Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 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 present, but arrived as indicated below. Staff attending: Wayne DeLong, Carol Sparks Drake, attorney. A quorum is present. Mitchell Good evening. I would like to call the December 10, 2013 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. There are Agendas out in the front hallway for everybody to pick up and the first item is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge. Mitchell Wayne, can you take attendance? DeLong Certainly. Mr. Mitchell? Mitchell Present. DeLong Mr. Morical? DeLong Mr. Schanke? Schanke Present. DeLong Mr. Wopshall? Wopshall Present. DeLong Mr. Parks? Parks Present. Mitchell Four of the five are here, so therefore we have a quorum. Mr. Morical is expected to be here later and if he does show in time for the meeting then we will let the record know. The next item on the Agenda is the approval of the November 12, 2013 meeting minutes. Schanke I have some comments, just a couple. On page 11 I believe the petitioner stated that he wanted to flesh out the design rather than flush out the design, so change that to flush out, flesh out and I noticed at the end we don’t ever adjourn the meeting, is that a problem. I mean I know we did, but it wasn’t in the minutes that we did adjourn. We did say the month. That’s all I saw. Jay maybe you were the one blank line on page 11 or 12. There was, I believe, there was one in there where there was – Parks No, it was not my comment. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Schanke It wasn’t me. Mitchell It was me. Schanke Oh okay. Mitchell Yeah. Schanke That’s on page 11 also. Other than that, it looked fine. Mitchell Any other changes? I would entertain a motion to approve as amended. Parks So moved. Mitchell Second? Schanke I’ll second it. 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. Next item on the Agenda is any continued, continuance requests. Seeing none, we’ll move on with continued business. First item on the docket and only item on the docket is item 2013-28- DSV under the name LRC II LLC. It’s a single-family lot 61, 62, 64, 67-69, 71, 72, 256-257, two family lots 250 and 251. The item to be considered is the petition for Development Standards Variance in order to one, reduce the front yard setback, the minimum lot area, the rear yard setback, and increase the maximum lot coverage for single family lots 61, 62, 64, 67-69, 71, 72, 256-257, and two, reduce the side yard setbacks of two family lots 250 and 251 in the urban business zoning district of Stonegate. How our Board operates is the petitioner will come forward and they will have 15 minutes to present their case. After that any remonstrators will be given 15 minutes to discuss their issues. The petitioner will be allowed five minutes to rebut any of the remonstrator’s comments and finally the remonstrators will be allowed the final five minutes. Everybody that wishes to come forward to speak on the matter you’ll come up to the microphone up here and we need everybody to state their name and their address where they live for the record and if there are more than one person that wants to talk on the topic then just line up in order and we’ll recognize you and the Board will ask questions as it goes along and that won’t be held against either the petitioners or remonstrators’ time. That being said, sir? Mouser Good evening, I’m Max Mouser with Studio A of Indianapolis representing LRC II LLC. With me this evening is Dr. Lawrence Reitzand his wife Carol Reitz. Parks Speak into the microphone please. Lift it up and – Page 2 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Mouser And also Gary Weaver, the planner and architect for Stonegate originally. The request in front of you is for, as you put before, to change some of the lots within the UB district that were originally slated for either residential or commercial when we took this through planning some years ago. Some of the faces were there when I took it through back then on Boone County’s Plan Commission. So what we’re doing here is when we took this through originally in Stonegate and I provided you with a little map of the single-family side, which I’ll discuss first on those lots. The Carolina Grill sets right on the corner of this intersection if you’re familiar with it and there’s a park here and dentist’s office. The remaining lots, there’s a little ice cream parlor next to the Carolina Grill. These lots are still open and available for development. This lot’s built on and this is open for development still on Stonegate Drive, which is the main thoroughfare that cuts through from the east entrance to the west entrance and also along Stonegate Elementary School. This project’s been available for these lots to sell for commercial use since it came on the market back in 2000. The Reitzes’ own the Carolina Grill and built it to help spark the interest of commercial development. Since then, commercial development with Anson coming in has changed the dynamic in the area. Commercial developments within Stonegate based on realtors and various studies are telling us that it’s not the demand that once we thought before everything happened in the area. So with that we’re looking to put residential on the lots which were accepted as part of our original petition through Stonegate and we did it through the Area Plan in Boone County. With that though, we had to plat a lot at the time that fit more of that commercial/residential, but to get a residential home on there that fits more of a scale that’s fitting to Stonegate. If at all possible we’d like to adjust some of the requirements. One being, the lot size doesn’t, some of these don’t fit that requirement and that would be the 5,000 square feet in a UB district, so we would ask for that reduction to get it down to the smallest lot size which is the 3,392 feet out of the lots we’re asking for. Some of these are I believe big enough currently that they could be built on, but we’re just asking for it as a blanket. And then for the front and rear setbacks to give that ability to get a bigger home, give a little more flexibility on that, and then the lot coverage is a requirement from 70 to 90 percent on the residential. If you were to build on these lots from a commercial standpoint, commercial allows you zero setbacks, so for example the Carolina Grill takes up the entire property that it sets up. It takes that whole lot. It’s covered with the building, so when you look at a residential property from a coverage standpoint we actually, even with taking setbacks and reducing them, we would actually cover less property than we would if it were commercial, so from a lot coverage standpoint I know we’re asking for more lot coverage, but in reality if it were commercial we’re getting less than what would be, and not to say that we’d use the whole 90, some of these lots are bigger, some have corner lots, things like that. They just don’t fit. There’s utility easements. You’re going to end up with less than 90 percent anyway. With that I wanted to go onto the next exhibit which gives the area of the two family dwelling units. If you look at Attachment F, that’s what’s existing. Above the two lots 250 and 251 there are a row of eight lots, eight single family or UB, could be commercial. We’d taken that petition through in the past and got that approved for variances to reduce that lot coverage and came before Zionsville at that time. Page 3 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 What we’re doing on the two lots on 250 and 251 we’re proposing to do eight, what would be single family, but they’re going to be in a two-unit form, so it’ll be four buildings with eight lots, so it’s similar to what we do across the street with the townhomes that are three-unit buildings primarily and were split down the common wall of each one and that’s what is directly across the street from this and wraps. All those are the townhomes that were built in the past and we brought that petition before you also in the past and got that approved for that zero setback off of the side yard because it’s a common wall and there is no setback. We got that one reduced for the rear setback on that down to 5 feet, which is one of the requests we’re doing on the single family, but not on this. We’re asking for the zero setback on the side because of it being a two-unit. These were originally set up as a multi-family use. I didn’t know if it would be townhomes, would it be apartments. In this case two family. We had the townhomes on the other side. The two family seems to carry well with this size lot and what we’re proposing I guess gives a little better illustration on the next sheet of what the final outcome would be. We’re proposing to take the common area that went between those two lots, remove it, and then give common area back and there was a common area in the middle here and we’re proposing to put that amount of area back into the common area on this side, so it gives a little bigger buffer on this side which there’s a tree row there that we’d try to preserve the best we can. And then this represents what four doubles townhome type look would be and then they would split on a common wall down the center of those. It’s an alley loaded. This area here is the alley and this area in the front is a park area. It’s just an open lawn currently. We did receive some remonstration on the letter and I wanted to address a few of those points as we’re going through it. You have it in your packet as well and I also wanted to clarify we did meet with neighbors. We sent out an e-mail and let the people know. We had four people in attendance, a husband and wife, and then two other gentlemen. That’s all that attended that meeting. So with that I just kind of touching on some of the issues that were brought up in this as far as the trying to maintain the commercial and keeping it on Stonegate Drive. Stonegate Drive if you look at going back to Attachment D, Stonegate Drive has 10 lots in total – Mitchell Let the record reflect that Greg Morical just arrived and is participating in the hearing. Go ahead. Mouser Along Stonegate Drive there are 10 lots that fall into that UB area. Of the 10 we’re only asking for 2 of the 10 that would be commercially, still could go commercial. We’re only asking two for residential, so we’re still trying to maintain the possibility that commercial will be developed along Stonegate Drive. It just doesn’t, with the way the economy is and the way Stonegate’s situated, it doesn’t make any sense for any of the property off of Stonegate Drive to try to be developed as commercial. So I wanted to point that out. I know the letter, when it gets right down to it there are currently three lots that are built on as commercial use since 2000 when this came on the market. Six would remain unbuilt in the commercial use. Eight of those lots, other lots, previously went through the variance process similar to what we’re doing now. Page 4 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Ten are on this variance for a total of 27 lots which would still leave nine lots out of the 27 would be set up for commercial. So we’re trying to, there’s always been an effort to try to keep the commercial going, but you know this is the step to say the stuff behind Stonegate Drive isn’t going to make commercial. It needs to go to residential. There was some discussion on two of the homes in Stonegate and the quality and that it wasn’t the same as anything else in Stonegate and I have to say I disagree. Those plans came before Zionsville. Zionsville has to approve any construction of any building. It also meets Stonegate’s architectural review committee. In this case one of the residents who’s an architect did the review of those plans and approved those. There’s also some question on how those homes are situated in relationship to elevation off of the drive. I didn’t bring enough pictures to have everyone – Mitchell Hand the pictures out and then go back and continue talking. Mouser I did take a few photos. Two of them you’ll be able to tell at the end are under construction. Those were the two homes. One front view and one rearview to show the garage and alley and then two of the, three of the other pictures are Home-A-Rama homes. They’re situated basically right here. Right across on the same street viewing out. If you look at the rear of those you can see that it’s a three-story. It’s a flat vertical garage door three floors up. The same as what is being built on currently. Not that that’s part of this petition, but I bring that up in the fact that we’re trying to increase the area of the single family lots to be able to deviate from that if necessary. If we could get some of that we could probably consider bringing it down a floor, but it’s not to say that we’re not meeting that guideline currently. You have a height requirement and we met the height requirement as it stands. With that I look forward to any questions you might have. Mitchell Are there questions for the petitioner? Hearing none at this time we’re reserving the right to ask you some questions later. Are there any remonstrators here tonight on this topic? Marine I’m Michael Marine. I live at 7611 West Stonegate Drive. I also own a townhome at 6695 West Beekman Place, which is right across from the open space. I don’t really have a problem with what they want to do in terms of turning in, it probably isn’t a particularly commercially developable area anymore and it needs to be residential, but my experience having been on the Plan Commission years ago and having been counsel to the Plan Commission and the BZA many years ago is that a, the amount of variances they’re asking for really it’s not what the process is built for. This process, this should be replat. If you’re going to change setbacks, the amount of variances they’re asking for to me at least I would’ve said years ago this is something you need to come back to the Plan Commission and replat, so that you get a complete opportunity for everybody to know what’s going on. I was not invited to whatever exchange. I didn’t get an e-mail with whatever exchange occurred with the neighbors and I really do like the efforts that have been made in this neighborhood to make it the type of neighborhood that it is with closer lot lines, but at the same time to come in and say okay this didn’t work out the way we had planned it. Page 5 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 It’s not as though somebody bought an old lot in the Village and says I need to move my lot line five yards. I need to cover 5 percent more lot. They’re asking to cover 90 percent of lots and in lieu of just replatting and getting the size of lots and doing what you need to do to get what’s accomplished now, what you need to accomplish now based upon the economic circumstances of today. That’s all. I don’t have any general objection to making the area residential. I just think by trying to do it through a variance process is really kind of a, it’s not what it’s designed to do in my mind. Mitchell All right, thank you. Are there any more? Oville I’m Adam Oville. I live at 6628 West Minster Drive in Stonegate and I was a part of the group who sent the letter to the Board and obtained all the signatures. We as a group also agree with what their trying to do in the rezoning. We just want to limit and make sure that we are protected as the neighborhood in what they’re allowed to build there. Max mentioned that there was a meeting with the residents. It was poorly communicated to say the least. I actually did not receive an e-mail and all I know is that certain folks who live directly around that area received letters in the mail, so there were a lot of other people who wanted to attend that meeting who were not able to. All we’re really asking for is that they agree to what we set forth in our letter and we will fully support this rezoning. Are there any questions on the letter? Mitchell Does anybody have any questions for Adam? Schanke Is that the letter that we, Wayne is that the letter that we received, the letter that you’re referencing dated December 6? Oville Yep, that is the one. Schanke Thank you. Mitchell And for the record it was received in the Town of Zionsville on December 9. Oville Yeah, on Monday correct. Schanke I just wasn’t sure what the letter was and what it said. Oville Sorry. Mitchell All right, thank you. Thank you. If questions come up we’ll ask you to come back forward. Thank you. Thank you. The petitioner has a chance to come back up and have an initial five minutes to provide any further comments that they desire. Again state your name again. You don’t have to state your address. State your name again. Page 6 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Mouser Max Mouser. To address their comments, it would be very difficult to consider going back for a replat for something like this. I mean this was originally set up when we went through this petition with Boone County for either residential or commercial use. As part of that we were required to install the alleys to Boone County’s street grade. Those are lined, filled up asphalt, stone, the whole thing just like the streets are. Underneath those are the sanitary sewer system with all the laterals. To try to fit anything else on this and I know that there’s been a comment of replat and combining lots where you can and trying to do something to that effect, well anyone can buy two lots today and build on it if they wanted from a residential and take it through, but again you’re going to end up with a different product than any in Stonegate. You’re going to end up with a shotgun style house that doesn’t meet anything else. What seems to be the issue is these houses are out of what’s considered character of Stonegate, but yet when we brought the townhomes in originally we had remonstrators it was out of character. When we took Stonegate originally through we had remonstrators trying to stop the project in general. So from a replat standpoint I’m not sure how functional that concept is. That’s part of the reason we’re here for a variance. The issues that they had in the letter that they wanted to address with the driveway, the, sorry let me pull the letter to make sure I cover all of them. The 3 feet above the grade, no more than that with the first floor. When you take a look at the home that I showed they are almost a full story if not above the curb line. Many of the homes within Stonegate are at least 5 feet plus above the curb. That’s the look that Stonegate wants. It’s supposed to set up and take steps to get to it. It’s not meant to be the standard subdivision that everyone can walk into. The townhomes are an exception that are across the street. Because they are a three-unit versus a two it switches into a different architectural guideline requirement with the state, so now your ADA requirements kick in. Those buildings are set lower. They’re the only ones in Stonegate for the most part. I use that loosely that are set that way. Most have steps going up. And then that gets into the garage on the main level with living above it. The townhomes that are there have living above the garage. Many of the homes within Stonegate have living above the garage. You know this has a garage because of the size which is 1,900 square feet for this home. It’s nothing small. Granted there are larger homes, but there are other homes that aren’t much larger than this home. And there are some that are probably smaller. There is living on that first floor. There is a living, family room, some other activity areas besides the garage on the first, what would be the first floor of this, these two homes that seem to be the concern of why we’re asking for these requirements to be changed on our petition. It’s hard to take a look at two homes that are different and not complete it in a row when they’re set up and eventually will have this same feeling that when they did the Home-A-Rama with eight homes through there and everything blended in. Once you get it built and you fill in the gaps things start to take shape and you start to realize what the vision is. Stonegate’s had a vision since the beginning and I think most of the people here have said that and would agree. They’ve done their best and are still trying to do their best and as far as architectural review, there’s emails that go out asking anyone who wants to attend any of the architectural review committee meetings and are always welcome. Page 7 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Very rarely does anyone show up and for example those two homes were sent out as an e-mail and no one showed up to discuss anything about those, so with that I ask if there’s any questions. I’d be happy to answer. Mitchell All right are there questions for the petitioner? Schanke I have one just clarification for my own sake and I didn’t get it earlier. On your Attachment G. Mouser Yes. Schanke The zero setback will only really be applied to the common wall between the two, the common wall down here. Mouser Correct. We are going with 15 feet between buildings. Schanke Correct and is that 7-1/2 each, not 30 feet. For instance these, I know that – Mouser We didn’t spell it out, but you’re – Schanke But at least 15 feet – Mouser But, but, yes. Because your ordinance is really 10. We actually said we’d do 15. Schanke That was my only clarification. Mitchell Were there any further questions? Parks Just the one question. One of the requests that you didn’t address on the letter is one that I’ve been concerned about having run around in that area from time to time, and that’s the issue of on-street parking. One of the questions was whether it be that the driveways be such a length to allow an additional, at least one additional parking space between the garage and the street that would take some of the pressure off of on-street parking, is that possible given the size of the lots that you’re talking about? Mouser It could be. I can’t say that that’s, when each person comes in to build on these, they may use the whole area up to the 5 feet. They may only use, they may set it back 10 feet. What they would do is use that front setback to line them up, so they’re all uniform. We would want that, but the rear whatever they end up the building depth is or is what would control it. I would add though that in this area some of the streets are wider and we did that through Boone County two a lot for additional commercial parking. Parks Right. Page 8 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Mouser Seeing how there wouldn’t be off street parking necessarily ever established, so it was set up like downtown Zionsville where the streets are wider to allow parking and traffic maneuvering, so. And I also would add that if this all went commercial and you would have a lot more traffic than you ever would with residential from a pure traffic standpoint and that’s the reason when we built it roads were wider to accommodate that in case someone needed to park to visit someone. Parks And the other comment I would make is I noticed that the way the lots are laid out rear entry is easy on all but one. Mouser Correct. Parks 61 is the one that would not have an easy rear entrance. Mouser Yes, yes. Parks Just a comment. Mitchell Thank you. No further questions. The remonstrators do have an additional five minutes if they would like to talk about anything. Oville Adam Oville again. I’d like to address the Regent’s Park Home-A-Rama homes that he mentioned where they do, the entry is about on the second level, the difference with the Regent’s Park and the stilted homes that he was referencing is the fact that the Regent’s Park setback is far greater than the setback in any of these will have, so it’s not as drastic a rise up. It’s very difficult to tell and you can’t see that it actually is higher up. With these properties it’s going to be almost at street level 10 feet back. It’s going to be a much more drastic visual representation up. Additionally, the photo provided in Attachment E that fits all of our specifications we provide in our letter. It shows that it could be almost 3 feet entry no problem. So if that’s the photo they’re providing as their example for their build I don’t see any problems with our letter. Lastly, there is an architectural committee within Stonegate. It’s very difficult for a lot of the residents to attend those meetings, however, because the meetings are held on Monday at 4:30 which is during business hours. There are a lot of professionals within Stonegate which would mean they would have to take time off of work to attend every single architectural meeting. I am going to work with the developer to see if we can change that and make sure that we can get better representation on that architectural meeting, but I just wanted to point out that it is very difficult for residents to have their voice heard at the architectural committee meetings currently. Mitchell All right, thank you. Any questions? We’ll listen to the Staff Report. Page 9 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 DeLong Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed. Staff recognizes that the setbacks and lot coverages that are requested are found within the subdivision. Found within Stonegate. Certainly they are potentially on, if the property were to be developed commercially, so it’s really, this appears to be more of a question of land use than zoning certainly as the remonstrators indicated; however, from a zoning perspective when this project was first proposed initially, may be before it even came to the hearing with Boone County, it was actually contemplated as a PUD and that was not something the County wanted to see and that’s why we have this straight zoning and hence that’s why we’re here this evening. Again, staff is recommending approval of the petition. Again recognizing the dimensions and setbacks and lot coverages that are found or would be provided for if these lots were approved for commercial use or the other development pattern. And again it boils down to land use and that’s not something that Staff feels they could get into dictating what is the right use for this piece of property in this forum with private ownership. With that in mind, Staff is recommending approval and I would be happy to answer any questions. Mitchell Are there any questions for Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion by Member of the Board. Parks I’ll move that Docket 2013-28-DSV, the design standards variance, to reduce front yard setback, the minimum lot area, rear yard setback and increase maximum lot coverage for single family lots 61, 62, 64, 67-69, 71, 72, and 256- 257 and to reduce the side yard setback of two family lots 250 and 251 in the UB, urban business, zoning district of Stonegate be approved based upon the findings attached to the Staff Report as presented. Mitchell A motion has been made. Is there a second? Schanke I will second that. Mitchell Okay, a motion is made and seconded. Is there further discussion? Wopshall Yes, I would think we should spell out some setback numbers in the request. We’re just saying we’re allowing, but we don’t set a maximum or a minimum. Mitchell So your desire is within the motion that the specific setbacks as requested are enumerated? Wopshall That’s correct. DeLong Just for reference these are enumerated in the notice that was provided before. We could see to certainly read from that if you so choose. I’d be happy to provide the notice as soon as I flip to it. Mitchell Would it suffice to say that the motion references the notice? Page 10 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Parks Then I will amend my motion by stating that the setbacks are those that are enumerated in the notice and that the increase in the maximum lot size coverage also is noted in the notice to the neighboring property owners. Wopshall Okay, I will accept that. Mitchell The motion has been amended acceptable to the Board Member. Does the seconder of the motion accept the amendments? Schanke I’ll accept that friendly amendment. Mitchell All right, so the motion has been made and seconded. Is there any additional discussion? All right, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay. Motion carries. Thank you. The next item on the Agenda is new business and there is none at this time. Other matters to be considered tonight are the findings of fact from 2013-22-DSV under the name M. Price, which is the Bub's sign, so we need to have the findings of fact will be passed down and signed. I was not at that meeting, so therefore I can’t sign them. Also being passed down are the findings of fact for Docket 2013-25-DSV under the name T. Boudreau. Schanke I’m just making sure that that’s the right one. Mitchell While we’re reading these and signing them I would like to thank everybody for their participation in 2013 and the Board Members and Staff and Legal Counsel for your continued support and efforts throughout the time. This is my final meeting. I will be rotating off the Board. I can say I’ve had a great time. I’ve had a great amount of pleasure, but I do think it’s important for other people’s voices to be heard. I’ll see you around town. Good luck to you all and I’m available for questions if anybody ever has any. Drake Mr. Chair, I believe when Bub’s was before you, you did approve the findings as they were presented by the petitioner which is what you’re signing tonight. On Boudreau, those were drafted consistent with the hearing last month and I recommend an actual motion and second to accept those findings as your final decision. Mitchell All right, thank you. So go ahead. Schanke I’ll make a motion that we accept the findings of fact on petition 2013-25-DSV as presented. Parks Second. Mitchell Motion has been made and seconded. Any other discussion? Page 11 of 12 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals December 10, 2013 Morical Counsel, I believe I cannot vote on that because I did not attend that meeting. Parks That’s correct. Mitchell So three of the four of us will be voting. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye? All Aye. Mitchell Opposed nay, motion carries. Thank you. Drake Thank you. Mitchell Are there any other matters? Morical Mr. Mitchell thank you for your service. Mitchell Thank you, I appreciate that. I’ve enjoyed it. With that, the meeting is adjourned. Page 12 of 12