Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Larry Mitchell, Al Wopshall, Jay Parks, and Steve Schanke. Greg Morical is absent. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Mitchell All right good evening. I would like to welcome you to the November 12, 2013 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals. The first item on the Agenda, there’s Agendas out in front if anybody didn’t pick one up, but we’ll go through the procedures of what we’re doing tonight. The first item on the Agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge. Mitchell The next item on the Agenda is the roll. DeLong Mr. Mitchell? Mitchell Present. DeLong Mr. Morical? DeLong Mr. Schanke? Schanke Present. DeLong Mr. Wopshall? Wopshall Present. DeLong Mr. Parks? Parks Present. Mitchell All right four of the five members are here. We have a quorum to conduct business. The next item on the Agenda is the approval of the September 10 and October 8, 2013 meeting minutes. Schanke I believe we need two motions. Mitchell Do you have corrections? Schanke No I wasn’t at the September member. Mitchell Okay, we’ll do them separately. A motion for September 10 please. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Parks I move approval as presented. Mitchell Is there a second? Wopshall Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, those all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Next we have October 8. Schanke I’ll make a motion that we, I looked at them and they look fine to me, that we approve the minutes of the October 8 meeting as presented. Mitchell Is there a second? Wopshall Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded and all those in favor of the approval signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Nay? Motion carries. Are there any continuance requests tonight? Please come forward and when you come to the microphone, please state you name and your address and then the matter for which you present. Mouser Hi, Max Mouser, 9511 East 96th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana with Studio A of Indianapolis a petitioner for Docket #2013-28-DSV. We’re requesting a continuance to meet with the neighborhood to discuss some issues. Mitchell Are there any questions for the petitioner? Parks I move that we continue this docket to the next meeting in December. Schanke I’ll second that motion. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Drake Counsel would prefer you state the date on the record please to avoid re-noticing. Parks I would do that if I had a calendar. December 10, excuse me. I amend my own motion. Drake Thank you. Page 2 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Schanke And I’ll accept the amendment. Mitchell The seconder accepts the friendly amendment. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. Mouser Thank you. Mitchell Thank you, sir. All right now we move onto continued business from the October 8 meeting. How this operates is I will call each docket number, present the name, the address, and the items to be considered. The petitioner will come forward and they’ll have 15 minutes to present their case. Any remonstrators will have 15 minutes to present their case. The petitioner will have five for rebuttal, five minutes for rebuttal and the remonstrators will have five final minutes for any rebuttal. The Board can ask questions along the whole of anybody’s time. That time will not be counted against you and again we ask that when you come to the microphone, please state your name and your address. This is recorded and then transcribed and that helps in the transcription process. If there are more than one remonstrators, if you could just line up behind the person standing up there, so we don’t waste time with people coming forward. The first item on the Agenda is Docket #2013-15A-DSV under the name Quail Run. The address of the project is 1152 West Oak Street and 585-605 Ford Road. It’s a petition for Development Standards Variance in the R-MF-2 district, Residential Multifamily Zoning district in order to permit a building height of 41 feet, maximum is 35 feet permitted, off street parking spaces of 188, 214 are required and a variance to permit a 112.875 square foot integrated sign face. Would the petitioner please come forward? Ochs Good evening, for the record my name is Tim Ochs. I’m an attorney with offices at One American Square, Suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana 46282-0200. I’m here this evening on behalf of the petitioner which is a member of the Buckingham Companies. Very briefly, the Buckingham Companies is a local company based in Indianapolis that’s been around since 1984, started with a very simple rental property in ‘84 and since then has grown to manage about $1 billion worth of real estate assets that it owns or manages for third parties. This includes more than 100 properties consisting of nearly 15 million square feet and approximately 15,000 rental units, so they’re experienced apartment managers, operators, and owners and have done it well for a number of years. The booklet that I passed out contains no new information that was not in the prior packet. I just put it in this format. It makes it easier to refer to. Before I start all of the variances being requested tonight really come down to three facts associated with this property, none of which are the doing of this particular applicant. The first is the shape of the property and its access to Oak Street and I have the site plan which is Tab 1 is also displayed here. This property in essence is a very, very narrow property extending from north to south and it swings around and it is on Page 3 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 the east and north side of the existing apartment community. The shape and width of this really confines what we’re able to do with the property and the access to Oak Street which is by a narrow easement such that there is no real visibility from Oak Street, which is something that we have to deal with in the development of this property. The second factor to take into consideration as we talk about the variances tonight is the existence of third-party easements and this is a big factor. Fortunately this is right here. You can almost, if it were light we could look at the window and you can, if you don’t remember them you could see the high power, high voltage electric transmission lines that run through this. This transmission line starts on West Oak and runs the entire length of this property and then curves slightly to the west. Because of this very, very wide easement we are restricted significantly in what we could do with this property. We cannot put a structure other than pavement, minor landscaping within this very narrow easement that encumbers the entire property and it creates quite a burden in terms of its development. Finally, we have drainage and flooding issues. In addition to this easement, there is a drainage easement that comes through here which means we cannot put any improvements here, so nothing here, for the most part nothing here and that leaves us with very little space in which to put the remaining improvements and we have to also take into consideration that we need to accommodate the engineering design to take care of storm water runoff and some flooding issues in the area, so I ask that you keep those three facts in mind when considering the variances that I’ll go through that we’re requesting tonight. The first variance relates to height of the building and if you turn to Tab 2 you’ll see elevations of the three different building types that are part of the six buildings that would be constructed as part of this project. There are, I’m sorry five buildings. There originally were six. We lost a building along the way due to design issues associated with drainage and other concerns. As you’ll note the tallest building at the roof’s ridge is actually 39 feet, 8 inches. We requested 41 inches because at the time we thought it might be 41, but the actual height is 39 feet, 8 inches, so the variance we’re requesting is 4’ 8” and I would suggest to you given the distance that most of these buildings are away from other uses besides this apartment that the average person probably isn’t going to be able to look at these buildings and say ah they’re 4’ feet, 8 inches above the allowed height. Why are they tall? Well, if I didn’t have the easements, if I didn’t have the drainage issues. If the property weren’t so narrow I would have more parking and have shorter, but more buildings and it would comply with the parking ratio. We’d have more units and we wouldn’t have this problem, but because of those issues it forces us to try to make our development as compact as possible. That means a smaller footprint, a taller building. So that is the source of the request for the variance and it is very minor. The second variance relates to the signage and if you turn to Tab 3, the first part of Tab 3 shows the location of the sign, the new sign, expansion of existing sign is more appropriate and then the second Tab 4 has two renderings. One is of just the sign for this project and the other one is a rendering that shows it adjacent to the existing Starbucks sign. Again, the need for this sign which has been deemed by staff to be an integrated center sign is we believe the West Oak Street access will be a significant access to this community. This is going to provide access for persons that want to actually head left or head south on Ford Street instead of Page 4 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 using this existing access for the apartments or if they want to head to the west, for instance to I-65 instead of having to come down here and turn left on Ford Road. The new residents and the existing residents are probably going to come down to Oak Street and turn right because that’s going to be a whole lot easier. The traffic on Ford Road can get heavy at times. It’s just easier to turn right, but with that being a significant access with limited visibility from Oak Street because it has to sit so far back we believe that signage is necessary. The signage will be the exact same size as you’ll see on the last rendering in Tab 4 as the Starbucks sign. It will be a ground sign. It will be directly adjacent to it. We’re not aware of the Starbucks sign causing any issues with the surrounding traffic and we would not anticipate that this sign would pose any threat to the traveling public on Oak Street. In fact, we think it’s necessary to let people know that this is how you get to the apartments from Oak Street. The final variance relates to parking. The ordinance requires two spaces per dwelling unit for the first 50 units or 132 units proposed with this project in the five buildings. That’s 100 spaces for the first 50, then 1.75 spaces for the remaining 68. What is being proposed is 150 surface spaces, an additional 24 what we call tuck-under garages. Those are garages that are underneath the apartment unit. Hence the name tuck under where someone will be able to park their car and then get to their apartment without having to go outside. That’s an amenity that a community like Zionsville and the residents that we have like and then finally there will be detached garages and those will provide 14 spaces and those are located here and here. The total number of parking spaces would be 188 spaces. It results in a parking, overall parking ratio of 1.42. It’s been our practice over the course of over 20 years, almost 30 years that that is adequate. The existing apartment community when combined with the new one will have a parking ratio of 1.97 parking spaces per unit, which actually exceeds the parking requirements that exist in the current ordinance. So we believe in a minor deviation. The benefit is it reduces the amount of impervious surface that would be present on this site. There are drainage and flooding concerns. Placing more impervious surfaces is not going to help that situation. It’s not environmentally friendly and frankly if it’s not necessary, which we don’t believe it is, why do it. So that is the explanation for the reduction in parking. We have been in front of the Parks Board to find out what their concerns are because of the trail that comes along the west side of this property. We kind of feel that this is an ideal situation for apartments. It’s already zoned. It will be located directly adjacent to a larger existing apartment community, so we’re not introducing an apartment use in an area for the very first time and it’s on property that otherwise is not going to get used because of the difficulties associated with those three components. Its shape and access to Oak Street, the abundant easements on the site, and the drainage problems. If this project doesn’t go I would suggest to you with its development difficulties you may not see a project here and sandwiching it in between the apartments and the trail and the forest we think is ideal. We have worked very, very hard with the engineers for the Town on the drainage, not only are we complying with the drainage requirements, the detention and release rates under the Zionsville zoning ordinance for the project, but we are actually mitigating any additional fill we’re placing on the site and the mitigation is detention where we’re going to be collecting existing runoff either from the apartments or from the Marsh complex which does not have any detention. Both Page 5 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 of those projects were built in a time when the drainage requirements were nothing like they are today. The runoff from those are released immediately in the first flush which causes some of the problems here. We’re going to take some of the water and we’re actually going to detain it on site, so when you have a storm event, particularly a storm event that’s more than 10 years in size, while not a great help because of the size of the problem, it certainly is not going to hurt and in a small way we think it actually will help the drainage problems in the area, so we are scheduled to go before the Plan Commission later this month on a development plan and I’m sure we’ll get into more detail on that particular issue, but with that I thank you for your time and we’d be happy to answer any questions that the Board might have. Mitchell I do have one question. You said you met with the Parks Department. What was their stance? Ochs Their stance was they weren’t opposed to the project as, you know, they realized it was zoned properly. What they requested and what we have attempted to comply with is they said well given the mass, particularly these buildings, they wanted to know if we could put a little extra landscape, both under story and over story trees along here in an effort to kind of break up the mass of the buildings, especially the ones close to the trail and we have done that. We have submitted a much more detailed landscaping plan and in particular between here and here, here and here we’ve added significantly more landscaping than would be required by the ordinance. We do run into a little bit of problem right here because that’s where we cross into the big IPL easement and IPL has very strict requirements about what you can plant in their easements and they don’t budge on that we asked, more than once. We can put a few more small dwarf-like trees there and more than happy to do that, but we’re a little bit limited there, but fortunately because along here because of the shape of the property and the easement we can’t even put any units here, so we think by concentrating it here we’re really fulfilling the intent of what the Parks Board was requesting. Parks Has a traffic study been done on Oak Street? Ochs A traffic study on Oak Street, one was not requested. Parks You’ve got 132 new units plus you say a bunch of the current residents will use that entrance, that sounds like a lot. Ochs You know there’s a large amount of stacking here. We think the folks that are going to use Oak Street are predominantly going to turn right, but we’ve been working with Staff, Street Department, engineering in terms of the design and you know any improvements to the access are necessary for safety that’s been taken into account on the site plan. Parks Why would you think they’re going to turn right? Page 6 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Ochs Well we think right now for the existing apartment community there’s only one access point and that’s right onto Ford Road and for folks that want to head south on Ford Road to get to Oak Street they’ve got to turn left onto Ford Road which if you don’t have to turn left onto Ford Road you can go down to Oak Street. They’re probably going to do that, especially if they’re going to turn right they’re going to use Oak Street. If they have to go east into town they may still use Oak Street. Fortunately, you’ve got a whole lot of stacking available in which to turn. Parks Yeah, but the problem is at the stop when they get to the street. Not back from the road. Ochs I’m sorry, can you say that again? Parks You’re allowing traffic to back up in the neighborhood, but you still have the problem of getting across and I expect if I was there I would turn left more than right to get out of the neighborhood. Ochs People may still turn left onto Ford and head down to the traffic signal that’s true. Parks Thank you. Mitchell Will the existing have access to this? Is there a roadway -- Ochs Yes, right here. Mitchell Oh gotcha, okay. Schanke To some of the specifics of the request, where the, the height, is it all the buildings, all five of them or? Ochs Yes, all five of them. Schanke Okay, I guess that’s what I was, something wasn’t clear on that. Ochs Sure. Schanke And the parking, I still have a problem with that. I know you say historically the lower number works, but in my experience, I’m not sure what demographic you’re looking at for these apartments, but even the retirement apartments they generally have two cars per unit. I know we don’t require that over what 100, but more and more the cars are getting smaller, but it seems to me they’re getting more of them, just a point. I mean not particularly a sticking point, but I’m always sensitive to the fact that like when I go to visit family that live in apartments I’ll have to drive all around just to find a visitor place to park, so I’m just a little concerned about the parking variance. Ochs Sorry, I wanted to respond accurately to your concern. Of the 132 units 61 of them are one-bedroom units. Page 7 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Schanke Oh, okay. Ochs So, if in multiple bedroom units I think I would share your concern, but with 61 one-bedroom units it’s been our experience that many of those only have one car. So we think there’s adequate parking. Schanke But they do have boyfriends and girlfriends that come to visit. Ochs They do and as I said before – Schanke I’m just sensitive to it. It’s not a showstopper, but I’m really sensitive to the fact. Ochs When you combine all the units on the site, both Phase I and Phase II our ratio still is at 1.97, which is really two spaces per unit. Schanke Speaking of that and it’s not in the request, the connectivity. This is titled as Phase II of Phase I was this placed originally, I know you probably weren’t here for Phase I, but to have the one-road access, are there any walkways between the two, one or two so you could, pedestrian walkways? I don’t see any on the drawings, but sidewalk. Ochs Yeah, this is a sidewalk here. Schanke Oh I thought that was a road. Ochs Well it is a road, but there’s a sidewalk just adjacent to it, so there will be sidewalks that allow access between the two. Schanke Yeah, that’s important and I know it’s not our domain, but because I can see people from the apartments walking to the Village and walking, so they would need some way to get to the sidewalks over here to get over to the grocery store. Ochs We agree. Mitchell All right, thank you. At this point is there any remonstrators? Please come forward. Seeing none, we’d like to hear the Staff Report. DeLong Thank you. The Staff has had several months to review this petition. There have been a few continuances that have accompanied the request. The petitioners have made many changes throughout the process and this process is tied to a development plan that’s pending with the Plan Commission. There are three requests as part of this petition. Certainly Staff notes the amendment this evening of the height variance. Staff in its report talks about that height being in the peak of the roof. If this building were a flat roof style a 35-foot building would comply with the ordinance; however, in this area a pitched roof seems to be the theme. I think Staff would want to encourage that theme and is supportive of the variance request. Page 8 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 As far as the parking ratio, Staff recognizes the petitioner as an experienced operator of multifamily communities and certainly at times zoning ordinances do have excessive parking requirements. I’m not saying ours does in all cases, but certainly in the multifamily arena we are not seasoned multifamily operators, so would recognize their expertise related to parking ratios and as related to the sign variance certainly Staff is supportive of the request. Something we will continue to vet is the clear site triangle as related to the proposed location. We do note that this type of setback and sign placement is in this same area. Certainly even the newer Walgreen’s enjoys a sign close to the road, but certainly would want to review to make sure that clear site triangle is appropriate. Certainly as we go through the development plan process with the Plan Commission we will look to enter into a commitment with the developer to restrict tall signs or pole signs on this property. With that Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mitchell Are there any questions for Staff? Schanke I have one or two and thinking back to last month, I guess I could look out here, is the Starbucks sign lighted or do you know and will this sign be lighted or do you know, lit. DeLong I believe the Starbucks sign has the capability of being lit. The petitioner can speak to if this one would be illuminated. Schanke And if so flood lights, internal lighting, what type of lighting. Oakes It would not be backlit or internally lit. It would be externally lit and we believe that the Starbucks sign is externally lit as well. Schanke I would just ask as I always do that you make efforts to keep the lights contained to the sign and not spill onto in this case Oak Street. I’m sure you all experienced driving down the road and the sign shining right in your eyes so. Oakes We understand and we’ll accommodate that. Mitchell All right is there any further questions for Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Parks I’ll move that the Docket 2013-15A-DSV for design standards variance to provide for a 112.89 square foot integrated sign, a parking ratio of 1.4 spaces per unit and a building height not to exceed 39 feet 8 inches all per plans on file for the property located at 1152 West Oak Street and 585-605 Ford Road be approved based upon the findings attached to the Staff Report and as presented. Mitchell Is there a second? Schanke I will second that. Page 9 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Mitchell 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. Oakes Thank you. Mitchell Next item on the Agenda is Docket #2013-20-DSV under the name D. Hess, address of the project is 435 West Ash Street. It’s a petition for Development Standards Variance in order to allow a dwelling with a 10.43 front yard setback which does not meet the average 14 foot setback as required by Article 1, Section 1.20front yard averaging. Item 2 is a lot coverage increase of 43 percent over the 35 percent lot coverage allowance in the RV, residential village zoning district. This item was continued from the October 8, 2013 meeting. Would the petitioner please come forward. Terew Good evening, my name is Troy Terew. My address is 11650 Olio Road, Suite 1000-289, Fishers, Indiana 46037. I’m representative of the petitioner, authorized representative of the petitioner for this project. We’re looking at replacing an existing mobile home that is at this 435 West Ash Street for a new single-family dwelling and attached garage. The front yard setback variance is requested because the averaging calculation that was used to determine that is based on the existing home to the south and the existing trailer as it sits now on the lot. So we’re requesting a setback that matches the home to the south and disregarding the trailer that’s sitting there now. Lot coverage is the 6,000 square foot lot. There are other lots in the Crosses 4th Addition that are 8,000 square foot lots which this home would comply with, so we’re asking for a variance of 8 percent, 35 percent is the maximum allowable and we’re asking for 43. There are existing homes in the area that exceed even 43 percent, as much as 50 percent, lot coverage, so we’re not asking for anything that’s not already existing in the community in that area. Mitchell Are there any questions for the petitioner? Hearing none are there any remonstrators tonight? Seeing none, we’ll hear the Staff Report. DeLong Thank you, Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed. Staff notes it to be the same information the petitioner indicated this evening. The average lot coverage in this area, in some cases that does exceed 43 percent and those of you on corner lots and mid-block lots Staff spends significant time reviewing each one of these types of requests just to look for those types of scenarios for you and finds that’s the case with this particular filing. With that Staff recommends approval of the petition as filed and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mitchell Any questions for Staff? Parks Just a comment. As a former property owner in the area with a house that had a 75 percent lot coverage then I’d go ahead and move approval of this and rush it. Page 10 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Mitchell Why don’t you put that in a real formal motion and we’ll just keep going. Schanke I assume they’ll be some sort of a sidewalk over to Fourth Street from the entrance there. The site plan just shows steps coming up in the front. Terew Yes, I’m sure there will be some access to the existing sidewalk right there. The site plan was a site plan based on the footprint and we haven’t flushed out the design of the site yet. Schanke That’s fine. Parks Okay, then I would move that Docket 2013-20-DSV as design standards variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement in the residential village district to 10.43 feet and to permit a lot coverage of 43 percent for the property located at 435 West Ash Street be approved based upon the submitted findings in the Staff Report as presented. Wopshall I’ll second that. Mitchell Motion’s been made and seconded, is there any further comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. _____ I’m kind of bummed we’re going to lose the mobile home park, mobile home trailer in there. It kind of adds character to the downtown. Mitchell Next item on the Docket is 2013-24-DSV under the name T. Donathen, address of the project is 3955 South 875 East. It’s a petition for development standards variance in order to allow an accessory structure which exceeds the area, bulk, height limits of the zoning ordinance for the rural district. Would the petitioner please come forward. Donathen Hello, I’m Tim Donathen. I live at 3955 South 875 East. Mitchell Just tell us about the project and why you’re requesting the variance. Donathen Okay, all right. Well I’ve lived here for about 13 years and with that we’ve had you know, our property is like an acre and a half and we have an existing garage, that’s 24 feet x 30 feet, short height and it’s on a monolithic pour and the garage flooring is cracked and has moved and is not square, not flat. We have a basketball court in front and we have some minibarns out back and I believe all the accessory structures to include the front porch of the house and the back porch or back deck along with my other structures puts me over the limit now that I have been incorporated into the Town of Zionsville, so moving forward the garage and the minibarns are not in the best of shape, so I wish to tear all those Page 11 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 down and put something a little bit better, a little bit bigger, something you can park an RV in and still have some car storage for tractors and you know whatever and basically I just want to consolidate all those three structures into one, so it’s actually going to be shorter than what I have now, but it’s going to be shifted slightly towards the north. My current structure is 15 feet off the property line, so I was going to move it north 10 feet to the limit and then it’ll probably go about 6 feet to the south of existing and it’ll be 50 foot deep, so I won’t have a minibarn anymore and I won’t have my existing garage and my basketball court was kind of a nice waste of money really to be honest with you. Something that you kind of thought your kid might get into, but didn’t really, yeah it’s one of those, so we did that and I’ll probably get rid of that too as well and I basically just want a little place for man land, so. Mitchell Are there any questions for the petitioner? Schanke Well, I assume they’ll be a road back to it, will it come off the turnaround and follow along the easement or. Donathen No, I’m not going to have a road. Schanke You’re going to put the RV in there without a road? Donathen Yes sir. Schanke Oh, okay. Donathen Well I mean – Schanke I don’t have a wrecker service to pull it out. Donathen I mean I’ve lived there now for 13 years and the grass still looks like grass. There’s no tire marks that would run it back. I don’t use it that much for stuff. You know what I’m saying. Schanke That’s fine. Donathen Yeah. Well there’s a reason for that is because the septic field goes at the end. Right there would be in front of it and I don’t want to put in a road and drive over the septic finger. Schanke You can’t, sorry. Donathen That’s exactly. Schanke I mean you can. Donathen You can, but you probably shouldn’t. Wopshall What’s the height of the new building? Page 12 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Donathen The new building should be 18 feet, 6 inches and that’s not including the, I’m not going to put a cupola on there, my picture, I said similar to. It’s just going to be basically like that picture without the cupola on top. Wopshall And what’s your house height now? Donathen My house height is approximately 16 feet. The lay of the land is sloped. I have about 34 inches of slope that I measured with the transit, so when viewed from the road it should be, it’s probably going to look level, the same height. Wopshall All right, thank you. Mitchell All right, thank you. Are there any remonstrators? Schanke You did notice the neighbors and they all received their notices? Donathen Yes, yes, everybody received their notices. Actually they received two of them because the first set I sent out I forgot to send out, get the signature receipt, so I sent it again. Schanke I say that because 3901, you’re asking had a closer, I guess, now I guess it’s the back you're asking for to be closer to, never mind. Mitchell All right, seeing no remonstrators we’ll entertain the Staff Report. DeLong Thank you. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed. We would note, we did not mention it in the Staff Report, the roof overhang, what will be the dimension of that roof overhang on the sides. Donathen 12 inches all the way around. I’d like it to kind of look like a garage type deal, house structure type. DeLong Sure, sure. The only suggestion we would have for you is to actually measure your setback from the edge of that roofline. Donathen Oh, okay. DeLong Actually the footing would be 6 feet. Donathen Oh okay, yeah that’s fine. DeLong That’d be one suggestion. Donathen Yeah, no problem. DeLong Okay, that would keep you, actually you’ve got yourself 5 feet, 6 inches and that would just allow your neighbor to come in and also be 5 foot off the lot line and still have – Page 13 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Donathen Yeah, that’s fine. I can change that. DeLong Okay, all right. Other than again Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed. We’ve done an analysis for you related to the accessory uses and we did ask those same questions about the height and how that would match up with the home and found that same information and certainly that sounds adequate and meets the current code and I would note just for clarification the town code and the town unified code if you will is the same as the rural ordinance. The rural Boone County ordinance talked about accessory uses being subordinate to the primary use and so that’s where these ratios come into play if you will. How those are administered certainly could be very different between the two different jurisdictions, but certainly the rules are indeed the same. Donathen Okay. DeLong With that in mind, Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed with that one minor amendment setback and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mitchell Are there any questions for Staff? Hearing none I’d entertain a motion. Wopshall I move that Docket #2013-24-DSV, Design Standards Variance to permit a deviation from the height, bulk area standards in R1 residential district for the property located at 3955 South 875 East be approved based on the findings in the Staff Report as presented plus the provision that the building be 6 feet from the property line. Mitchell Motion has been made. Is there a second? Schanke I will second that. Mitchell A motion is made and seconded, is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries, thank you. Donathen Thank you. Mitchell Next item on the Agenda is Docket #2013-25-DSV under T. Boudreau, address of the project is 4249 Greenthread Drive. It’s a petition for a Development Standards Variance in order to provide for an existing fence to encroach into the rear, required rear building setback and existing concrete pool skirt to encroach into the required side setback line and an existing concrete pad with pool equipment into a drainage and utility easement located in the rear yard in the R- SF-2 single family residential zoning district. Will the petitioner please come forward? Page 14 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Boudreau Good evening. My name’s Tony Boudreau. I live at 4249 Greenthread Drive. I am the homeowner. Obviously, my family and I have long wanted a pool in our backyard and we’ve had difficult times with the planning of our project with the shape of the rear lot, specifically the trapezoidal shape. It makes it difficult to install a rectangular improvement and so there were difficulties in designing this based on the location of our deck and location of the rear lot. In attempts to create a modest-sized pool and not a large spa and with the restriction of where our deck is located it was very difficult to or it’s going to be difficult to have the pool situated and maintain the 10-foot side yard restriction. Specifically because we wanted to install an auto cover. The auto cover is important for safety reasons and a necessity for that. It enables us to leave the home on vacation and know that the pool is secure for not only the safety of my family, but also the safety of the community members as well and the initial variance of course is for that encroachment. The side yard has now only 4 feet of side yard as opposed to 10 feet. The project wouldn’t be possible and install the installation of the auto cover without going into that 10-foot side yard restriction. The second variance is in reference to the fence. The fence was preexisting. We built the home in 2003 and because we have dogs we wanted to have a fence. The fence did situate along the rear setback line and extended on the south portion of the lot to the level of the garage area and enclosed the backyard. In order to keep the pool deck area which is permanent off the 25 foot rear setback line that corner of the pool deck did come up directly on the 25 foot rear setback line, so the fence would literally intersect the corner of the pool deck which just wasn’t possible, so from a homeowner standpoint the fence does come in 8 foot sections. It was felt in order to maintain the permanent structure out of the 25 foot rear setback the fence had to be extended on the southern corner by one 8 foot section and then reconnect to the opposite side or the north side and there was really no other way to maintain the permanent structure off of that 25 foot rear setback. In order to do that it’s a necessary improvement to perform. These things of course in order to make a pool project possible these things needed to be done. The filter pad equipment and the third variance is a little more complex and I worked with a landscaping company as well as a pool contractor with this and there were a number of issues with that. In trying to find a suitable location because there is a gas heater there are limitations and restrictions as to where it can be placed in and around the home specifically, proximity to doors and windows need to be respected because of the gas furnace, the pool heater I should say and then with space that was, other issues of course were plumbing length restrictions. I am told that the length of the plumbing can only be so long. Page 15 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 This creates increases in pressure within the system I’m told by the contractor and renders the system ineffective at turning the volume of water over in a 24- hour period and therefore you have to be very careful about where the placement is done. So coupled with the inability to approximate the equipment near the home in respect to proximity to windows and doors, also wanting to respect, and this is a 4-foot restriction, also wanting to restrict a proximity to any common area where our guests, our families, our friends would be within the confined area of the fence. I also wanted to insure that there is at least 4 feet away from all common areas including the pool deck, sitting walls, the deck area. The side lot restrictions also restrict us from placing it in various areas and the only suitable location that enabled us to follow the different restrictions and various nuances of this was to place it within the 25-foot rear setback. I obviously am aware that there is an issue with that and I guess some of my other arguments get back to the actual burden that this has on the town. I feel it is minimal. I feel that the filter pad itself is a minor small obstruction, 21 square feet out of a total area of 2,600 square feet. There is no effect on drainage. If anything the grade has improved and actually brings water flow down into the easement. There is 17 feet of space still available for improvements or for thoroughfare. Importantly our community members, all of our neighbors, everyone who’s been to our home is obviously comfortable with the arrangement. The equipment cannot be seen by anybody. It cannot be heard. It is not visual. It is not visually obstructing. It does not bother our neighbors especially. If anything they cannot see it or hear it most importantly. This enables our family to not only provide a safe environment for a pool, but also for the community. The fence provides safety for the pool itself as well as the auto cover and we are hopeful that we can have our variances approved as it’s been a long-term dream of ours to have this in our backyard. Mitchell All right, thank you. Are there some questions for the petitioner? Wopshall Yes, do you have your HOA approval with you? Boudreau I do not have anything with me. Wopshall Okay, but you laid out a plan and laid everything out the way you wanted. Boudreau Yes. Wopshall And now it varies from what you wanted. Boudreau No, that’s not what happened. I worked with a landscaper, a professional landscaper who we developed a blueprint, a landscaping blueprint. That blueprint was then provided to my pool contractor. Under the building contract the contractor applies for the permit. I was not involved in the application of the building permit. The landscape design and blueprint was provided to the pool contractor and I had assumed that he provided this to the Town as part of the building permit application. This was not what was provided to the Town. The permit that was provided did not divulge the details of this. He located where the pool was going to be. Page 16 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 He located the pool not within a 10-foot side yard setback and he did not disclose where the filter pad was going to be. I did review the permit application after I found out that there were zoning ordinance difficulties and when I reviewed the building permit application there was no filter pad on the application. When I was told that the building permit was approved I’d assumed that our building design was approved by the Town, so I’m awkwardly here after the fact. Wopshall That didn’t answer my questions. Boudreau I’m sorry. Wopshall According to your architectural request form you have to submit a plan to scale to your HOA for approval. That’s what I wanted to see, to see how that varied from what this picture looks like. Boudreau That doesn’t vary either. Everything is the same. Wopshall Okay, so the HOA approved what’s on the plan we’re looking at. Boudreau You’re talking about the Homeowner’s Association? Wopshall Yes. Boudreau Okay, no I did not provide this to the Homeowner’s Association. Wopshall Well, you’re supposed to. Mitchell What document are you looking at? Wopshall I’m looking at the Preserves at Spring Knoll architectural landscape design standards, page 12. Boudreau I was not informed of this. I did not know that that was required. Wopshall Anybody who has covenants has to read them and abide by them. Mitchell All right, are there any further questions for the petitioner? I just want to make clear because in the third page of your letter you say that the easement in question where the filter is, is a storm drain utility. Boudreau Correct. Mitchell You said there’s no gas, power, telephone, cable, or other frequently worked upon utility, maybe this is a question for Staff, but it is a drainage and utility easement correct? DeLong Correct. Mitchell So is there utility lines in there now or planned in the future? Page 17 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 DeLong The only utility I’m aware of being in there is the storm water utility which is the drainage, so not only do you have a surface drain utility, but you have storm water pipe infrastructure. The designation utility easement would permit in the future the placement of utilities, municipal, private, or public utilities, but as for this usability I certainly do not know. Mitchell All right. And then again, and I know you’ve said this, but the pool design that was given to the pool contractor from your landscaper complied as far as you knew. Boudreau As far as I knew when we designed this blueprint, this blueprint was what was given to the pool contractor and the pool contractor then proceeded to apply for a building permit, but the building contract did not disclose all the details from this landscaping design to the Town. Mitchell All right when did you first become aware of the – Boudreau I first became aware that there was a problem when we went to have our final inspection. That’s when I found out there was a problem and I was not happy with having to do this after. I certainly would’ve come before this Board well before anything had started. You know I wouldn’t have done it this way. This was not my intention, but when I learned that the building permit was approved I’d assumed that this landscape design was approved. That that’s what, you know, so as everything went ahead I’d assumed everything was within all zoning ordinances and everything. I was led to believe that the rear setback line, only the permanent structures needed to be out of that 25-foot rear setback and it was felt that the fence and the filter pad are non-permanent and they can be removed. I was assured after the fact by the pool contractor that, you know, that the filter equipment could be removed in one calendar day if necessary. The fence also can be easily removed. I also signed a legal affidavit that if I were allowed temporary reprieve that I would remove it at my expense at any time. The Town required the, for thoroughfare or improvements of any kind that I would be willing to obviously take care of this. Schanke I have a quick question for Staff. Mitchell Well let’s wait for the Staff Report then. Schanke Well on the same thing. Mitchell Okay, on that topic. Schanke Looking at the drawing that’s, this is not a legal drain is it because I’m not sure we have jurisdiction over the county’s legal drains. It doesn’t appear to be on the drawing. DeLong Yeah I’m not aware of this being a county legal drain and if it were a county legal drain the county would have joint jurisdiction over this. Page 18 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Schanke I have some legal drains, so I, okay. Because I’m not sure, you know, Kenny or the surveyors, the county surveyor would have to approve anything in that and also there are obviously underground, I would assume underground utilities to the filter pad, electricity, waterlines in and out – Boudreau They come from my property. Schanke Right, so there, it’s more than just taking the filter off. You’d have to excavate up the underground lines to clear the area. Boudreau The pool company installed the entire pool in 11 calendar days so. Mitchell All right. Are there any remonstrators here? All right Staff Report. DeLong Thank you. As you can sense from the presentation this evening this is certainly a challenging petition for your consideration. It’s broken into three pieces in the Staff Report. Consideration of the fence location, consideration of the pool location itself, and consideration of the equipment pad. In just discussing the pool location, pool skirt location, in the presence of no remonstrators here Staff certainly would not oppose the request for a pool within, the pool water surface within 8 feet of the adjoining property line. Certainly Staff recognizes that pools themselves can be of some concern to neighbors be it with recreational activities or other activities. The pool in relationship with the lot line and a relationship to the property to the south there is some natural separation there as a result of the existing setback. I mean we would note in this as we noted in the Staff Report if this were coming to us prior to construction we would certainly be encouraging alternative thought processes related to the size of the pool, the placement of the pool, kidney shape, not a lap pool, a smaller pool, but we certainly just don’t have that opportunity in front of us this evening. In regards to the rear yard setback line and in particular the placement of items within the drainage and utility easement, we have, the Town has administrative tools to permit structures within easements if those structures can be removed and we review those on a case by case basis and certainly that was an exercise the Town immediately went through when it realized we had to address, you know, worked on ways to address this issue and it is very important to note, as the petitioner has articulated that when the permit was issued by the Town all the components that were told to the Town complied with the ordinance. For whatever reason, as the project progressed locations changed, other items were added, things got complex and by the time we got to final inspection we realized there was something amiss with this installation. Hence, the petition for you this evening. In talking through these encroachments with the Town storm water utility department that operates and manages that utility or Street Department there was no support from that Department to grant encroachment agreements for these items. Simply put, the fence could be bent and forced outside of the easement and meet the letter of the ordinance, but more importantly and the concerns Mr. Schanke is touching on the pool heater and all the utility components that go with that, all the piping that’s not something the Town wants to encourage in the easement let alone a structure like this. Page 19 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Certainly it’s well recognized that it could be removed, but it’s just simply the precedent setting activity of allowing something like this to encroach into the easement. Certainly while it might not be as desirable these types of improvements can be located somewhere on the property without encroaching into the easement and that is the, I don’t know what the right word would be here, but certainly the, what Staff needs to concentrate on is what is wrong with the property that necessitates the variance. What is peculiar or what’s the unnecessary hardship with the enforcement of the ordinance and in this particular case it’s very difficult to formulate that for you this evening. The petitioner’s findings do speak to that, but Staff is not in favor of items 2 and 3 of the variance, but does support the presence of the pool within the site or the setback and I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Schanke That’s the pool and the fence. DeLong Pool, fence, water filtration system. Schanke Right, right. Well the pool just barely hits at the water or the edge of the thing, so I, and as you mentioned in the Staff Report to us also it is trending away, so I have no problem with the pool or the fence. I guess do we ask them to relocate the filter pad and – Mitchell That’s at the pleasure of the Board. That’s a question for the Board yes. Do you have any litigation or anything going on with the pool contractor or anybody involved with this? Boudreau I’m upset – Mitchell Well let me ask you more bluntly. What happens if we tell you you’ve got to take it out? Boudreau I respect your decision and I’d do what needs to be done. I’m not sure where we’re going to put it, but I obviously I’m here tonight to, you know, to present my case as best I can. Knowing after the fact what’s happened and having to deal with it as the homeowner there’s no litigation. We haven’t done anything of that nature. I wished the contractor, I trusted the contractor to inform me of the rules. They get the building permit. I don’t, when I hire an electrician or a plumber I don’t know the, I just don’t know those things. Mitchell Understood. Boudreau All right, so and I guess I’m not asking for a permanent leniency here. I’m asking only a temporary one and I understand that a precedent does not want to be set. I’m willing to move it when it needs to be moved. I guess that’s my main crutch. Mitchell Right and when it needs to be moved would be right away if the Board decides to do that. Page 20 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Boudreau I guess what I mean is that when – Mitchell Weather permits. Boudreau If work needs to be done or if the easement itself was actually needed. Mitchell Well the, and not to get into this, but the easement is needed. Boudreau Okay. Mitchell I mean that’s the reason they get easements you know. Boudreau Sure. Mitchell And this Board hears kind of these all the time where you know the drainage is there for the drainage you know. And I understand that you’re in a difficult position, but you have to understand our position is this might lend a precedent to, rather than ask permission beg for forgiveness type of situation. Boudreau Well that was not my intention at all. Mitchell And in your letter – Boudreau I want to put that on record. Mitchell Yes, your letter is clear and you unfortunately I think are being stuck in a very difficult position by your contractor. Is there any more comments or questions for the petitioner? Schanke No I would just make the comment that the Drainage Board could also take exception with the fence because that is an easement to allow flood waters to go through there and they could accumulate debris even on the fence as the water flowed to it in the design flood situation or rain situation. No I don’t have any more comments. Mitchell All right. Well let’s work backwards. I’ll move that Docket 2013-25-DSV, Development Standards Variance, to permit the installation of pool equipment and a fence within a drainage utility easement located in the rear yard of an R- SF-2 district for the property located at 4249 Greenthead Drive be denied as presented. Wopshall Second. Mitchell 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. Page 21 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Mitchell Opposed nay. All right I will move that Docket 2013-25-DSV, Development Standards Variance, to permit a side yard setback of 4 feet in the R-SF-2 district for the property located at 4249 Greenthread Drive be denied as presented. Is there a second? Motion fails by the lack of a second. Would somebody else like to make a motion? Schanke I will make a motion that Docket 2013-25-DSV, Development Standards Variance, to permit a side yard setback of 4 feet in the RSF-2 district for the property located at 4249 Greenthread Drive be approved as presented. Now this is just the setback. Parks I would second that, but in addition that the homeowner has to meet the approval of the HOA, homeowner association, on this particular variance. Mitchell Can we get recommendation from counsel on how we would enforce that? Drake I would not recommend that amendment because that’s a private covenant. Not as a condition of your approval. Parks I do not want to approve and then find out that somebody’s going to say since the BZA approved it it’s okay. Drake Then your option may be to continue this if you want to receive that approval as a condition of Mr. Schanke’s motion and not vote, not second that motion and simply leave the pool question open with a direction to the petitioner. Mitchell All right, so here’s where we are. Is that your intent? Is that your desire? Parks No, I will withdraw, I will make a second to the original motion and withdraw the other verbiage. Mitchell All right, so the motion is on the floor. Is that the second line of granting the 4- foot setback be approved. It’s 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. Boudreau Thank you. Mitchell We’ve got one more. Boudreau Oh. Mitchell Okay. Parks No, that was it. Page 22 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Mitchell That was it. Oh that first one’s not it. Parks Yeah the fence. Mitchell Okay, nope you’re good. Boudreau Thank you. Mitchell Thank you. All right. We’re having fun. Moving onto the next thing. Docket item 2013-26-DSV under the name of J. Busse for the property at 35 Colony Court. It’s a petition for Development Standards Variance in order to provide for accessory structure to encroach 10 feet into the required side building setback of 20 feet in the R-SF-2 residential single family zoning district. Would the petitioner please come forward? Busse Good evening, my name is John Busse. I live at 35 Count Court, Zionsville, Indiana. I’m here on behalf of my wife, Susan Busse, owners of the property. The accessory structure actually is a garage,we’d like to put at the end of our preexisting driveway. It is actually going to set within 10 feet, it would be outside 10 feet of the property line, but within the 20 foot allowance that’s currently in place. One of the images you’ll see in the packet is that we have a shed there. It’s 6.8 feet off the property, so actually we’re going to pull it off the property line a little bit. The reason for not putting it back farther is that it’s a pie-shaped piece of property in the cul de sac and what happens is that if we go too far back our backyard drops off quite a bit. We’d be putting a lot of backfill in. We bought the house primarily because of the property. To be honest it’s a nice Tudor, but we have a wonderful backyard. It looks out the flood plain into Turkey Foot and then into the woods, so we have a wonderful piece of property, so putting the garage up it’s better for accessibility too. We have, the drawing that you see in that packet is approximately where we’re going to go. Since we haven’t finalized anything yet, but it can’t be much wider than the, it can’t be no wider than like 40 foot total you know and won’t be any deeper than you know 30’s. Again, we’re not trying to build a monstrosity we’re trying to get a garage and you know some storage. That’s why it’s a two-story, so it’ll be 10 foot off the property line and no closer than 10 feet to the house, no closer than 6 feet to the house which is the requirements. It all came about this summer when the triplets got 26 inch bicycles. We’re out of room because we have a two-door garage in the home. We have the shed down below. It holds a tractor and grass lawn tractor and upper shed held the bikes and everything else, so we’re going to probably lose that upper shed. That’s the 16 x 12 shed and a garage will be built perpendicular to the house, so it won’t have to be a funny angle along the property line or anything. It’ll be facing the street and all the neighbors have gotten notices and have all said it’s okay with them. It actually will be a little bit lower than the house. The Tudor is pretty high, so we won’t be any higher than the 21 foot maximum and that’s pretty much the story. Mitchell Okay. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Schanke I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I have a couple. Looking at your sketches. Page 23 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Busse Yes. Schanke Sketch, well I’m going to talk about both sketches, but the sketch of the filled, sorry the building it actually shows dormers on the back and on the front it shows dormers with a sliding door and porch railing in front. Is the second floor of this structure going to be habitable? Busse No it is not. These plans, these are not the final plans, but we wanted to have, we’re trying to mimic the Tudor style where we have the windows coming out, so facing the street would be where the three-car, three stalls would be. We wanted to put those types of windows in to allow for, you know, aesthetics. The backyard, the back was nothing more than if we had our druthers it’d be a small little porch looking out into the backyard. Schanke Oh that’s – Busse It’s supposed to be a porch. It’s basically you crawl up through the garage and come outdoor and sit in the backyard on a porch. It was really just, we were told to give what we had available for this presentation. Schanke So the overhead doors into the building actually face, no don’t face the road. They face back to the – Busse They would face the road right, so the presentation in the upper left only shows – Schanke I understand, I understand. Busse We would have the service door facing the house, so it would be a couple feet off the house. In the back I was going to put a garage door, so we could bring the lawn tractor in. Schanke Drive straight through. And then secondly looking at the sketch from the site plan, if it’s to scale, and I understand it may not be to scale, yes it’s a trapezoidal lot, but it’s getting larger towards the back because you’re up very close to the drainage utility easement also. It looks like you could shift it over a little or back further and comply with the setbacks. That’s why we’re here. Busse Right. Schanke There’s something specific to this piece of property is to why you can’t. Busse Unfortunately, in order to do that the drop-off even from the driveway to the back of the one corner of where the garage would be if it was only 24 foot back was 32 inches. It just goes down into the ravine. It’s the, it would really drop off fast. Mitchell Any further questions? Any remonstrators? Staff Report. Page 24 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 DeLong Thank you. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed and notes the same items that were discussed this evening, the unique shape of this property, the topography that is within it, the existing setback that’s established by the accessory use, the proposed accessory building reduces that encroachment. The encroachment is outside of the drainage and utilities and if it’s along the side of the property, the setback is achieved given the angle of the lot line and the angle that the building is placed. With all these factors Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mitchell Any questions for Staff? If not I’d entertain a motion. Schanke I would make a motion that Docket #2013-26 Design Standards Variance to permit a 10 foot side yard setback with an aggregate side yard setback of 20 feet in the R-SF-2 district for the property located at 35 Colony Court be approved as presented. Wopshall Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. 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. Busse Thank you. Mitchell Now I want the Board to remember that when I come in a couple of years for the same request, let me build one. Because that’s exactly what I want to do with my house, exactly. Wopshall Yeah, but you have a smaller lot. Mitchell I’ll come over and look at your property and use your builder. Mr. Andreoli. Andreoli I will persevere. Schanke Is the scout here for, oh he’s with you never mind. I thought he was with the school. Mitchell All right next item on the Docket is 2013-27-DSV under MI Homes, Sanctuary Subdivision at 121st Street and Michigan Road, petition for Development Standards Variance in order to provide for one blanket encroachment for lots 19- 48 for accessory structures to encroach 10 feet into the required rear building setback line of 25 feet which includes a 15-foot utility easement and #2 development standards variance on the 75-foot setback driveway cut to a 54-foot setback driveway cut in the R-SF-2 residential single family zoning district. Petitioner. Page 25 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Andreoli Thank you. For the record my name is Mike Andreoli. I’m here tonight representing MI Homes LP of Indiana, LP Limited Partnership. They’re the builder of Sanctuary. Let me correct their record in terms of what we’re considering tonight. We’re just considering the rear yard setback. I think we’ve determined in consultation with counsel and staff that perhaps since we’re talking about a development standard that’s part of the platting process with regard to the driveways that that would be a Plan Commission matter if we can’t reconfigure the houses to meet the 75-foot requirement, so we’re just dealing with the rear yard setbacks tonight. Mitchell All right, so just clarification for the Board item #2 on the request is now deleted. Andreoli Thank you. So that the Board is aware, Sanctuary has its own zoning ordinance as such. I don’t think any of us really discovered it. I wasn’t representing them initially when this was approved and I think ultimately it was approved in the county and then it was taken in, in sometime when we did our reorganization, but there was some specific provisions set out in the actual ordinance itself that dealt with the rear yard setbacks. One was a rear yard setback of 20 feet. The developed actually platted 25. They felt like they could plat 25 rear yard setback given the fact that they had in addition in that 25 rear yard setback a 15-foot drainage and utility easement. This is a legal drain, so it’s not like you can really put something in that particular area because it was actually approved in the county as part of the legal drain system. They don’t allow fences, accessory structures or anything in there, but in addition the ordinance provides for accessory structures of which a deck and patio is defined. It can actually be within 5 foot of the property line and the rear yard property line. Essentially what MI, it’s an odd duck. I know that when we sat there and looked at it and met with Staff about it we were all scratching our heads because I would like to suggest that it was abject brilliance on my part to discover that, but it was actually by luck when I was just reading the requirements that I saw specific provisions dealing with the Sanctuary. I didn’t even know it existed and I don’t think Wayne did either because I’m not sure Wayne was here when this was actually approved and adopted into the ordinance when we did our re- codification. Nevertheless, it really doesn’t make a whole lot of difference in terms of 5 yards because we can’t get into the 15 feet anyway and so essentially what we’re asking for and what MI is asking for and why they’re asking for this is that as they’re building their houses they’ve been extremely surprised and pleasantly so that their price points have been going up and up and up in terms of their houses out there at the Sanctuary, not because the houses themselves in terms of the external footprint is any different, but because of the amenities inside the houses people are wanting granite as opposed to other types of surfaces. Those kinds of things and so their price points have been going up and there had been inquiries of them about can we put decks and patios on. Given the fact that they have a 25-foot building setback for the permanent structures and we’ve got an ordinance that gives them 5 foot for accessory structures of which patios and decks are included, I think Staff suggested and I think we agreed with that that we would come and get specific approval to be able to locate accessory structures within that 25-foot building setback area. Page 26 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 It will only encroach into the 25 foot, 10 foot. We will not be into the 15 feet of drainage and utility easement. It won’t be in there at all, just into the 10 foot that allows us between the 25 foot and the 15 feet and that’s the requirement. What I’ve given you are the specific lots that actually MI owns that they are requesting. Originally our request was for all of the lots that we had listed, some of which we had already sold, but we determined that that would be too much of a difficulty or problem. If those people want accessory structures they can petition individually in front of the Board to seek those themselves if they would like that. We’ve already sold those lots and built those homes and if somebody has a desire after they see others out there and it may be that somebody will come in and they won’t want that, but I think MI wanted to be able to have the option to go ahead and put decks and patios only. As I suggested to Wayne when we talked about this, we can’t put for instance, porches. Porches is a permanent structure, part of the permanent house. It’s only decks and patios as defined under your ordinance. That’s all we’re asking for in terms of that 10 feet. It’s no more elaborate than that and I’d be happy to answer any questions you have and be happy to listen to the Staff Report as well. Mitchell And just to clarify you’re not, there’s not going to be any sheds or anything like that built. Andreoli I don’t think they’re building any sheds. If people put those kinds of structures, playsets, and those kinds of things I guess people put those where they are. We’re not suggesting that they do that. All I’m here is petitioning on behalf of MI to be able to go ahead and have them build decks and patios in that particular area. I don’t think we can control if somebody’s going to do that and if they do an encroachment like that and it’s inappropriate I know that sometimes temporary structures haven’t been a problem in some of these drainage easements in terms of if they’re going to put playground equipment or something like that, but I know our drainage board always got particularly exercised and scrutinized very closely if somebody’s going to put a fence. Even to the extent they’re going to put extensive landscaping back there that might beautify the area, but could really hamper the drainage. Mitchell Right, we just, we’d gotten a letter from somebody that was asking for no sheds and that type of thing. Andreoli Well I think that letter asked for no permanent, may be it was sheds, but we’re not constructing those kinds of things and no permanent structures. Mitchell They don’t want items like building sheds or storage buildings and the like. Andreoli No, we’re not constructing those. If somebody wants to do that they can do it. All we’re talking about are decks and patios from an aesthetic standpoint to the extent people want them. We’re not constructing sheds back there. Wopshall So if we used the words decks and patios that pretty much covers what you’re asking. Page 27 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Andreoli I’m sorry? Wopshall Decks and patios. Andreoli Decks and patios that’s it. And the reason I use those particular terminologies is they are defined as accessory structures under your ordinance, decks and patios. Schanke And just for my clarification, the reason we’re including these specific lots only is they have not been sold by the developer. Andreoli Yes, these have not been sold. The ones that, in fact I revised and submitted a revised finding of fact for Carol and for Wayne that only deals with the lots that MI owns, not with any other lots. We just decided that trying to get waivers for each and every one of those that we were running up against time and we didn’t want to do it, so we just removed those. These are only the lots that they own specifically. Schanke I understand. Mitchell All right, I move that Docket 2013-27-DSV, Design Standards Variance, to permits decks and patios associated with a primary dwelling on lots 19, 24-30, 32, 33-39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, and 48 to encroach into the platted rear yard setback by 10 feet in the R-SF-2 district specific to the Sanctuary be approved as presented. Parks 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. Mitchell Opposed nay. All right, thank you. Other matters to be considered before the Board is the adoption of the 2014 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting dates and deadlines. Schanke I looked through them and didn’t see anything. I was initially a little concerned about the July meeting being close to the 4th, but it’s not, so I’ll make a motion that we accept the 2014 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting dates and administrative deadlines associated with those meeting dates as presented. Parks Second. Mitchell A motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All Aye. Page 28 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 Mitchell Opposed nay. All right, you guys have a good time next year doing those. This is my last year. Okay adoption of finding of factors. First item is 2013-17-SE under the name P. O’Connor. DeLong Yes, we can simply just pass these down. Schanke Now, which ones were the meeting I didn’t attend. It would’ve been the October meeting, the September meeting. I just want to make sure I don’t sign any that were on the Agenda. I could look through the Agenda, the minutes of the meetings and get the numbers. Mitchell Well the Benge, I didn’t participate, so I can’t sign. DeLong Yeah, September 10 Steve you were not in attendance. Schanke Right, I was not in attendance. Mitchell Which were heard in September. Schanke 2013-11. Mitchell We don’t have that. Schanke 2013-16. Mitchell We don’t have that. Schanke I would like to continue Docket, well it’s a continuance 2013-15 was approved. Mitchell Nope. DeLong Steve, you do not sign 17 SE. Schanke Okay. Mitchell 17. DeLong Yeah, that was heard on September 10, so I beat you to the punch. Parks We’ve got to sign 27 while we’re at it. Schanke Yeah, we didn’t sign them at the last meeting because again the attendance was messed up. Oh this is the – Mitchell The denial. Schanke Yeah. Parks We’ve got the 27th from tonight we could go ahead and do. Page 29 of 30 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 12, 2013 DeLong Yeah, we’ve got the 27th right here. Schanke You’ll put the date in or. DeLong Yes, I have the dates filled out. Mitchell Okay we still need 21 and 22. DeLong Okay here comes 21. Page 30 of 30