Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Greg Morical, Al Wopshall, Steve Schanke, and Jay Parks. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Schanke Good evening. I would like to call the October meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals to order. We begin every meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. If you could all rise. All Pledge. Schanke Thank you. Wayne, would you please call the attendance? DeLong Yes. Mr. Mitchell? DeLong Mr. Morical? Morical Here. DeLong Mr. Schanke? Schanke Present. DeLong Mr. Wopshall? Wopshall Present. DeLong Mr. Parks? Parks Present. Schanke We do have a quorum present, so we will be able to conduct business. The first thing on the agenda is, actually should we talk about the agenda first? DeLong With the continuances. Schanke Yes, if you picked up an agenda out there you will see that some of the items particularly the old business dockets 2013-15, 2013-20, and 2013-16, all three of those will not be considered tonight. The first two have been continued until the November 12 meeting and the last one 2013-16 Development Standards Variance has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Do we need a motion to approve the agenda? Probably not. So with that in mind we will begin with the approval of the minutes from the September meeting. Does the Board have any comments on those minutes? I believe they were all in your package. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 Drake You really can’t approve those this evening because of the difference in the membership, who was there and who’s here tonight. Schanke That’s correct, thank you. Counsel has reminded me that since two of the members present tonight were not in attendance last month we do not have a quorum as it applies to approving the minutes, so we will approve the minutes next month. So we will begin with the new business. What’s going to happen tonight is the petitioner will be asked to come up. They will have 15 minutes to make their presentation to us after which anyone that is in support of the petition can come up and speak. After that any remonstrators, anyone wishing to remonstrate against them will have, will have 15 minutes to remonstrate. Then the petitioner will have five minutes to respond to that and finally the remonstrators will have five minutes to respond back to that second response. So, with that in mind, we will begin with the first item of new business which is 2013-19 Development Standards Variance at 651 Spring Hill Drive. This is a petition for a Development Standards Variance in order to allow an existing accessory structure to exist within the 40-foot building setback line in the R2 rural zoning district of the Town of Zionsville. Is the petitioner here? I forgot to mention. Everyone that speaks, please state your name and your address for the record. This is a public hearing, so everything will be in the public record. Benge My name is Magdalene F. Benge. I reside at 651 Spring Hill Drive, Zionsville, Indiana. I have been there for 19 years. I am asking for the exception to the variance because #1 what we did is we just added on to an existing shed that was already there. Through my ignorance I did not know that we needed anything because the other shed was already there. In order to make it all alike we took and we sided it, so it wouldn’t be an eyesore. At this point in time the way our land lies there is no other place for us to have it. I need somewhere to store my lawn equipment. I’m also retiring, so I would like to have the addition that we made as a little workshop. I do a little woodworking, stained glass, and things like that. That’s basically all I have, sir. Any questions? Schanke Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or in support of this or remonstrate against this petition? If so, please come forward and speak. McKee My name is William McKee. I reside at 653 Spring Hills Drive in Zionsville. My property’s adjacent to 651 Spring Hills Drive. I’m here tonight to oppose this variance and you know it’s been applied for because you know there is a 40’ building setback line that was established when Spring Hills Drive was originally developed. I oppose this variance for several reasons. First of all, the mini barn in question is unsightly. They’ve still got two mini barns that were attached end- to-end. We’ve got two different roof levels. It was wrapped in vinyl. It’s too close to the road. This property is one of the first properties you see when you pull into the addition, so it’s not very complimentary to the addition. I feel like that it’s a negative impact on my property value. I feel like if I ever decide to try to sell my property I think it could eliminate some potential buyers because I think it gives the impression that we really don’t care about what’s placed in the neighborhood and I’m worried that if this variance is approved then what else can they do. I mean can they add onto it again or can they put it someplace else in the building setback line? Page 2 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 I think the 40’ setback line was established to protect the property owners in Spring Hills, you know, to keep the integrity of the property and I’m not the only property owner that has concerns about this. Since only a few of us were notified by certified letter, you know the surrounding property owners, I put together a petition opposing this variance and of the 22 property owners in Spring Hills Drive I got 18 signatures that oppose it, so you can see that over 80 percent oppose this variance and that’s why we’re here tonight, so thank you for your time and your consideration. Schanke Petitioner would you care to respond to that? Benge Yes. We did exactly what the Board asked us to do. We went over to the Boone County. We got the number of names. We sent out registered letters to everyone who they suggested that was in that cul de sac and I think we only got like 15 back out of the ones. The other reason that it’s kind of hard for us to have any place else to put a shed is because of the drainage. If I may approach we just – Schanke Yes. Benge I would just like to show these pictures. This was taken with this last rainfall and the water comes in on our property, so I have had to actually re-ditch my entire property back where they say, they suggested I could put a shed. That’s over $6,000 that I have put into my drainage. I know that there’s probably no way to stop the water from coming over, but if I put a shed back in that area where they say it’s permissible then I’ve ruined my drainage and I’m still going to have the problem. This shed will be no use to me because if I want to go and it’s raining or it’s rained it takes at least two to three days for that to dry, so my shed would not be accessible to me and I just feel that with the exception to the variance that I could at least have access to my shed. Thank you. Schanke Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this petition? Please come forward. State your name and address. Posha Rick Posha, I live at 657 Spring Hills Drive and I’m against this variance also. It’s a real eyesore and in fairness to the petitioner her contractor has some culpability here because I’ve been in the business 40 years and the first thing we check is if we need a, no matter what it is, to see if we need a permit, so I don’t think it’s totally on her. I think she was led the wrong way by a contractor, but nevertheless it is a hodgepodge of a couple of buildings put together. It looks pretty bad and as for not having any place else to put it there’s nothing I’d like more than to put a pole barn in my back yard, but I absolutely have no place to put it. Just because you want it there doesn’t make it okay, so it’s clearly against the covenants of the subdivision. I think it needs to be removed. Thanks. Schanke Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Come forward. If there is anyone else you can cue up. Paynter Good evening, Dave Paynter, 658 Spring Hills Drive. I’m second generation in the house that we live in now. My parents built it in 1965. I have one of the Page 3 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 original plans of the neighborhood. Pretty well go with everything that’s already been stated against it so far, so I won’t repeat anything. One thing I will point out that the issue that we’re addressing is the first house in the entrance of the addition, so you have the first, as soon you approach into the drive the first thing you see is this so called mini barn and it’s not attractive at all, so that’s why I’m here to speak out against it also. Thank you. Schanke Anyone else, last chance. Seeing no one else I will close the public input portion of this hearing and we will discuss it amongst the Board. Do you want the Staff Report first? DeLong I’d certainly be happy to provide that for you first. Schanke That’s fine. DeLong Thank you Mr. Chairman. Staff is recommending denial of this petition as filed. Certainly Staff recognizes that the property was improved in 1985 with a 10 x 12 shed. Again this is per county records. This shed was 120 square feet. Certainly it’s unfortunate that the property has been further improved with an expansion to the existing shed. Staff looks at this petition and certainly reviews the property. We cannot take into consideration the cost if you will to improve the property to change the drainage to allow for this same size shed to be located in another manner. That cost is unfortunately not something that the Staff can look at. From a review standpoint we are bound by the State code and coming with the findings to you and also out of your zoning code itself. Again, Staff is recommending denial of the petition and certainly happy to answer any questions. Schanke Does the Board have any comments, discussion, questions? The Chair will entertain a motion. Parks I would move that Docket #2012-19-DSV, Development Standards, is it 2012 or 2013? DeLong 2013. Parks 2013-19-DSV, Design [sic] Standards Variance to permit the establishment of 199 square foot utility shed within the platted front setback of a residential R2 district for the property located at 651 Spring Hills Drive be denied with negative findings of fact being adopted at the November meeting as presented. Morical Second. Schanke A motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? I’ll call for the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? All Aye. Schanke The motion carries. The next item on the agenda is 2013-21 again a Development Standards Variance. This is located at 9410 East 200 South and Page 4 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 it’s a petition for a variance in order to permit the establishment of a 1.6 acre lot in the R2 low-density single family zoning district where the restriction 1.2 acres. Petitioner? Kouns Dawn Kouns, 9370 East 200 South in Zionsville. We’d like to request a Development Standards Variance for a 1.6-acre parcel that’s located at 9410 East 200 South. It’s the west tract. We had a soil sample completed and it’s been deemed suitable for a septic. There’s a letter in your packet that shows Boone County Health Department does verify that it is suitable for septic. The surrounding area has other properties. There are six properties within a quarter mile to half a mile that are an acre or slightly less, so it does fit within the surrounding community’s makeup. All but one of the surrounding homeowners have a tree line that buffers this property, so it won’t impact them as far as being able to see a house developed on that property. The exception is our house which is right next to this piece of property and another neighbor who has a 2.4-acre parcel in between that. The proposed purchaser of this property is a Zionsville Police Officer, so we actually think this might add to security in that area. The presence of a police car does help with that. Finally the property, the purchase price projected for this piece of property that we’d like to have the Development Standards Variance on is the second highest of the properties sold according to the MLS, multiple listing system, within the last year, so we think it would increase property values of that area. Schanke Anyone wishing to speak in support of the petitioner or opposed? Ulmer My name is John Almer, 1880 South 950 East. I’m an adjoining property owner and I’m in favor of this variance. The reason I’m speaking in favor of it to put a septic system in there it will require that a perimeter drain for the septic system have an easement across my property in order to properly design it and be passed by the Boone County Health Department and I have no problem of granting such an easement when that gets down to the building permit platting stage, so I just didn’t want that hanging out there. That you could put in a septic system and then really not, you could approve the variance and then not be able to satisfactorily put in a septic system, so I just wanted to clear that up. Schanke Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Rose My name is Ed Rose and I’m the Trustee of the Rose Family Trust and we have the property that adjoins this property to the eastern edge and we share a property line of 374 feet in length and I have no objections to this variance whatsoever. Schanke Anyone else wish to speak? West Hi, my name is Fiona West and I live at 9355 East 180 South and my property, the woods of my property will be behind where they’re going to build the house and I’m not really opposed, except my only concern is the drainage for it. I do not want the perimeter drainage on my property. It has been asked of me to let it be drained into my woods and other than that I have no problems as long as it’s not draining into my woods. Okay, thank you. Page 5 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 Schanke Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public input portion of this petition. I think again I’ll ask for the staff report first and then if you could address a little bit on this drainage permit. Could we make that a requirement for the ILP or is that a requirement for the ILP? I’ll turn it over to you, Wayne. DeLong Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the BZA. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed and I would note and recommend a motion that Docket #2013-21-DSV for variance for a parcel at 1.6 acres. Again, Staff is recommending approval. I would note that per the Boone County GIS as a review as of Monday the 2.4-acre tract that has been divided off from this 1.6- acre tract has not been absorbed into the Rose land. It is required to be absorbed into that parcel, so we’re not creating a new buildable site. Certainly if it is the intention to create a buildable site that’s certainly someone can do that, that just needs to be accomplished through a subdivision plat, so it’s either establish the lot legally through a subdivision plat or have the parent tract absorbed into the adjoining land. Again, either way is perfectly acceptable. With the drainage comment, specific to the septic system, a perimeter drain that provides positive drainage from the new septic system is a requirement of the building code, and it is a requirement of the Boone County Health Department, so we would certainly anticipate that that would be complied with 100 percent at time of installation. If that is not provided for and Mr. Ulmer’s easement is required that’s certainly something the property owner and the future homebuilder can pursue, but again Staff is recommending approval and I would be happy to answer any questions. Schanke Thank you. Board do we have any discussion on this petition? Hearing none the Chair will accept a motion. Parks I’ll move that the Docket 2013-21-DSV for Development Standards Variance to permit the establishment of a 1.6 acre parcel utilizing a septic system within the residential district for the property located at 9410 East 200 South be approved based upon petitioner’s findings as presented. Morical Second. Schanke Offer the question. All those in favor signify by say aye? All Aye. Schanke The motion carries. The next item on the agenda is 2013-22. Again, it’s another Development Standards Variance for 620 South Main Street. It is a petition for a variance to allow a 22 square foot projecting sign at approximately 20 feet above the grade level in The Village business zoning district and a projecting sign is one that sticks out and can be read from the sides versus a surface sign. Petitioner. Price Absolutely. Mr. President my name is Matt Price. I’m here tonight on behalf of Harris FLP, the property owner, and Mr. Harris is with me tonight and the owner of the restaurant for which the sign is proposed which is Bub’s Burgers and Ice Cream and Matt Fry, the owner of Bub’s, is with me this evening. Let me hand out a few supporting materials and I’ll make my presentation and answer any Page 6 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 questions that the Board has tonight. First behind Tab 1 you’ll see a brief description of the sign in narrative form. It is for a 22 square foot sign where a 12-foot square sign would be permitted. It is in the Village Business District, but this is in the portion of the Village Business District that extends south of Sycamore Street or 334, so it’s along that segment of road between 106th and 334 that sometimes we locally refer as to Zionsville Road as well. The property is essentially the gateway to The Village, but it does have different traffic patterns than what’s found in the downtown Main Street where there are bricks, slower traffic, and also much smaller buildings than the one proposed here. As mentioned in the staff report this sign would be located approximately 20 feet above grade on a building that’s 34-1/2 feet tall approximately and has a 60 foot front façade and so, in essence for this sign it’s orientation on a very large structure on a heavily traveled thoroughfare at faster speeds than what’s found on Main Street north of 334. It’s essentially proportional to the structure that’s being built and as you can see is now under construction. If you look behind Tab 2 you’ll see kind of the general orientation of the site. You’re familiar with it. It was part of a development plan approved last November. The northern most structure is the Bub’s Burger facility, extending south are shops that are going to be starting construction later this fall. If you turn to Tab 3 there is a picture of the façade looking south. You’ll see that, as the President described it is a projecting sign, so that it is visible from both the north and the south, essentially for travelers coming up and down Main Street. That’s kind of a distance view, but it gives you an idea of that elevation and then behind Tab 4 is a closer up picture of the proposed sign seeing the details for it. It’s going to be made out of the same materials as are being used for the sign at the Carmel location for Bub’s which is in the Carmel Arts and Design District and that’s described more fully behind Tab 1 as well. It’s a solid, what we call HDU or high-density urethane. It’s sandblasted and carved. It is externally lit, so it’s not an internally lit sign and we think very much in keeping with the urban design characteristics for the overall project and will provide reasonable visibility to travelers. Because of that proportionality we think it’s the appropriate size sign to this particular location and believe that a 12 foot sign which would be more the standard size sign for a Village business location in kind of the traditional Village business setting would be virtually invisible to travelers going by this location north and south. For all those reasons, we would respectively request your approval of the variance and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have about our proposal. Schanke I have a comment. You answered the one about how it was lit. Main Street Zionsville Road there does curve a little bit, I would just like you to be cognizant of the fact that the light could be shining down the road any spillage that was around the sign. I wouldn’t want to be coming up the road and see a bright spotlight that was illuminating say the north side of the sign if I’m driving. You see what I’m saying? Price I do. Schanke Just something to keep in mind with the design, so that the light is constrained as much as you can to the sign and not just a big old flood light. You’ve seen them. You drive down the road and they’re shining in your, just keep it in mind. Page 7 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 Morical Mr. Price is it going to be illuminated from the base or from the top of the sign? Price That’s a good question. I believe it’s located from the base. Schanke And I know Chair normally doesn’t ask too many questions. Do you have any idea of whether the other businesses that go in there would, and I know you don’t have a definitive answer by any means, would they be wanting the same things or would they stick, it’s hard to say. Price I can pretty much answer that question. We have 80 percent of those shops leased now, so four out of the five shops, a condition of their lease is compliance with the sign standards. Now one thing to keep in mind for each one of those locations is that they are proportionally those store fronts are much more traditional storefronts and have been styled really to reflect The Village business characteristics. What’s unique I think about this property is that dimensionally it’s just significantly larger. It has a greater street presence, a greater height and therefore just really requires a larger sign to make it look natural and fitting to the proposal. Wopshall How large is the sign in the Carmel location? Price I do not know the answer to that question. Matt, do you know? Fry Slightly smaller. Wopshall Slightly smaller thank you. Drake Matt, would you ask him to please? Price I apologize I’ll do that. Matt Fry would you come up. Schanke State your name and address. Fry Matt Fry, owner of Bub’s Burgers and Ice Cream, sorry. You probably didn’t want me to yell back there anyways. The sign in Zionsville is slightly larger than the one in Carmel because the one in Carmel is on the street as well as the one on the Monon Trail. Wopshall Thank you. Price And obviously located in a very significantly different as far as vehicular traffic? Wopshall Yeah, it’s more like our traditional Village. Price Exactly, a lot of pedestrian traffic, very slow moving vehicles. Schanke Thank you. Is there anyone here wishing to speak for or against this petition? Voyles For the record my name is James Voyles. I live directly across the street from Bub’s Burger and I will preface my remarks to the Board by indicating we did Page 8 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 not oppose the development. Mr. Harris is a dear friend of mine and he’s been very compliant in dealing with a number of my requests that have affected my property. If you are familiar with our property our address is 10895 Zionsville Road. They’re going to try to make me change my address and make it South Main Street, which I’m resisting, but they may have to pay for what I’m going to do. The opposition I have to the sign is I think it’s too large. The speed limit in downtown Zionsville is the same as it is on Zionsville Road. It is a heavily trafficked area and one of the questions that the Board Member asked was whether or not the additional signs on the additional buildings were going to be any larger, but they built this building three times larger than their other buildings, so the question becomes how would you not know what it is. It’s going to say what it is. They know what it is and so I don’t think increasing the size of the sign benefits me, benefits The Village or keeps in compliance with their original request to keep a sign that is significantly smaller than what they’re asking for and I think that you’re going to have to take our viewpoint into consideration as a result of the fact that we haven’t opposed anything so far and I don’t intend to oppose anything else, but I already see coming down the road that they’re going to be asking for variances for the other four to five buildings and asking to increase them based upon the same information. There are two sidewalks there. One on our side. One on their side. The building is almost at the edge of the property line, so it can’t be missed. I mean you’d have to be a patient of Dr. Haynes to miss it and so I think that the people will know what the building is. The sign does not need to be 22 feet square in order to accommodate their request and so my wife and I do oppose the variance for those significant reasons. Thank you. Morical Mr. Voyles, what size sign would be acceptable to you? Voiles Exactly the one they requested. Schanke You mean required by the – Voyles Yeah. In other words the variance is to increase the size of the limited size that the Board has previously approved on all properties, so I think that the sign that’s going to be placed at Bub’s, you got a building three times the size of the buildings they’re going to put next to it. Now you can’t tell me that having a sign an additional 10 or 12 feet bigger than the required zoning is going to make people not notice the building. It doesn’t make any sense. I mean if this building was the only building on the whole development, but then you’re going to have every other sign going to be in compliance with the zoning requirements that this Board has approved and then have this sign extraordinarily larger, almost twice as large, as the regulation requires makes no sense. Thank you. Schanke Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Petitioner would you like to respond to that? Price Well I would, first of all I want to say that Mr. Voyles and his family, Mrs. Voyles, have been very good to work with and we look forward to that relationship continuing both with regard to the rest of this project which is on the west side of the street and certainly as matters continue to be constructed on the Page 9 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 east side of the street too and so I appreciate those comments and they’re well taken. I would say though that I think that the point made about the difference in size of the structures is precisely our point. I mean it is the point of the staff report as well which is that this facility is a multiple of the B-shops that are located immediately south by a factor of two or three if you count the nearly 5,000 square foot Bub’s Restaurant compared to a small 1,000/2,000 square foot shop further south and so the signage requirement just to make the trade dress look proportional requires there to be a larger sign. It provides both the necessary visibility for this location and traffic patterns are significantly different on Main Street south of Sycamore Street as compared to north of Sycamore Street and we all know that. The speed limit may be the same, but the traffic speed is much different. The volumes are significantly different and we’ve dealt with those issues with regard to the design of this project and the improvements on this project all the way through the process and so I think it is a size that’s fitting. This particular building if you look on the aerial photograph that’s included in the staff report this property is located north of the entrance to Mr. and Mrs. Voyles property which is a secluded residential property. It does not have any direct aesthetic impact on them that is different than its impact on any other traveler up and down Main Street. It’s not facing them as was pointed out at the very outset of the proposal. It projects out and is really visible north to south. Our intention and expectation is that we won’t be here for additional variances with regard to the shops and so this is a singular request to address the specific needs of this property and we think we squarely fit within the findings for a Development Standards Variance and would request your approval. Schanke Thank you. Would you care to respond to the response to your remonstrant? Voyles Thank you. Let me draw your attention to some past history. The Century 21 sign at the corner of Zionsville Road and Sycamore. It looks like a monument from the cemetery that was built there out of concrete with the Century 21 sign in it which is a huge sign, huge in comparison to the building that it has, but that was the same argument used that they needed to be visible to the people driving on the street and if you’ve been by it recently you’ll notice that they’ve already added a protrusion to that. An iron bar comes out from that sign with another sign indicating that certain other things that Century 21 does at that location, so the argument from my perspective is that there’s no guarantee that if I would lease one of those new buildings and I see their sign twice as big as my sign that I won’t come to this wait a minute you gave me an opportunity to lease this piece of property why don’t I get a sign as big as theirs and you’re going to have to be dealing with potentially five other people. They can’t guarantee that those people who accept the lease payments for those new residents that are going to be along in those buildings are going to be compliant when they see the sign that Bub’s twice as big as theirs. I mean you mean a big building three times the size of the other buildings that ought to be an indication to people what is at that location whether they’re driving by there at 30 or 40 miles an hour or they’re walking by there and so I think that you ought to comply with the code. There’s no reason to change the size of the sign in relationship to the other signs that are going to be sitting right there because Page 10 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 we’ve already been through this problem at the corner with Century 21. Thank you. Schanke Thank you. That concludes the public input portion. Morical Could I ask Mr. Price another question. Schanke Yes. Morcal Mr. Price, looking at the proposed sign there’s a fair amount on that sign. There’s the classic Bub’s name. There’s the hamburger or cheeseburger, Bub Burger, the burgers and ice cream language. Given everything that’s the Bub’s trade dress and its identify in the market, is this the minimum size that works for purposes of effectively advertising this use in this space on this roadway? Price I mean, let me answer it this way. It is. I mean, it is the identical sign in turns of its trade dress to the one located in the Carmel Arts District in terms of its fabrication. In terms of the elements of it and it’s only slightly larger and that accounts for the fact that it’s on a much larger structure. Our sense of it is that if we were forced to have a sign that was certainly 12 square feet like the downtown businesses, the north Main Street businesses that it would like, if it was visible at all, it would look out of place. I mean in some ways this is to make the aesthetic of this building, both in terms of its signage fit in with what the design that’s been previously approved. Morical And I understand your argument of proportionality to the whole building, but I’m wondering whether in light of all that’s on the sign that is Bub’s essential trademark for its sign if you could actually squeeze that into a smaller sign for that space. To Mr. Voyles point the Century 21 sign is particularly large whereas the amount of information they actually had to convey was relatively modest. Are you capable of conveying what it is you need to be able to convey effectively if it were a significantly smaller sign? Price I don’t believe so and I think that the rendering kind of exhibits that. I mean the minimum elements of their signage and their trademark that space is required in order to fit that information in, in a cogent fashion and a way that is emblematic of their brand. Morical Thank you. Schanke The Board have any other questions for the petitioner? Yes, yes, because there is a response to the rebuttal to the response. Voyles It’s called surrerebuttal. I would indicate to you that the sign that Bub’s has on their Carmel location has all the necessary information in it and it’s much smaller than what they’re asking here. #1 to your point. #2 is that there certainly is an indication when we were presented this project that it was supposed to enhance the Village concept of Zionsville, that it was to be comparable to how the Village carried out itself, so we’re not even going to make the street different. We’re going to change my street name and call it South Main, so nobody gets confused Page 11 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 that they don’t have a Village concept. Yet, now you have the camel under the tent saying well we want to be different from the Village because we need a larger sign, but we want to have you all call us we’re part of the Village, so that doesn’t make any sense at all. If you’re going to be part of the Village you should follow the regulations that this Board and others before you, including my wife when she sat on this Board, suggested that you have a sign regulation. Now if you want to start varying from that and may be next will be neon signs and we’ll go through that whole episode that we went through years ago, but if you want to say to me that you’re now part of the Village, even though I’ve been in that location for a long time and we’ve owned the property since 1995 and we constructed a very magnificent place to live and to house our family and our other things that we enjoy, but now you want to take me out of that and say well we’re going to go ahead and make an exception and we’re going to let this sign be bigger even though it’s still part of the Village. Why don’t we stick to what we agreed to that the Village, if it’s going to be part of the Village and you’re just going to call it South Main, so everybody thinks they’re walking into the Village when they come down Zionsville Road from the south then you ought make consistency a part of your record. Thank you. Schanke Okay, we will now close the public input portion of the meeting and we’ll go. Morical Do you give them a chance to rebut? Schanke No I’m afraid, you know, no I don’t think I will because we’ve had, this could just go on forever and ever. I don’t want to be here until midnight. You don’t either, especially the students. Staff, may we have your report? DeLong Thank you. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed. Staff’s recommendations, the crux of that recommendation falls within the zoning code itself. In the Village business district this property could enjoy a wall sign and that wall sign size is dictated by the length of the façade times the height of the façade. For sake of argument this façade is 60 feet in length. It’s actually a little more from the site plan, but we don’t want to get into that level of detail, but it’s 60 feet in length. The building is 34.5 feet in height. For sake of argument, lets pretend that the building is only 8 feet tall. If the building is 8 feet tall, 60 feet wide that equates to a 30 square foot wall sign, so what this property could be improved with by right is a 30 square foot wall sign externally illuminated just like behind you with the text affixed to the wall much smaller, but lit externally so that glowing would face into Zionsville Road. Otherwise, to be known as South Main Street. The request before you is for a 22 square foot projecting sign. It is a projecting sign that is larger than what is permitted by right within the Village business district, but if it is the sole wall sign, if you will not be including ancillary or incidental window signs and other text communicating business hours and the such and the like this to Staff represents a reasonable deviation from your code. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed and I would be happy to answer any questions. Page 12 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 Morical Mr. DeLong one question for you, could we limit our variance approval to this particular tenant in this particular building in light of all they’re trying to convey on this size and the uniqueness of that requiring essentially this size? DeLong Yes, a condition of your approval could be no other wall or, well you would want to be very clear about window signs and how large they could be if that’s something you want, the level of detail you want to get into, but as far as wall signs or projecting signs that is something you could certainly limit at this site to one sign for this particular structure. Morical Or as a follow-up question, could we limit it to this particular tenant? DeLong Yes. Morical So if Century 21 decided to move down the street and put in this projecting sign that would be a different, they’d have to request another variance? DeLong That’s certainly within the Board’s discretion. I’d defer to counsel about making variances applicable to a particular individual tenant. Schanke This is a separate building with sidewalk all the way around it, so it’s limited to this, we can limit to that building. That would prevent the five smaller buildings from having projecting signs that were larger. Any more discussions? No. Parks To that same point it would be tenant specific to this particular building and not allowed to be applied without specific variance request to any other building in this property? Schanke That’s what, we certainly could do that. Intuitively this is a variance for this one specific size sign in this one building, but we can delineate – Parks Let me ask this question, this variance is requested for 620 South Main, is that the specific address for Bub’s or is that a general address for the entire property? DeLong That is a specific address for Bub’s. Parks And so by using that address that limits whatever variance decision we make to this property? DeLong I would believe that the variance request is tied more specifically to the legal description of the property which I would believe is the entire site. We can certainly look at the petition. Parks Well that’s – Drake Matt, is your legal limited to 620 or does it encompass the B-shop legal? Price It encompasses essentially the entire premise, but our application was reference to the 620 only and that is a specific address assigned by the Town of Zionsville Page 13 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 postal service so if you tie the approval to that specific street address I mean I it chould not move to another address in the development. Drake But if your legal encompasses the B-shops and they limited it to your legal, this one signage, that would take care of precluding the B-shops from then coming in. Price Correct. I think-- Morical Mr. Price can you speak in the microphone just because we record? Schanke For the record. Price Yeah if I understand the request if we were going to tie the variance to a specific locale we would agree to the condition of the approval being limited to 620 South Main, which is the legal street address for this property and it’s the street address that’s been used by other permitting authorities in terms of granting other licenses and permits and building permits that we’ve gotten for the project. Morical Would your client be supportive of a variance that’s unique to the Bub’s tenant? Price Yes we would. If there’s a desire to limit the approval to the specific user we’ve done that in other locations and would be agreeable to that as well. Morical Thank you. Schanke Any discussion? Hearing none I’ll request a motion. Morical I move that Docket #2013-22-DSV, Development Standards Variance to allow a 22 square foot projecting sign in the Village Business District as illustrated in petitioner’s filing for the property located at 620 South Main Street be approved based upon the petitioner findings and the staff report with the condition that it only apply to that particular building and only for so long as Bub’s is the tenant in that particular space. Parks I would second that, but I also add an amendment that there would be a restriction to no additional wall signage be allowed on the property as a condition of this approval. Schanke What if someone wanted to put a 12 square foot wall sign in that’s within the – Parks No on this particular property it’s this or no one, this only. Morical Wait, if you look at the site plan, my concern is that if people are coming into the parking lot and they want you to know then go up to the main door that they just probably would want to have some little wall sign that says Bub’s. Parks That may be on the door or whatever. Morical Yeah. Page 14 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 Parks I’m more concerned about that north side. Morical Okay, well would you be willing to amend your amendment to preclude a wall sign on the north side. Do you also want to preclude it on the east side? Parks North or east yes. Morical Okay. Parks I’ll take that amendment, of my amendment. Morical Okay, I second your amendment and the amendment of your amendment. To the effect that the variance would be approved for the sign requested and that no further wall signage be permitted and that, therefore, be a condition of this no further wall signage on the northern portion of the building or that facing to the north and facing to the east. Schanke And that’s the property at 620 South Main Street. Morical Correct. Schanke Who seconded it? Parks I did. Schanke And you accept that. Parks I do. Schanke Any further discussion? I’ll call for the question, all those in favor of the motion as presented and amended say so by saying aye? All Aye. Schanke The motion carries. Next on the agenda is 2013-23 again a Development Standards Variance for the property at 175 East Ash Street. This is a petition for Development Standards Variance in order to allow placement of a door associated with a home occupation in the residential Village zoning district. Please state your name and address. Klekovski My name is Brooke Klekovski . I live at 175 East Ash and I’m petitioning for a side door allowance for my garage. I have moved my hair salon into my home. But, after all of that, that’s all I have to say. Morical Ma'am I’ve got a quick question for you. Did you send out the notices to all of your neighbors? Klekovski Yes. Morical Have you received any responses? Page 15 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 Klekovski They all come back I think okay. Morical Has anybody complained? Klekovski Nobody’s complained no. Morical Okay, thank you. Schanke For or against, right? Klekovski Yeah, everyone’s fine with the door. You can’t see it from the street. It’s sort of behind a tree also. Parks Which side of the property is the door? Klakovsky East. Parks That’d be the, your write-up doesn’t, I can’t find it on the write-up. Klakovsky It says here it’s the east side of the street or the east side of the garage. We’re on the south side of the street. Schanke Staff, can you help us? DeLong Certainly, if you look at Exhibit 3 of your staff report there’s an illustration of the property. The home itself is in green. The garage addition simply just as a garage addition goes back a number of years. It’s simply just not picked up on the GIS. On the right side of the garage facing into if you want to call it the courtyard between the front of the home and the east side of the garage the door would be towards the street, but certainly facing east, so basically if you look on the back side of Exhibit 4 is the floor plan from their building permit application. Schanke Okay. Klekovski Basically to the left of the main garage door if you’re looking at the garage door. DeLong Yes, if you’re standing at the street looking south, looking at the garage door that raises and closes, the service door they want to install is to the left of that main door, but it’s facing east. Morical It’s around the corner. DeLong Yes, it’s around the corner, that’s correct. Klekovski Yes. Schanke Any further questions? Any one here wish to speak in support or remonstrate against this petition? Seeing none I will close the public input session and ask for the Staff’s Report. Page 16 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals October 8, 2013 DeLong Thank you. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed. As noted in the Staff Report the use itself is a permissible home occupation. The state of Indiana requires a door for a home hair salon and that door is required simply to allow patrons to enter and exit the facility without entering the operator’s home. In this case that’s not something our code allows. Potentially our ordinance was not written with that concept in mind that the state of Indiana license home hair salons. With this caveat the petitioner’s caught in this catch 22. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed and I would be happy to answer any questions. Schanke Any questions for Staff, any comments? The Chair will entertain a motion. Wopshall Okay, I move that Docket #2013-23-DSV, Development Standards Variance to permit the installation of a door associated with the home occupation in the Residential Village District for the property located at 175 East Ash Street be approved based upon the petitioner’s findings and the staff report as presented. Morical Second. Schanke A motion and a second, any further comment, discussion. I’ll call for the question, all those in favor of the motion say so by saying aye? All Aye. Schanke The motion carries. Enjoy your door. The final item on the agenda tonight is the adoption of findings of fact on 2013-17-SE. I was not present at that hearing. Were you present at that hearing? Morical Not that I recall. Schanke So do we want to just get two signatures or do we want to wait until the November meeting. DeLong My preference would be just to wait until November. Schanke Having no other items on the agenda the October meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals is hereby adjoined. Page 17 of 17