Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS ‐ ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 14, 2017 The Regular meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred on Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. in the Bev Harves Room at Zionsville Town Hall, 1100 West Oak Street. The following items were discussed: I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Attendance III. Election of Officers IV. Approval of the February 14, 2017 Meeting Minutes V. Continued Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered None at this time VI. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to provide for an addition to a single family home to: 1) Exceed the required lot coverage of 35%, to 42.5% 2017‐02‐DSV L. Hackman 130 N Maple Street 2) Deviate from the required side & aggregate yard setbacks 3) Deviate from the required rear yard setback 4) Deviate from the maximum accessory square footage in the (R‐V), Residential Village Zoning District. Approved, with commitments – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to 570, 580 & 590 W Oak replat 2 (two) 1.5 lot parcels back to the original 3 (three) 2017‐03‐DSV L. Birnbaum Street parcels to provide for 3 (three) single family homes to: 1) Deviate from the required minimum lot size in the (R‐V), Residential Village Zoning District. Continuance Request by Interested Party ‐ Continuance Approved – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to Estridge Oxford Woods 2017‐05‐DSV provide for or permit single family homes which: Homes Subdivision 1) Exceed the required lot coverage of 20%, to 24% for lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, & 15 within the Oxford Woods subdivision in the (R‐SF‐2), Residential Single Family Zoning District. March 15, 2017  Approved – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to provide for a: 2017‐06‐DSV HNK LLC 95 E Pine Street 1) Reduction of the number of parking spaces for an existing commercial building in the (VBD), Village Business Zoning District. Continuance Request by Petitioner ‐ Continuance Approved – 4 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Administrative Appeal of staff’s assessment of the Town of Zionsville Zoning Ordinance: 2017‐04‐AP H. Smith 2140 S US 421 1) Work requiring an Improvement Location Permit (ILP) commencing without an ILP, shall be assessed five (5) times the applicable amount stated in Ordinance No. 2000‐16 in the (AG), Agricultural Zoning District. VII. Other Matters to be considered: Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered None at this time Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development March 15, 2017  Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Chairman Greg Morical, John Wolff, Julia Evinger, Steve Mundy. Larry Jones is absent. Staff attending: Carol Sparks Drake, attorney; Wayne DeLong. A quorum is present. All Pledge of Allegiance. Morical The next item on our Agenda is attendance. DeLong Mr. Morical? Morical Present. DeLong Mr. Jones? DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present. DeLong Ms. Evinger? Evinger Present. DeLong Steve Mundy? Mundy Present. Morical The next item on our Agenda is to swear in our newest member, Mr. Steve Mundy. DeLong Mr. Mundy, raise your right hand. I Steve Mundy – Mundy I Steve Mundy – DeLong Do solemnly swear. Mundy Do solemnly swear. DeLong That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. Mundy That I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 DeLong The Constitution of the State of Indiana. Mundy The Constitution of the State of Indiana. DeLong And the ordinances of the Town of Zionsville. Mundy And the ordinances of the Town of Zionsville. DeLong I will faithfully --- Mundy I will faithfully – DeLong Honestly and impartially discharge -- Mundy Honestly and impartially discharge -- DeLong All of my duties – Mundy All of my duties – DeLong As a Member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mundy As a Member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. DeLong Without malice – Mundy Without malice – DeLong to the best of my skills and ability – Mundy to the best of my skills and ability -- DeLong So help me God. Mundy So help me God. DeLong Thank you, Mr. Mundy. Morical Mr. Mundy, welcome to the team. Mundy Thank you. Morical The next item on our Agenda is continued business of which we have none and then new business and that’s Docket #2017-02-DSV, Lisa Hackman. Please approach the podium, and state your name and address. Evinger Mr. President, I was just going to say matter of order, point of order. Page 2 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Morical I skipped the minutes didn’t I? Excuse me. So we now need to approve the February 14, 2017, meeting minutes that were distributed as part of the Board meeting packet. Are there any comments on the minutes? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I make the motion to approve the minutes as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Now onto Docket #2017-02-DSV. Please state your name and address for the record. Hackman Lisa Hackman, 935 Williamsburg Lane, Zionsville, but I guess the one we’re talking about is 130 North Maple, sorry. Morical Thank you, Ms. Hackman. If you could give us an overview of what it is you’re requesting here tonight. Schrock Sir, my name is Tim Schrock. I’m the owner of Design Build Solutions. Ms. Hackman has hired me to help her in the design of this and kind of present this project to you. The idea is that she would like to improve the property and add onto it. She wants to age in place on this property. The issues right now are that the only bathroom in the home is on the other side of the house from the current bedrooms, and so she’d like to add on a master bedroom next to the bathroom as well as expand that bathroom internally, as well as add a screened porch where she and her family can enjoy the Zionsville sites and views there on the street and then part of that addition with the, with all of this would connect the currently detached garage and make an attached garage. Morical Okay, thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Hearing none, thank you very much. Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the Staff Report please. DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly for sake of brevity, but also not trying to skip over several details, the office who has been working with the petitioner for a number of weeks now to refine the petition to the one that’s in front of you this evening. There have been some modifications specific to the square footages and placements and addition of two fireplaces, which are now a part of the petition. This represents a project that is complimentary to the neighborhood. The requested lot coverage is one that is found within the neighborhood. Certainly Staff is supportive of the petition as filed as indicated, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Page 3 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Any further discussion amongst the Board? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move to approve as requested. Morical Thank you. Steve we typically do the – Mundy The whole thing. Morical Yes. Mundy All right. I move to approve Docket 2017-02-DSV; anything further? You want the whole thing? I’ll get the hang of this. Morical You’re doing great. Mundy I move that Docket #2017-02-DSV, design standard variance, to provide for an addition to a single family home to: 1) exceed the required lot coverage of 35 percent to 42.5 percent; 2) deviate from the required side and aggregate yard setbacks; 3) deviate from the required rear yard setback; and 4) deviate from the maximum accessory square footage, all as illustrated in the site plan attached to the staff report, in the RV, Residential Village Zoning District for the property located at 130 North Maple Street, be approved as filed, based upon the findings of fact and as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger I second to approve, yes. Morical Okay, thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Schrock Thank you very much. Morical Thank you very much. Hackman I want to thank you very much. It means a lot to me. I appreciate it, and I think you’ll be proud of what I do. Thank you. Morical Thank you and good luck with your project. Hackman Thank you much. Morical The next item on our Agenda is Docket #2017-03-DSV, L. Birnbaum. Again, please state your name and address for the record. Page 4 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Birnbaum I’m Len Birnbaum of 440 Mulberry Street. The address of the project is 575, 580, and 590 West Oak Street. Morical Okay, thank you and Mr. Birnbaum, could you give us an overview of what it is you’re requesting here tonight? Birnbaum Yes, yes. I’d like to take the two existing 1-1/2 lot parcels that are adjacent to each other there at those three addresses, and take them back to the original platted three single lots. Morical And what’s your intent for doing that? Birnbaum To take the one single family home on 590, and the one double that makes up the address of 570 and 580, and build three single family homes on those three single lots over the next two or three years. Morical Okay. And would you be committing that you will just build single family residential properties there? Birnbaum Yes, yes. Morical Would you be willing to commit that they would only be two stories above ground? Birnbaum Yes. Morical Okay. And you’re going to have one house per lot? Birnbaum Right. Morical Any further questions from the Board? Wolff Just a quick clarification. The existing structures will be demolished? Birnbaum Correct. Wolff And replaced with three new, two structures gone, three structures – Birnbaum One at a time over the next two or three years, but yes. Wolff And essentially as I look at the full boat, the population is, you know when we think about schools and things like that, this shouldn’t affect it because there’s an existing duplex on it as well as a single family, so it’s three – Birnbaum It’s three units for three units correct. Page 5 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Evinger I have just one more question, too. With this, the way the lots are overlapping each other, I know you’re talking about demolishing one at a time, as far as the construction goes, the middle lot is basically going to not be able to be built upon until you demolish both? Birnbaum Yeah, it’ll be a little tricky. 590 would be demolished first, and then half of the double, the one on 580 second, and then 570 last. Evinger Okay, all right. Just again, just because-- Birnbaum Yeah, a little bit of a domino effect there for sure, yeah. Evinger Okay. Mundy Would you expect that the setback for the new homes that are built there will be in alignment with those that are immediately to their east? Birnbaum Yes. Mundy Because right now there’s both of those setback further than any – Birnbaum Yes, as Wayne and I discussed this, I understand the rule of without further variance to try and make that setback commensurate with what’s there on the average of the street, and that looks like that would certainly be, you know, fine. Morical And to that point, we see value in returning these parcels to the single family use that’s otherwise consistent in that area. Any further questions? Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs. Birnbaum. Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Okay, got one so we’ll – Birnbaum Give her the podium? Morical If you could sit down that would be great, and then they’ll state their name and address for the record, and we’ll provide you an opportunity to comment further. Singler Hello, my name’s Erika Singler. I reside at 595 West Oak Street. My husband and I own that property, and it is the home that sits directly across Oak Street, and views the western most lot of the current lots owned by the petitioner. I unfortunately have come to a lot of these, so I will try to stay within the bounds of what I think you all have to examine today. And, I certainly respect and acknowledge the petitioners’ ability to do what they want within the bounds of the current law with these properties that they purchased, and I didn’t. However, when they’re requesting a variance it’s my understanding that they have the burden to then show a few things that I don’t believe have been shown, and it may just be because in my opinion there’s not enough information set forth. First of all, one of the prongs that I think is required is that it would show that adjacent properties not be affected by diminishing the value of the surrounding homes. That may be the case, but I don’t know, based on we’ll build three two-story homes, that that’s necessarily true. Page 6 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 I don’t think that’s enough information to satisfy that. More importantly, I think one of the prongs that has to be met, if I’m not mistaken, is that the strict application of the zoning ordinance does not constitute an unusual hardship, and I don’t think there’s any discussion of that or what in this particular situation makes it a hardship to continue to have two homes. I have seen, I also have seen this same request. I think the last one that I saw was June of last year with the Fourth and Cedar property, and I keep hearing this, well, the lot use to be this size, so it should be able to be this size again, and I guess that just doesn’t make any sense to me. If we have a requirement the lots are 8,000 square feet, and out of hand, they’re always going to be allowed to be less than 8,000 square feet, it would be, as a homeowner I would prefer to be able to know, when moving into the Village what I can expect. If I can’t expect houses to be on 8,000 square feet around me that’s fine, but I think it’s only fair to allow people when they buy a house in the Village to know what they can expect and be able to rely upon that. That’s really all I had. Mostly, I don’t think there’s been enough evidence. Thank you. Morical Thank you, Mrs. Singler. And the other remonstrators? Again, please state your name and address for the record. McNabb Yes, we’re Terry and Harriett McNabb and we live at 515 West Oak right across the street from there, and I don’t have any problem with the variance of, you know, splitting the properties, but I was kind of concerned about what kind of houses are going to be built there. Are they going to be the same as, you know the same style as ours or is there going to be kind of a new thing or I mean the outside of it? You know, it’s going to have to be upgraded, but I mean is it going to be the same style as our houses already there? That’s what I’m concerned about. That’s what we are concerned about. Morical Okay. McNabb Erika’s house was there first, and then the three that we’ve talked to, the other two neighbors, and they elected us to come and say that they were, they’re not so much worried about the lot lines, but what might be coming here and there that we’ve seen in Zionsville that makes the character of our houses. That’s why we bought them, and so we were just wondering, they wanted us to come and say that they were a little leery, but that’s all. Morical Okay, thank you very much. McNabb Thank you. Morical Are there any other remonstrators here tonight? Again, please state your name and address for the record. Page 7 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Stewart Hi, my name is Ian Stewart and my wife, Christine. We live at 555 Cedar Street. I guess I have a question, maybe more than anything else here, essentially there’s a right-of-way sort of adjacent or it goes up the side into the back which provides access to garages and whatever, my question really is that in any way threatened by this potential development, particularly putting three onto two, and then I guess the wider question that’s been raised by a couple of other people is, you know, just the ability to sort of see what is being proposed. What is being proposed may be fabulous, but just without having seen more details of what, you know, who the builder might be, the style, etc., etc., so my assumption is down the road there would be opportunity to view in more detail the actual plans, is that correct? Morical Not exactly, no. As long as the construction would be built in accordance with the zoning ordinance and they didn’t ask for any further variances for setback or lot coverage or anything, they would have the right to build whatever is proper on that parcel, subject to the commitments that they would make as part of this proceeding, which is why I asked them about only one house per lot, single family homes, and a maximum of two stories above ground. Stewart Right, right. Okay, but I guess my question regarding access and the right-of- way to the sort of -- Morical And then your concern on that, the eastern right-of-way, on the eastern parcel – Stewart There’s like a right-of-way that goes directly onto Oak Street. Morical Right, from Cedar, correct? Stewart From Cedar, yes. Morical Yes, and it looks like that is all the way in the east and, Wayne, can you confirm that it’s not affected tonight? I believe that’s the case. DeLong Correct, the alley that’s to the east would remain. Morical Remain intact. So it’s really changing the parcel lines within the three parcels. Stewart Okay. And then any construction in the future would obviously need to maintain right-of-way for that access as well, I would assume? DeLong Correct, the only way to vacate an alley would be to file a petition with the Town Council, and that would require involvement of both of the property owners, the property owner at 550, who is not here this evening nor is providing any testimony, and then the owner of 570. That’s the process to vacate. Certainly, if someone were to want to temporarily close it that would require involvement of the Safety Board or Street Commissioner for, if there was a drop-off of drywall or construction materials, something like that. Page 8 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Stewart Okay. And I guess just a final question. How long ago was it three individual lots? Any idea of how many years ago that was? DeLong Yeah, I don’t have the date of when Cross’ 4th addition was platted. Certainly, some time ago. I mean this whole area has comprised of three lot blocks or 1/2 blocks, but yeah, I don’t have the recordation date in front of me. Stewart Okay, just more for curiosity because, you know, the fact that it was three lots 100 years ago doesn’t make it necessarily right today. Morical That’s true, except there are a whole bunch of parcels, including on your street, that are exactly the same size as what they’re proposing, and that everybody’s built houses with lots of that size, so from a scale perspective, that’s what this neighborhood already contemplates. Stewart Okay. Morical An alternative would be they build a really big house on three lots, which would be inconsistent, with the scale that’s already there. Stewart No, that’s helpful, thank you. Morical Thank you. Any other remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, Mr. and Mrs. Birnbaum, would you like to come back up, and address the comments and questions raised? Birnbaum Sure, yes. I guess as you said about the lots, those size lots are all around the area, so we didn’t think that seemed inconsistent with the neighborhood, and I understand being of the Village ourselves, we live in the Village. We love it, and we don’t want to see the integrity of the Village destroyed. We don’t like every single thing that’s been built in the Village, either. There are plenty of color schemes that we don’t like. There’s some things that look even somewhat utilitarian that we don’t like, and it would be our intention to build what’s commensurate, and would look nice, and fit into the community. Our intention is to build on one of these three for ourselves, and like I say, we love the Village, and like what it is, and want it to stay what it is. Morical Okay, thank you Mr. Birnbaum. So to recap, we talked earlier about your willingness to make a commitment that there would be one single family residence per lot, and that there buildings would be a maximum of two stories above ground on each lot, and that this would be for residential purposes. You are willing to have those commitments be recorded? Birnbaum Yes. Morical As part of the record? Birnbaum Yes. Page 9 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Morical Okay. Thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner? Mundy I have no question for the petitioner. I have a question for Mrs. Singler, if that’s appropriate now. Morical Oh, sure. Birnbaum Shall we vacate the podium? Morical Yes, thank you. Mrs. Singler, if you’ll come back up. Mundy I wonder if you could just go over your final point there. I wasn’t, I can’t say I was completely clear on what you were saying, the last point you made, which was referencing 8,000 square feet, and people should know that, so I’m just asking for clarity for my sake. Singler I guess what I’m referencing is right now my understanding is, is in the Village Residential District, the standard is an 8,000 square foot lot, is that correct? Morical That’s correct. Singler Okay. Morical For a new lot. Singler Right, so last summer there was a Cedar and Fourth and my knowledge, my limited knowledge, of these situations comes mostly from that, where a home was on a larger lot, and then was taken into two lots to have two homes when only one lot had been there in the beginning, and my point was really just similar to what the gentleman said earlier. It does not make any sense to me whatsoever why we have an 8,000 square foot requirement if every single time someone petitions for a variance, that it’s continually going to be granted every single time. Variances, my understanding, should be strictly construed, and if we aren’t going to continue to strictly construe those, my preference as a homeowner would be to move into an area, and know what I can rely on, and if I can’t rely on an 8,000 square foot lot in continuing development that’s fine, but I’d like to know that, so that was my point, and I still don’t think, am I incorrect that there needs to be a finding that it would be a hardship to continue to use the property as it already is now because I don’t think that we have heard that? Morical Well, they submitted as part of their record, their proposed findings of fact, and each one of those different elements, including the undue hardship element, and we’ve talked about how having a two-family dwelling in that space is actually an inconsistent use with what’s happening in the Village. The size of their proposed lots are exactly consistent with, and the houses that they are contemplating building, are exactly consistent with many nearby properties. Singler Where – Page 10 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Morical Another potential use – Singler What constitutes nearby? Morical The street right behind them. The street that’s right behind that. Singler On Cedar? Morical Yes. I think the house that’s to the south of you. Singler Right, I – Morical If you look at the – Singler It just depends on what you consider being nearby. That’s fine. I was thinking adjacent properties, but that’s fine. Morical Yes, that’s what we consider to be nearby. And we look at the facts and circumstances for each variance independently, and we make a determination based upon that. Singler Right. I guess I’m still confused on why it’s an undue hardship to use the property as two lots. Morical Okay. Singler I mean that’s my largest point. I reviewed what was online as far as the petition, and it certainly asserts, I believe, that it would be an undue hardship, but I don’t think there was any factual basis for that assertion. Morical Did you have the opportunity to review the Staff Report on this as well? Singler I did briefly. I just got back into town, and got notice of this Saturday, and then talked to someone from the Town this morning, so. Morical I’d encourage you to look at it because Wayne and his team always do a nice job of putting the particular request in context and identifying the different issues that explain one way or another as to why this would be a useful variance to grant or deny. Singler Thank you. Morical Mr. and Mrs. Birnbaum, any further comments? No. Thank you very much. Okay, Staff Report, please. DeLong Thank you. Certainly, this petition is one that is not unusual for the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider a request related to a project that looks to utilize a lot size that’s been established in a particular street block. Page 11 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 The request in front of you is a tad different as the property is improved with three units today, and is requesting to be improved with three units in the future in a different configuration. The presence of the double is a nonconforming use within the zoning district. They are permissible by special exception. We are not aware of a special exception being granted for this particular dwelling at 570, which has been there since 1972, I believe. So with Staff looking at this project and looking at the configuration of Cross’ 4th addition, and the lot sizes being requested over the ones that were historically enjoyed, and some are enjoyed today by parcels in the immediate area on Cedar, Oak, and yet there are certainly some parcels that are larger in the immediate area, and there’s certainly some parcels that are smaller in the immediate area. That’s the crux of Staff’s, you know, positioning with this particular request. You know, certainly the timing that’s been, you know, provided by the petitioner is certainly reasonable. Certainly, the added layer of regulation stating that the homes would, the proposed single family dwellings on each of the individual lots would be no taller than two stories in nature above grade certainly speaks to maintaining that streetscape that’s there today, which is made up of traditionally single family homes that are one and two story in nature. I don’t know what other questions I can answer specific to the project, specific to finding #3. You know, this property you know certainly could be utilized today in conformance with the ordinance. Today, it’s utilized in a manner that’s not in compliance with the ordinance. Again Staff’s crux of support is related to the fact that the petitioner is proposing to reconfigure the site, so it does comply with the ordinance, except for the lot size variance, which is the lot size which was allowed in this area historically. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Evinger Wayne, a quick question for you, and that’s regarding, I think, one of the concerns is just the idea of being consistent with the neighborhood, and since most of these do have rear garages, just that there wouldn’t be necessarily a curb cut to Oak Street, that there would be serviced or the garage would be in the rear of the property, is that correct? DeLong Certainly, that’s something that the Board could entertain as an additional condition or commitment that all vehicular access to the property be from the alley. It’s certainly typical in the Village or in the downtown area in the Village to have alley access to properties. Yes, there are curb cuts on Oak Street, 505 West Oak is one on the aerial here, 515 potentially may have one, but yeah certainly that could be something that the Board could ask as a commitment that each new single family dwelling be a rear load product. Morical But Wayne, they would need to request and obtain approval for a curb cut? DeLong They would need to request and obtain one. I am not certain, without having the street regulations in front of me, I am not certain what leverage the Town would have to deny such a request, but certainly it could be something that the BZA entertains this evening. Page 12 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Morical Okay, well I wouldn’t want to restrain their ability to enter from Sixth Street either. DeLong Certainly. Morical Mr. Birnbaum, will you please approach the podium for a moment? In addition to the other commitments we’ve asked of you tonight, would you be willing to agree that you will not seek curb cuts on Oak Street for these three properties? Birnbaum Yes, yes we agree to that. As a matter of fact, we’re abandoning a driveway that is already accessing Oak Street. We would be abandoning that, and accessing from the rear alley. Morical That’s in the center of the middle parcel? Birnbaum Yes. Morical Okay, thank you. Any further questions for Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I move that Docket 2017-03-DSV, design standards variance, to provide for a re- plat of the two 1-1/2 lot parcels back to the original three parcels, which results in a deviation from the required minimum lot size allowing a minimum lot size of 6,900 square feet within the RV, Residential Village Zoning District for the property located at 570, 580, and 590 West Oak Street be approved with the conditions based on the findings of fact. Morical And would you be open to an amendment to add the commitments made here tonight? Evinger Yes, thank you. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, and a reminder that the Plan Commission needs to review the plat prior to seeking any building permits. DeLong And then, just for a point of clarification since we used the terms commitments and conditions both in the same motion here, you’re looking for commitments to be executed and recorded against the property? Morical That’s correct, and that’s what the petitioner agreed to tonight. Page 13 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 DeLong Very good. Morical Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs. Birnbaum. The next item on our Agenda is Docket 2017-05-DSV, Estridge Homes, and we have received the request for a continuance from Estridge Homes. Before we address that request, I wanted to note that we understand that the petitioner did not send the proper notice required under our rules, and that would need to be done and completed prior to the next meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and in time for this matter to be addressed at that meeting. So given the request, it is up to us to approve their request to continue it to the next meeting, which I believe is April 11. Any discussion amongst the Board? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to continue this particular petition to our April 11th meeting. Wolff I will make a motion to continue Docket #2017-5-DSV to the April 11 BZA meeting. Mundy I’ll second it. Morical Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Okay, thank you. The next item on our Agenda is Docket #2017-06-DSV, HNK, 95 East Pine Street. Please state your name and address for the record. Drury Hi, Katie Drury, 8021 North Illinois Street in Indianapolis 46260 is my home address. Morical Thank you. Mr. Rausch. Rausch I am David Rausch with address at 70 East Oak Street in Zionsville. Morical Please provide us an overview of what it is you’re interested in tonight. Rausch Sure. As introduced, Katie Drury is here with me, our client, and the prospective purchaser of this building at 95 East Pine Street, and I’ll tell you a little bit about what is being contemplated for the property, and the reason for the request, and then questions about her operations or those sorts of things can be directed to her, but this building is about an existing 1,200 square foot building. It was built originally as a carwash, but has most recently been used for different office uses, and has been vacant for some time as you all, I believe, know. Kate is in the process of acquiring the building for her enterprise, and I’ll leave it at that, and basically as noted in the petition would involve some food counter service, and up to 42 seats is what we have proposed. The building would be fully renovated for a bakery food service function, and the possibility, although not necessarily definite yet, for a small addition to the southside. The building currently has some circulation space around it for vehicles as a function of its original use as a carwash, but that space a) doesn’t Page 14 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 allow for sufficient space for actual complying parking spaces, and then b) the notion is to create a facility that’ll enjoy the east views to the park, having some dining space inside, and some breakout space on patios that then will allow you to look at the park. The limited space between the east side of the building and Elm Street has got a big curb. There’s a big concrete pad out there, but it really is not complying parking, and that would be converted to greenspace. What we have been able to do, and is indicated in the sketch that was in the packet, is to basically extend, there are some existing parking spaces on the adjacent property immediately to the south. We do have the ability to add a single space, which we would set up as an accessible parking space that kind of extends that before the property gives way to, you know, what would be landscaping, and then an outdoor seating area, so in the end should the addition be realized we’d be looking at, as I mentioned, up to a maximum of 42 seats, which would then result in by math a requirement of about seven parking spaces. The office use would require three as it sits there positioned today, but those spaces obviously have not ever been provided, so we’re asking for a variance to reduce the seven required to one space for this use. Morical Thank you, Mr. Rausch. Any questions for the petitioner? Hearing none, are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, we’d like the Staff Report please. DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. This is a request for parking variances indicated to the BZA. You have heard two or three different types of parking variances over the last four to five years. This is not a typical request, but these come to you when they’re run across, and deemed something that’s necessary such as the redevelopment of a particular building or the establishment of a substantial addition to an existing building. The request for reduction in parking uniquely is an interesting conversation within most small communities where oftentimes downtown areas are viewed to have parking problems. In 2013 and 2014 the Town of Zionsville undertook a parking and marketing study in which it was determined that the Town of Zionsville downtown area did have a parking problem two hours a week on very peak moments in time. Certainly, that was a few years ago. Things have changed, but at the same time there are different tools in place such as restriping of certain areas, the interest of the town to increase off street parking via, you know, future projects for parking lots, and other additions and changes. But all that said, the Staff is supportive of the petition as filed for the merits that Mr. Rausch indicated that we have an existing building that did not provide for parking in its previous form, looks to provide one space in its future form, and what also exists is a decent amount of parking that’s adjacent to the property. Yes, that is public parking that is available for anyone, but again, going back to what our parking study showed us is there are very peak moments in time a few times a week where parking is at a premium, but generally speaking there is, available parking can be found in the downtown area. With all that said, Staff is supportive of the petition as filed and is recommending approval, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Page 15 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Mundy Has there been any effort by any group to legitimately free up some of that parking that I know existed in that study, which is private parking, but often unused in the evening hours? Because, I can tell you as a frequent diner in Zionsville in the evening that is, last Saturday, I drove around several blocks to find a space, which was really not close to where we were dining, not unbearable, but at the same time I went by lots and lots of private space, which was unused, and it’s, you know, do I go, and I eventually did just go ahead, and use private space, but not far from this building there is another private building with space. They close at 7 o'clock, but they have signs up there, which very clearly tell you that if you’re not there to visit their business you run the risk of not finding your car when you come back, so it would seem to me that either the town or the EDC, some group, try to work out arrangements with utilizing that private space because there would be times when people would like to visit, and might park three or four blocks away. And there is space; it’s just do you have the guts to pull in there, and lock your car and walk away. DeLong Right and that downtown parking study identified 432 parking spaces that are off street, private, if you will that a portion of those are private that, you know, the town should work to find a way to free those parking spaces up, incentivize those individuals to bring those into the parking realm through various, you know, a variety of reasons. The Chamber and the Town have both, you know, worked on that particular project off and on given the other things that have taken precedence over the years, and driven by that the issue hasn’t sort of boiled over if you will. It hasn’t become something that has been a project that has been completed, but yes, it’s definitely on the radar and routinely talked about just how to implement that. Morical Thank you. Any further questions for Staff? Evinger Just one little point, and this is kind of, anyway just to make a point to you, just I think, you know, her business, especially being on a park, and the type of business that it is, she will have a lot of walk-up business as well as parking, so I think in this case, even though it might be creating more of a little bit of a parking impact by the number of seats that are in the restaurant potentially, that like tier point, even during peak season or peak times, I think there will probably be a lot of walk-in traffic for her, so I don’t know that this is necessarily going to be a hardship. Morical Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Wolff I’ll make a motion. I move that Docket 2017-06-DSV, design standards variance, to petition for development standards variance in order to permit the establishment of a restaurant/bakery with one off street parking space for the property located at 95 East Pine Street in the Village Business Zoning District be approved as filed and as presented. Page 16 of 17 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 14, 2017 Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Good luck with your project. Drury Thank you very much. Morical The next item on our Agenda is Docket #2017-04-AP H. Smith, and we received the request via email from Mr. Smith that his petition be continued, and it was provided during such time that we need to vote on that and make a decision whether or not to continue it. It’s also important to note that Mr. Smith has not properly provided notice of the fact that he has filed this petition, either by mail to the interested parties or by publication, and it would be required for him to make sure to do so, and do so timely in order for this petition to be heard at the April meeting if we are to continue it tonight. If we are to continue it, and if he were to fail to provide the required notice, it would be up to us to make the decision, but we would have the right to dismiss his petition in April, and dismiss it with prejudice, so he would, in effect, be stuck with the decision that’s been made administratively. So with all that said, I would entertain a motion to continue Mr. Smith’s petition. Wolff I will make a motion to continue petition #2017-04-AP to the April 11 BZA meeting. Morical Thank you. If there a second? Evinger I’ll second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Are there any other matters we need to address tonight, Carol? Drake No. Morical Then we are adjourned. Page 17 of 17