on item, last two on the agenda, items 2013-14-DSV and 2013-15-DSV. So, would the petitioners please or representatives please come forward on both of those? When you come to the microphone please state your name and your address, so that way we can keep the record for it. We will allow the petitioners for the continuance to present their case for the continuance and then if anybody wants to remonstrate against the continuance and ask that the matter be heard tonight would come forward and make their argument after the petitioner. Sir? Thomas My name is Rob Thomas and I’m here for 2013-14-DSV M. McMahon, 3863 Willow Road. Again, my name is Rob Thomas. My address is 3826 South 800 East, Zionsville, Indiana. Since providing notice we have had contact with several members of the Homeowners Association including an attorney, Mr. Andreoli, who has been retained by the Homeowners Association and it was at their request that we have additional time to sit down and meet and talk about the overall plan and how it may affect certain things in that neighborhood. I also learned about some history with this property and so we’re working through some of those issues as well. We plan to sit down with them next week, so we’re requesting additional time to sit down and have those meetings and come to you with a plan. Mitchell Great, thank you. Is there anybody here to speak against the continuance? Thomas Just for the record the group that’s standing out there are members of the neighborhood and I did talk to them and they had no objection to that. Mr. Andreoli is in Lebanon, is my understanding, at a hearing up there and we’ve been communicating all day, so he wanted to make sure that I said what I just said instead of moving forward, so I’m not aware of any objections. Mitchell All right. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Schanke I wonder how long are you asking for a month, two months? Thomas We’re really just asking that it be tabled until next meeting, September 10. Mitchell Any other additional questions? I would entertain a motion. Page 2 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Parks I move that we grant the continuance to the September 10 meeting for the Docket 2013-14-DSV. Mitchell Is there a second? Morical Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and seconded, any further discussion? Hearing none, all of those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. Thank you. Thomas Can I clarify real quick there’s no necessity for additional notice just on the record? DeLong No based upon the petition as filed. Thomas Okay. Drake That’s correct. Thomas Thank you very much. Mitchell Next item that has requested a continuance is item 2013-15-DSV Quail Run. Is there a petitioner or anybody here representing that matter? DeLong Mr. President on that matter Staff is requesting a continuance and it’s merely to allow the petitioner additional time to prepare for the Plan Commission and BZA hearings. Staff feels that the matter first should be discussed at the Parks Board as this project is next to a park infrastructure if you will, the trail and there’s contemplated connection to the trail system from the project. Therefore Staff is recommending the matter be continued to your September date without additional notice. Mitchell All right, thank you. Are there any questions for Staff regarding this matter? Hearing none, I’ll entertain a motion. Schanke I will make a motion that we continue Docket #2013-15-Development Standards Variance until the September 10, 2013 meeting. Morical Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and seconded, any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Page 3 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Mitchell Opposed nay. The matter has been continued to the September 10 meeting. Now we will start with continued business item #4 on the Agenda. Just to review how our rules of operation work we allow the petitioner to present their case to come forward first. They’re given 15 minutes to present their case. Any remonstrators are allowed 15 minutes to remonstrate, state their case against the petition. The petitioner is then given 5 minutes to rebut any of the evidence and finally the remonstrators are given the final 5 minutes to give the final rebutting of evidence. The Board can ask questions at any time throughout the presentation. That will not be counted against your time on either side and we’re fairly flexible on the time, so we don’t stand too hard on it. We just ask that you don’t repeat yourself or repeat what somebody else has already said. And anybody that does speak, please state your name and your address at the beginning of your statement, so therefore we can record it for the public minutes and if there is more than one petitioner or more than one remonstrator just line up at the microphone over here to await your chance. The first item on the docket is 2013-09-DSV under the name R. Smits. Address of the project is 8346 East 550 South. The item to be considered is a petition for development standards variance in order to allow a lot split of 12.4 acres into two lots of approximately 6.2 acres each in which both lots exceed the maximum lot width to depth ratio of 3.1 or 3 to 1 in the R1 residential 1 zoning district. Would the petitioner please come forward? Ray Hello, my name is Tim Ray. I reside at 6100 Eaglewood Drive. I will be speaking on behalf of Rick Smits. Do you need a copy of what I’m wanting to present? Mitchell Is it different than what you have given to Staff? Ray I’ve already given them, yeah it’s the same thing. Mitchell Okay Staff has made copies for us, so we have them in front of us. Ray Okay, great. What I would like to do is they currently have no immediate plans of developing the second lot. All they’re wanting to do is get permission to split it, so that in the future if they would want to build a house on it they could. They’re currently just going to remodel the existing home, so therefore it’s just opening up as an option for a new home in the future. With this split the front lot as you can see on this document. The front lot where the existing house is very close to the 3:1 ratio as it is. It is a little on the narrow side, but the back lot is well within the 3 to 1 ratio with the exception of a narrow driveway on the side. So by splitting it the front lot is a little out of regulation. It meets all of the other zoning rules and regulations to split. The other thing that I was going to say as far as requesting is that on that same page there you’ll notice that there are some other properties highlighted in yellow. Those properties have at some point been split and none of those seem to follow the same guidelines, so it seems as though as that has already set a precedent in that area that it is possible without too much of a burden to the community. Mitchell All right. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Wopshall Yeah, it’s my understanding this is an R1 residential property? Page 4 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Ray Yes. Wopshall It looks like there's farmland adjacent to both of these proposed lots. Is that— Ray That is correct. Wopshall So the question for Staff is do we have to be concerned that this is an Ag district or not? DeLong No, historically, we have not made any additional mention of the agricultural uses in the area beyond at the meeting. We wouldn’t look to execute unless the Board felt it necessary to execute a right to farm. Wopshall Oh okay. It looks like Ag all around it, except for two lots. Schanke Actually it looks like the left, if you look at that aerial photograph this looks, these two areas around it don’t appear too agricultural. It's this one. Wopshall Okay there may be a little break from the one yes okay, but the one on the north side is definitely next to an Ag area. As long as it's not of concern then we can go forward. DeLong No now Staff has not noted it as a concern, but certainly it’s up to the Board if you so desire to make that a commitment of an approval if you so choose to approve this condition. Schanke Well I’d like to go on the record as I generally do that I am opposed to flag lots and this is a classic flag lot if you will only because it’s used a lot in agricultural districts. I’m from the rural Zionsville area. Ray Yes sir. Schanke Where you’ll just have a strip of houses with flag lots behind them and then go down a road and think you’re in the city, but you’re really still in the country, so I’m against them and the ordinances or the zoning ordinances are clear on it. I did have one other note which was in the proposed statements of fact they state that the proposed one it just slightly exceeds it by 3.8 to 1 whereas Staff calculated that it was I believe 21 to 1 ratio, so it’s not a slight. Ray Although the narrowest part being the driveway. Schanke But that’s how you consider it a flag lot; however, we do as a Board, at least speaking for myself, we do have to take into consideration the physical attributes of the property and also as Staff pointed out we’ll listen to the Staff Report in a minute, there is a pond that would restrict the size of the driveway which would lower, get it more in compliance, so I just want to make that clear that yes there’s a lot next to it, I’m not sure what the number is on 550 that’s also a flag lot, but we tend to discourage that type of splitting of parcels. That’s all I’ll say. Page 5 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Mitchell All right thank you Mr. Schanke. Would you like to comment on his comment or? Okay, are there any remonstrators here on this petition tonight? Seeing none, we’ll hear the Staff Report. DeLong Thank you Mr. Chairman. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed. Staff has prepared updated findings of fact that are more in line with the 21-22 to 1 ratio. Staff cannot break it up like as described by the petitioner as Mr. Schanke is concentrating on. We have to look at that road frontage and calculate that as part of the request and Staff does give a lot of weight to the two factors as mentioned. One the presence of flag lots within 1,000 feet of this parcel there’s one within 1,000 feet to the east. There’s two flag lot projects or flag lot developments adjacent to the west. There’s one adjacent to the north. Certainly these are grandfathered development styles. Certainly, while our ordinances have been modernized to prohibit and/or discourage and prohibit flag lots for many different reasons, one for 911 access and simply finding a home in the event of some emergency. It’s up to the Board to consider these requests and this particular request is not requesting something that’s outside of the realm of something that’s provided for currently in this part of Zionsville. Secondly, and to a lesser extent, is the pond. Yes the lot could be designed to have the pond on two parcels. That’s merely for the convenience of future owners, but it does alleviate some level of headache if there is some issue between the two owners and the pond is part of that issue. With that said Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed and is happy to answer any questions and again I have revised findings of fact if the Board is so inclined to grant this petition this evening. Mitchell Any questions for Staff? Ray I do have one question or statement actually. If the pond is to become an issue the homeowners did state to me that they are not opposed to filling that in if that is an issue. Schanke I'm not sure what that would do. Ray I mean if they needed a little more room. Schanke It still would be way out of compliance, so. Mitchell Okay, are there any further questions or comments? Morical I have a quick question, so Wayne you have revised findings of fact? DeLong Correct. Morical Other than the ones that are – Mitchell They are on page 4 of the docket prepared by Staff for us. Morical So you have a revised set from the one that you distributed in advance. Page 6 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 DeLong Correct and those are – Parks Just two comments. One is if you look at the map you find at least this driveway is straight. There are two of them that are not. The other one is that I’m glad to see the pond staying in one, under one ownership because I remember not too long ago where we were dealing with the situation with a pond that’s going to be shared, have shared ownership and that created more issues for us than anything else in that particular petition. With that in mind I will move that Docket 2013- 09-DSV, the design standards variance to permit a lot depth to width ratio in excess of 3 to 1, but not in excess of 22 to 1 in the residential district for the property located at 8346 East 550 South be approved based upon the findings in the Staff Report as presented. Mitchell Motion has been made, is there a second? Morical Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and properly seconded, is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Schanke Aye. Mitchell Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you sir. The next item on the agenda is new business. First item is 2013-10-SE under the name J.Chacon, address 645 South 1100 East. It’s a petition for a special exception to allow for a new single family dwelling in an AG agricultural district. Would the petitioner please come forward? Chacon Hello, my name’s Jose Chacon. I’m the owner. Well my address is 645 South 1100 East. Okay. Next? What we tried to do over here on this, and I just want to explain this to you guys is just build a new home for our family. It used to be an old house over there that got caught on fire and we purchased the lot and we just want to convert a new house. It’s going to be good for everybody around it, you know, around us. Mitchell All right thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Schanke I had a comment. I’m quite familiar with this area and I wondered did you have to notice the Hamilton County Board of Aviation with a notice of the filing of the permit? Chacon No. Schanke And you are aware that you are adjacent to the Indianapolis Executive Airport and as in last week’s newspaper there’s been several articles about residential Page 7 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 development within one-quarter mile of the airport boundaries, so just make sure you’re aware of those. I too live very close to you and am in that same area so. Chacon Okay. Schanke The other thing is on the drawing it wasn’t quite clear. Is the septic system already there – Chacon Yeah, we just installed it last week. Schanke Okay, so it was, oh it’s been installed okay. Chacon Yeah. Schanke Never mind. That was the only comment I had because it is very, very close to the runway and you should, well I don’t know if they’ll have to – Mitchell Well then let’s hear, let’s have Staff give us the report. I’m sorry. Are there any remonstrators here against this? None have come forward. Staff Report please. DeLong Thank you Mr. Chairman. Staff is recommending approval of the special exception as filed. We, as noted for the record, this property is within proximity to the Indianapolis Executive Airport, so the petitioner has acknowledged that. Secondly this property is zoned agriculturally is within proximity to agricultural operations and with that statement the ordinance would require that a right to farm affidavit be executed and we’ve prepared that this evening for signature of the property owners. With that in mind Staff’s recommendation revolves almost solely around the fact that you had a, there’s a home here over two years ago and if this would have been within that two-year period of the fire event the petitioner could’ve rebuilt the home without the benefit of this hearing, so this is something that would’ve been permitted, except some more time has lapsed hence the filing and the discussion this evening. With all that in mind Staff is recommending approval subject to we have updated findings for you. I’ll pass those down for your review and certainly we are prepared to have executed the right to farm affidavit. Mitchell Mr. Chacon do you understand the right to farm document? Chacon Yes. Mitchell Okay, I just want to make sure it’s clear that you know what we’re talking about and are agreeable with that. Chacon Yeah. Mitchell Okay. For those in the audience that are just curious we have this right to farm agreement that we ask for people when they build a house in an agricultural district, so they won’t come in and complain that their neighbors are farming. Schanke The smells. Page 8 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Mitchell You laugh, but it’s been done, so. Schanke Or running a tractor at night or— Mitchell Now that everybody’s had a chance to review the revised findings of fact is there a motion? Parks I’ll move that the 2013-10-SE the Special Exceptions petition in the AG district for the property located at 645 South 1100 East be approved based upon the Staff Report as presented and also note that the petitioner as part of this approval is required to execute a right to farm acknowledgment documentation. Mitchell All right. Is there a second? Morical Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and seconded, is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. Thank you sir. Chacon Thank you. Mitchell Next item on the Agenda is 2013-11-DSV under the name R. Morehead. Address of the property is 10250 East 200 South. It’s a petition for Development Standards Variance of the AG Agricultural District in order to one, allow continued presence of accessory structures whose combined square footage exceeds the square footage of the primary structure and two, allow for accessory structures to exceed the height of the primary structure. Would the petitioner please come forward? Morehead That’s me. I’m Rachel Morehead. Address 10250 East 200 South. Mitchell All right, okay. DeLong Mr. Chairman before we get started here we do want to clarify the deed reflects William Wilson. Morehead That’s my father. DeLong That’s your father. Morehead He’s just a co-signer on the loan. DeLong But he’s also on the deed. Is he – Morehead No, he doesn’t even live in this state. Page 9 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Drake I’m sorry. What did you say? Morehead He doesn’t live in this state. Drake Well, according to the deed, he owns the property jointly. Morehead Right, with my husband. Drake And we do not have a consent from him for this matter. We only have the consent from your husband and they are joint owners with the right of survivorship. Morehead Okay. Drake So we should also have a consent from him, as well, as the property owner. Morehead Okay. DeLong Yeah, this was just realized this evening. Morehead Okay. DeLong So. And if he’s out of state and apparently he’s not here this evening. It puts the Board in a bind for this particular discussion this evening. Schanke Unfortunately, I got that into a vehicle I purchased once. I think we’ll have to have the document from them to support the petition. Morehead Okay. DeLong Counsel, is that? Drake I’m sorry, but when I reviewed it that is what the deed showed and if something were to happen literally to your husband, Shay, tonight the gentleman whose consent has not been given would own the property. Morehead Okay. Drake So we’d need to have his consent as well that he’s also authorizing you to go forward with this request. Morehead Okay. So do we reschedule or? I mean or just – Mitchell Yes, yes, yes. Morehead Okay. Mitchell So we will continue the matter to the September 10 hearing. Page 10 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Drake I recommend you do a motion with a vote. Mitchell As Chair I will make a motion that we continue the matter 2013-11-DSV until the September 10, 2013 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Is there a second? Morical Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion or questions for Staff? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. Schanke Just a point of clarification for the petitioner, will she just file a notarized letter? Or, do we have a form she should file? Drake If you look in your packet there is an owner’s authorization that she did obtain from Shay Morehead. A similar one needs to be obtained from the other gentleman. Mitchell Right. Schanke And you can deliver that at any time to the office before the September meeting, actually before. Mitchell All right thank you. Next item on the Agenda is 2013-12-DSV under the name I. Cummings. The property is at 355 Walnut Street. It’s a petition for Development Standards Variance in order to allow installation of a room addition, deck, and patio that exceeds the allowable lot coverage in an RV, Residential Village zoning district of 35 percent to 41.9 percent. Would the petitioner please come forward? Whetro Donald Whetro on behalf of the homeowner Ingrid Cummings. My business address is 1016 3rd Avenue, Southwest, Suite 206, Carmel, 46032. Mitchell Please go ahead and present your case. Whetro Right. The request is for a variance for the development standards. Ms. Cummings seeks to do a room addition and outdoor living space on her property at 355 Walnut. From the conceptual site plan that’s been prepared you’ll note that the room addition and the deck pergola actually fall within the development standard guideline of 35 percent lot coverage, so we’re seeking the variance really for the accessory deck and paver patio area that’s pictured in the conceptual site plan. In my cover letter you’ll note that we acknowledge that management of rain water, ground water is of utmost concern in residential redevelop--, not necessarily redevelopment areas, but this the Village like Old Town Carmel has limited infrastructure which we acknowledge and Staff I think recommendation which we agreed to early in our letter would be we’re interested Page 11 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 in installing pervious paver or flagstone or concrete type material for the patio to address those issues. Mitchell Right and you’d be willing to accept that as a condition of approval? Whetro We would. Mitchell Are there any questions for the petitioner? Is there anybody here to remonstrate against this, item 2013-12-DSV at 355 Walnut Street? Hearing none, Staff Report. DeLong Thank you Mr. Chairman. Staff is recommending approval of the petition certainly as amended this evening, so the recommended motion would be first suggested recommended motion for you supporting the 6.9 percent coverage with the pervious pavers. Again, the percentage if you will is something that Staff found that is present in the area at this particular site, or in this particular part of the Village. Certainly, it is indicated that it’s good management to take as best care you can of storm water and the pervious pavers would do that. Again, Staff is recommending approval and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mitchell Right. I’d like to ask Staff a specific question about what they just recommended and it was your statement that it is common, exceeding in this portion of the RV area, could you expand on that a little bit more? DeLong Yes certainly. I mean certainly the Village is a very dynamic area. There are some portions of the Village that have lot coverages that are well in excess of current zoning standards. There’s portions of the Village that are within the standards and really what Staff is challenged to do for you is to, I mean we enjoy doing it, we're not against it, we want to dive in and look, and do an analysis for you as to, you know, what the request is based upon what is in the adjoining area. You cannot look at Linden Street and compare it to Main Street or look at Walnut Street and compare it to Linden Street. You need to look at these areas in more very specific review, so in this particular case we are mid-block. We are not a corner lot and looking at the lot size that is provided which is 50 feet wide and looking at the comparisons with other lots that are in proximity to this lot we do find that a 42 percent, if you will, lot coverage is something that is prevalent, prevalent is the wrong word, it’s something that you would find common in this area. Mitchell So let me understand even though the RV residential village zoning district covers a large area you still look at individual isolated, not isolated, I would say individualized developments within that larger RV area in making your determination. DeLong Making our recommendation for you and that’s a great comment related to the petition that’s coming up. The next petition on your docket where that lot is 40 feet wide rather than 50 feet wide. It just literally has different dimensions, so there’s different fabric to think about. Page 12 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Mitchell All right thank you. Are there any questions for Staff regarding this petition? Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Schanke Just to clarify the open pavers will be in the proposed patio and walkway to the garage portion of the project. Whetro That is correct. Schanke Well I will make a motion on Docket #2013-12-DSV that provided the petitioner installs impervious pavers in the proposed patio area in the drawings presented of 244 more or less square feet that the variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 6.9 percent in the Residential Village district for this property located at 355 Walnut Street be approved as, be approved. DeLong Mr. Schanke just for the record to make sure we’re clear. Schanke Yes. DeLong You’re indicating requiring pervious pavers. Schanke Oh. Whetro Right. Schanke Yes, pervious. Roofs are impervious, yes. Pavers that the water can drain through. Whetro Understood. Mitchell Yes. Schanke Sorry about that. Mitchell Is there a second to the motion? Morical Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and properly 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. Thank you sir. Metro Thank you. Mitchell Next item on the Agenda is petition #2013-13-DSV the property under the name of D. Brush. Address of the property is 200/250 North Main Street. It’s a petition for development standards variance to exceed the RV Residential Village, zoning district lot coverage requirements of 35 percent to 42 percent in Page 13 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 order to build a new single family dwelling with a garage. Would the petitioner please come forward? Thomas Mr. President my name is Rob Thomas. Again, my address is 3826 South 800 East, Zionsville, Indiana 46077. I represent the petitioner Zach Chapman on behalf of the homeowners and the potential homeowners. Mr. Chapman is a local builder who has built several homes in the Zionsville area including a home located at 275 North Main Street. The petition has to do with similar to the one right before us is the change in the Development Standards Variance to allow construction of a single family home with a lot coverage of 42 percent from the required 35 percent. We would note that the lot is a 5,000 square foot lot and we’re talking about a difference of 350 square feet. With the petition I have provided a copy of a survey from Hahns Surveying showing the location of any improvements, which there are none on this spot. It is one of the only, to my knowledge, the only vacant lot currently existing on Main Street that is potentially buildable, so it’s kind of an exciting project for Main Street and Zionsville and the Village as it comes to that. Also, I have a diagram showing the proposed dimensions of the residence and a garage showing--, of the residence and the garage showing approximately how they will lay out on the lot and a diagram of the floor plan of the residence. Also, hot off the presses I have something that I’d like to present and it shows the elevations, the proposed elevations, as I think it’s important to indicate the character of the development that will be there and how it does conform with the Village RV district. May I present that to the Board? Mitchell Yes, please. Thomas As you can see from that the builder and the potential homeowner have really worked hard to get a design for the proposed plan that is very in line with what is happening at that end and the quality of construction will be unquestioned. The second sheet of that is what the view would be from First Street and as you can see it’s got a real carriage house look from First Street and part of the problem that we face with a 35 percent limit is the extent of having a garage on there and as many of you know Main Street does have parking issues at times and as far as from a safety concern our client and the potential homeowner are very much concerned about having proper parking and as such they’ve kind of needed to expand that garage a little bit to make sure that they can get in and out of there safely and quickly to get off of First Street, especially at certain times of the day as it’s more traveled during that time frame. We are aware that the Staff is proposing that 40 percent instead of 42 percent. I would just note that a home two or three doors down is 45 percent. We don’t believe that that’s out of character and I wanted to bring out Mr. Chapman to kind of address some of the concerns that he’s had as he talked to potential homeowners that are looking to build in the Village and so if Mr. Chapman could come up here if it’s all right with you guys. Mitchell Please. Chapman Zach Chapman, address 1175 Williamsburg Lane, Zionsville, Indiana. As Mr. Thomas had mentioned earlier, I did a project on Main Street five years or so ago Page 14 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 just adjacent across the street to this project, actually tried to purchase this lot at that time and was not able to do so. Since acquiring this lot I’ve had probably five to six very interested buyers. Somebody got there before they did or I would have five buyers. A lot of the feedback that I’ve had from the clients and the demographic looking to build in the Village, not only on this lot, but other potential building sites has been the need and desire for a main floor master. That is another problem that we’ve tried to address and give to what the potential buyers want and in order to do that we really need to be at that 42 percent because the difference from I believe what the Staff has recommended at 42, that 42 percent would then eliminate us being able to put that main floor master in this house whether it’d be this client or the other five clients that I’ve spoken with about this project. As you can see with this line drawing it is a very basic drawing. There’s no bracketing, overhangs or any of those types of details on this yet, but I can assure you in the conversations with the client the material that is going to be used on this is going to be very in line with actually what was used 20 to 30 years ago versus what you’re seeing used today. The cedar shake that we plan on using is a true cedar shake, not a fiber cement cedar shake. They want to keep that true feel of that type of style at home. The trim that will be used on this house is also a cedar trim not of a fiber cement type trim, so with all that being said I think, I’ll go to the carriage house real quick with the garage, that’s kind of what we’re modeling that after. The reason we’re going with more of a detached look instead of an attached garage is in order with First Street being behind us that’s going to give the clients a better green space in between those two structures which also then gives a little more privacy as the cars pass on First Street to allow for them to get access out of the rear of the house. And as far as all of these plans go setbacks that are required under the current ordinance will all be met. We’re not asking for any exception to any setbacks. It’s just the actual coverage of the lot. Thomas I would also just point out real quick that we have had conversations with the surrounding neighbors, Mr. Wagner, to the south owns that lot and he specifically had advised me that he was okay with it. Across the street he was okay with it and then Mary Jane O’Brien is here tonight and we’ve talked to her about that and she indicated that she was okay with it. If I may speak for her, but if she wants to remonstrate she can get up here, but we’ve had an opportunity to talk to them and explain things. The only one I haven’t been able to talk to is Mrs. Carter who owns the apartments back behind there, so. As far as I know there’s no remonstrators, and so we’re respectfully requesting that the Board approve the variance request as submitted at 42 percent and again we’re available for any questions that you might have. Mitchell I do have a question for Mr. Chapman. In your conversations with potential homebuyers have they also indicated that they would like a patio or something outside. Chapman Yes and even though on the drawings that you see do not show those patios because we don’t have those plans to that point. There will be some of that on this and that will still stay within the 42 percent that we’re asking for. We’re not asking for additional for those areas, so if we’re approved at that 42 percent I’ll Page 15 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 work with the client to keep patios, porches, all of those areas that are under the ordinance at the 42 percent. Mitchell Okay, so the drawing, I’m not sure what it’s marked, with the Main Street layout of it within this square will be some type of patio. Chapman Correct. There is now, since we’ve designed that from when we initially submitted that for the 42 percent there was some offsets and some elevations that we’ve added to the house throughout the design phase, but yes the patio and covered porches fall within that box that you see on there. Mitchell Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there additional questions for the petitioner? Parks Yep. What is the square footage if you don’t have a patio or a deck? What is the square footage of these two buildings themselves, percent of the lot. Chapman I can’t answer that exactly what 42 percent of 5,000 feet. I don’t remember off the top of my head. I believe that’s 2,150 may be. I’m not sure what that is. Mitchell 42 percent is 2,100. Chapman 2,100 of total footprint coverage. Mitchell But that includes the patio? Chapman That includes patios. That includes covered porches. I understand that at that 2,100 what is allowed within that 2,100, so that house may end up being 1,900 of that with patio then being 200. It wouldn’t be 2,100 with an additional request. Mitchell But you don’t have that breakdown necessarily at this point? Chapman I don’t because we haven’t, we didn’t go that far with those exterior designs until we knew where we were going to go with the variance request, but I do have that that I could provide you know, but again we’re not final on those plans. Mitchell All right. Schanke I have a different type question. I noticed both in the elevation and the plan that there is a stairway up to the top of the carriage house, is there going to be a, is that going to be livable space up there or is it just storage space. Chapman There will be some livable space up there and that would be more used as an office like a studio. Schanke Is it going to be like an apartment or? Page 16 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Chapman There’s really no plans of an apartment. It would be more for the homeowners' use as like I said a studio. I mean actually the stairs on that are within the garage, so those are not visible from the exterior of the garage, so those are within that footplate that we submitted. Schanke But it will be heated, cooled, water. Chapman Yes that is the plan at this point. Schanke All right I still have a, and I think a lot of people have eluded to it, surely that drawing is not to scale. Chapman That drawing is not to scale because I took a survey that came over from Hahns that was then and when I put that on that lot it looks like we’re probably sitting at 85 percent, but I can assure you it’s at 42 percent. Schanke And there’s no north arrow, but that’s all right. Chapman But yes you are correct that is not to scale. Mitchell Additional questions. Schanke Let’s get the Staff Report, to summarize it. Mitchell All right thank you. Is there anybody here to speak against or remonstrate against the issue or to have further comments about the project? You don’t necessarily have to talk about bad things you can just talk about what your feelings are on it. O’Brien Good evening. I’m Mary Jean O’Brien and I’m the neighbor next door. Just a question – Mitchell Give your address. O’Brien Oh, the house next door is 260 North Main Street. This is not a yeah or a nay. It’s just a question concerning any precedent having been set for a 7-foot setback in the back property from the garage and my question is just when another person is pulling out from their garage onto First Street to make either a turn north or turn south has there been a precedent that the 7-foot setback is—just a question, just came to me now. What on First Street, what is typical when you look down First Street, are there any other garages or carriage houses out that far? And maybe that’s nothing to be concerned about; however, you know it’s just a question. I guess that’s a front and setback aggregate now. I’m just curious for that safety issue of pulling out from your garage in the back when you have just 7 feet from your garage door and onto Main Street. I didn’t even look at it. I just looked at it right now on the drawing. I’d like to go back and look at it for curiosity sake. Rob, can you answer? I don’t know. Page 17 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Thomas If I may, I believe that the lot line does not go all the way to the right-of-way line or it goes to the right-of-way line, but then there’s additional space there before you get to First Street. O’Brien Okay. Thomas So your lot line and their lot line there’s additional space there other than just the 7 feet. O’Brien Okay. Thomas And I don’t know exactly what that is, but I think we can get that information. O’Brien Okay. Thomas Does that make sense? Mitchell Wayne, do you concur with his statement? DeLong Right, what you would look for, for that setback utilizing front yard setback averaging First Street is would have a front yard and so we’re looking at the structures that are out along First Street and these other garages. I do not know offhand if 7 feet would be the true number that has come to at the end of the day, but it certainly appears to be something less than the current ordinance standard and that’s something that’s built into the zoning code to give that relief by right where there’s a reduction in the actual front yard setback. O’Brien Is that staked now? The back line is staked where the edge of that garage would go? Thomas We have not had a staked survey at this point in time. O’Brien Okay. Thomas But, I believe that if you look up and down there that First Street has a substantial right-of-way, not substantial, but it has a right-of-way on both sides in addition to where the road is and that provides a buffer from that, with that back out and if you look down the line with the additional garages I believe that that is what you’d see. O’Brien It’s in line. Thomas But we’re not seeking a deviation from the setback lines at all. O’Brien Okay. Thank you all. Mitchell Thank you. Are there any further comments or questions from the audience? Hearing none, Staff Report. Page 18 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 DeLong Thank you and certainly as discussed this evening in great detail the lot coverage issues, the lot coverage requests need to be looked at not on a holistic view of the whole Village. The Village district runs from Bob Harris, Harris family property south of Sycamore all the way up to Ash Street, so certainly the Village district is a pretty large area. With that in mind this particular parcel is mid-block is similar to the petition as discussed on Walnut Street and when Staff was reviewing the lot coverages in this area on Main Street. Lot coverages range from below 35 percent to 36 percent to 45 percent. In particular 45 percent, I’m not aware of which property was mentioned by the petitioner, but certainly 210 North Main. These corner lots generally have a heavier lot coverage and that one did look from looking and review of the property record cards and aerial photographs to come out to be 45 percent, so Staff is not certainly trying to split hairs here this evening at 42 or 40 percent. Simply saying 40 percent seem to be the number that Staff came to that we could certainly come to you with a recommendation this evening of support. Certainly, if you’re inclined to support the 42 percent that’s certainly your prerogative, but again Staff reviewed this on a pretty circled-in basis and finding ranges from 36 to 40 percent with 45 percent being on the corner there. Hence that’s where Staff is coming from with the recommendation of 40 percent and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Wayne, as you’re calculating lot coverage you’re looking at not only the main house, but also at the garage, correct? DeLong Any accessory uses, so basically accessory uses are a garage, an accessory building, a covered front porch. Basically anything that’s under roof and any deck that would stick out from a house that’s not under roof. Morical So as we look at this satellite image that you provided as part of the Staff Report it appears that there are a number of houses in this area that don’t have garages. Is that correct? DeLong Certainly that appears to be the case. Wopshall What is your perception of the size of the house itself relative to the neighborhood and other homes in that area? Is that an appropriate sized structure? DeLong It certainly is very comparable. In fact I have several BUFF cards here this evening and in looking at square footages of homes, footprints of 1,000 square feet, 1,230 square feet, 1,400 square feet, so certainly the home as proposed, the base footprint not counting any second floor story and a half is certainly very comparable. Since you asked I’ll look to see if the BUFF cards, the ones that I pulled happen to describe garages. A garage of 20 x 20, utility shed 8 x 10, no garage. I can’t really say this is a very fair comparison of the garage information. I didn’t pull it for that point, but certainly like you mentioned the aerial photograph doesn’t reveal a large number of large garages and your typical garage 20 x 20 at a minimum certainly in this area built prior to the modern automobile the garages may be smaller just because they were designed for smaller cars. Page 19 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Schanke Are there any two-story, this appears to be two-story and we had elevations of the carriage house at 21 feet, 9 to the top of the ridge, but this appears to be two- story. Visually I just wondered if that would – DeLong I think there’s a mixture of one and two-story, story and a half homes through there. Maybe Mr. Thomas can speak further to that? Schanke Well that’s fine. That’s just a question. No, that’s fine, that’s fine. Thomas Story and a half. Mitchell All right are there any further questions for Staff or comments from the Board? And the Chair will take the privilege of making a comment. I know the request of the petition exceeds the requirements and exceeds what Staff would like to see, but my feeling is exactly what was stated previously in today’s era of modern car size it’s larger garages are needed partially for safety reasons for people coming in and out, the ability for them to get in and out of First Street safely and quickly is important. I think this being the first lot in one of the remaining lots up and down Main Street that will be developed I think it’s important that they keep with the architectural style yet understand that modern demands for housing facilities have changed and my feeling is we would like to encourage as much as possible people to continue to live in our downtown which I think they will because I think there’s a high demand with building something new that meets the modern demands is very important and I think the variation that we’re looking at of 7 percent over and then only 2 percent over Staff’s recommendation is not unwarranted in this situation and we all walk around town and we see the lot coverages that do exist, so my inclination is that it’s not an onerous request for the group. Anybody else like to make comments? Parks I also call attention to the fact that the access to the second story in the garage is an indoor stairway as opposed to outdoor which has some real benefit. I happen to have a garage just like this and use the second floor as my office at this point in time and it is a great way of providing segregation while still being at home. Morical No and I agree that this appears to be a reasonable petition and that there’s value in encouraging people to build garages, downtown in particular to help bring vehicles from the side of the street and to a safer location for everybody and to clear that space for other uses. Mitchell Similar to our previous request, would the petitioner be open to having any outside patio areas be pervious materials? Chapman We’re fine with that. Mitchell Okay, so that’s something you would agree to in our recommendation? Chapman Yeah, again they just -- Drake Sir, can you please be on the microphone? Page 20 of 21 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals August 13, 2013 Chapman Yes, we’d be open to that. The plan would be out back whatever patio areas would be, would be naturally into the green space, not some big slab of concrete with a lot of runoff. Mitchell And again something that would allow the rainwater to go through? Chapman Correct. Mitchell Okay, thank you. Thank you. Wopshall I’m in agreement with the other Board Members on what you’re trying to do. I look at the floor plan for the house which is probably close to what you’re going to do and it’s a very modest house. You really can’t take anything out of the house, so I think our question is the size of the garage. It’s our issue we have to think about. Thomas And I believe that’s 16 square feet extra I think 24 x 24 versus the typical 20 x 20. I believe that’s only 16 square feet. Parks And I put a 24-foot in because I had a Suburban at the time. Thomas Yeah, yeah. Just we’re concerned, you know, door dings and those things or something that everybody’s concerned. Mitchell All right, somebody would like to make a motion if there’s no further discussion. Morical I move that Docket 2013-13-DSV Design Standards Variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage by 7 percent in the Residential Village district for the property located at 250 North Main Street be approved as filed with the condition that any patio surface be built out of pervious material. Parks Second. Mitchell Okay, a motion has been 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. Thank you sir. Thomas Thank you very much. Mitchell All right, we have covered everything on our agenda tonight with no other matters to be considered. I call the meeting adjourned. Page 21 of 21