Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS- ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS May 9, 2017 The Regular meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred Tuesday, May 9, 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. Approval of the April 11, 2017 Meeting Minutes IV. Continuance Requests Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered None at this time V. Continued Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to provide for an addition to a single family home which: 1) Exceeds the required lot coverage of 35%, to 41.5% 2017-07-DSV D. Mikell 165 N Maple Street 2) Deviates from the required side yard setback 3) Deviates from the required aggregate side yard setback 4) Deviates from the required rear yard setback in the Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). Continued to June 13, 2017 – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to allow for two (2) integrated center signs (one permitted), which: Stonegate 6885 W Stonegate Drive 2017-10-DSV 1) Exceeds the allowed square footage Signage (Common Areas T & U) 2) Exceeds the allowed height 3) Is proposed to be installed zero (0) feet from the front yard setback all within the Stonegate subdivision in the Rural Professional Business Zoning District (PB). May 11, 2017  VI. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved, with commitments – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance to provide for 2 (two) lots which: 2017-13-DSV L. Selby 6890 S 850 East 1) Exceeds the required 3 to 1 lot width to depth ratio 2) Deviates from the required road frontage in the Rural Equestrian Zoning District (RE). Approved with commitments – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Special Exception to allow for an existing 2017-14-SE C. Hammes 7675 S Indianapolis Road residential building to remain in an Rural Industrial Zoning District (I1). Approved – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to 2017-15-DSV D. Kennedy 8300 Cooper Lane allow for the addition of a pool and pool house which: 1) Exceeds the allowable accessory square footage in the Rural Equestrian Zoning District (RE). Approved – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to 2017-16-DSV M. Lister 8399 E 50 South provide for an addition to a single family home which: 1) Deviates from the required front yard(s) setback in the Agricultural Zoning District (AG). Approved, with commitments – 3 in Favor, 0 Opposed Coyote Lake, Petition for Development Standards Variance, to provide for: 2017-17-DSV 7400 Hunt Club Road LLC 1) Two (2) Primary Structures to exist on the same parcel in the Rural Equestrian Zoning District (RE). VII. Other Matters to be considered: Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Estridge Oxford Woods 2017-05-DSV Status of Amended Plat Homes Subdivision Ansley Park 2017-11-DSV Fischer Homes Status of Amended Plat Subdivision 2017-12-DSV Beazer Homes Hampshire Subdivision Status of Commitments Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development May 11, 2017  Town of Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Chairman Greg Morical, John Wolff, and Larry Jones. Julia Evinger and Steve Mundy were absent. Staff attending: Carol Sparks Drake, attorney; Wayne DeLong. A quorum is present. Morical Good evening and welcome to the May 9, 2017, meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals. The first item on our Agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. All Pledge. Morical The next item on our Agenda is attendance. DeLong Mr. Morical? Morical Present. DeLong Mr. Jones? Jones Present. DeLong Mr. Wolff? Wolff Present. DeLong Ms. Evinger? DeLong Mr. Mundy? Morical The next item on our Agenda is the review and approval of the April 11, 2017, meeting minutes. Are there any comments on the minutes? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Wolff I will make a motion to approve the minutes. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is continuance requests. We are not aware of any continuance requests, so the next item is continued business, the first item of which is 2017-07-DSV, D. Mikell for 165 North Maple Street. If you’ll please approach the podium, state your name and address, and what it is you’re asking from the Board tonight. Mikell __ (1:58) (petitioner spoke and acknowledged staff’s report)* Morical Okay, thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions for the petitioner? Wolff You mentioned that this would probably reduce the overall lot coverage, I’m sorry did you say a number of what you think it might be today or guess? Mikell __ (3:20) * Wolff Yes currently. Mikell __ (3:22)* 42.4 percent Wolff Okay. Mikell __ (3:28)* Morical I think the Staff Report notes a reduction of 0.8 percent. Wolff Thank you. Morical So not a huge reduction, but there is one and obviously makes your garage usable and would be more attractive than the older garage there today. Any further questions? Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs. Mikell. 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. As noted, the request that’s in front of you is actually reducing the lot coverage that’s out there today, so that’s a plus for the area and as this property already is over the percentage, is actually reducing it based on the proposed improvements. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed as indicated, and certainly, we would be supportive of maintaining the same percentage, just making it clear for the record. Again, Staff is recommending approval, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 2 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Wolff I will make a motion. I move that Docket #2017-07-DSV, design standards variance, to provide for an addition to a single family home to 1) exceed the required lot coverage of 35 percent to 41.5 percent; 2) deviate from the required side yard setbacks; 3) deviate from the required aggregate side yard setbacks; and 4) deviate from the required rear yard setbacks, all as illustrated on the site plan attached to the staff report, in the RV, Residential Village Zoning District, for the property located at 165 North Maple Street be approved as filed, based on the findings of fact and as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you Mr. and Mrs. Mikell. The next item on our Agenda is Docket #2017-10-DSV, Stonegate signage. Again, please state your name and address for the record. Reitz __ (5:40) (petitioner spoke and acknowledged staff’s report)* Morical Mr. Reitz, are there hours for when the ground lighting will be operational? Reitz __ (8:50)* Morical Okay. I believe at the last meeting we asked you to provide copies of the recorded commitment. Reitz __ (9:50)* Morical Wayne, did you receive a copy of the recorded commitments? DeLong No. Just for point of clarity, what we received was a copy of the unrecorded commitments and certainly while those are helpful, we do have a copy of those in the office already, but certainly this Board would benefit from having a copy of the recorded executed commitments, so it’s very clear as to what is applicable to Stonegate specific to signage. Morical So we still need the official document? DeLong Correct. Morical And he could get that from the Boone County Recorder’s office? DeLong Correct. Morical Is that something you’d be able to do? Reitz Yeah absolutely. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 3 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical Okay. Reitz __ (10:50)* Morical And then, so what you’ve included in your petition in terms of the signage, you’d now like to change to move from the 14 feet 2 inches in height to 12 feet? Reitz Yes. Morical And the same width? Reitz __ (11:26) * Morical Okay. Reitz __ (11:30) * Morical And then there’s the lighting issue and the location. Is it still proposed to be zero feet from the front yard setback? Reitz Yes. Morical And I know Staff had raised a concern before about your ability to perform maintenance around the sign with that being right at the setback. Reitz Yes, yeah they mentioned that, but I do not see a maintenance issue. Morical You don’t see a maintenance issue then? Reitz No. Morical Okay. Reitz __ (12:40) * Morical Any questions for the petitioner? Jones Yeah, just a couple. The columns on either side of the sign portion, are those sort of a metal or a clad piece coming up through there? Not the stone base, but the two columns that hold the actual sign framework? Reitz Yes, __ (13:02) * Jones So their scale might go down a little bit. I’m glad to see you reduce it down to 12 feet. That was the one concern. It seemed to be a little tall. Where you’ve got it laid out, I’m assuming you’re going to probably lose two of the smaller signs at the bottom reducing the height, so you’ll end up with two kind of large signs and six smaller, are there that many businesses in Stonegate that’ll want to, and I * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 4 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 guess where I’m driving at is to see about trying to get the Stonegate Elementary signage up in the body of the sign framework. Does that make sense? Reitz __ (13:42) * Jones Okay. So it’s highly likely you’ll fill all these blanks? Reitz Oh yes I’m certain __ (14:56) * Jones Okay. I just think for the rest of the Staff if anybody’s been out there, the Commission, is between the right-of-way and probably there’s some existing walls and stuff that don’t really show up particularly well on this aerial, so I think keeping the sign up near the right-of-way, it’s about the only area that’s actually available out there to do it, so I don’t have much concern with it being up that close to the actual right-of-way line. Morical Mr. Reitz, as a follow-up to Mr. Jones’ question about the number of spaces you have for signage and your comment that you’ve got multiple undeveloped parcels still, is this going to be enough signage for the community? As once we approve this you’d have to come back for another approval. Reitz __ (15:56) * Morical Have you completed a new rendering that reflects the 12 foot change that – Reitz No. There has not been time to complete a new rendering. Jones Yeah, and Wayne, a question for you. Once we approve something like this if they want to alter the size of the sign areas or add or decrease or do whatever, we don’t really have any say in that matter, correct? DeLong Once the sign’s mass is approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals and its setback, its type, its place, its manner so to speak that’s, unless it increases in size, otherwise that’s the only tripwire I would see where it would appear back in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Jones So if the owner wants to go to, you know, instead of two large and six small, do this math, 10 small, they are free to do whatever they see fit? DeLong Unless this Board sets that as a condition or commitment that the copy, the commercial copy area, be maintained at a minimum size providing for a minimum. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 5 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Jones My preference would be to not do that. Once we have established the size of the sign and the parameters is to let it be. Reitz Okay. Morical Mr. Reitz on the lighting of the sign question, would you be willing to provide a commitment that you would only light up the sign when any of the businesses that are noted on there are operating? Reitz Yes. Morical Any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you Mr. Reitz. Any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the Staff Report please. DeLong Thank you. This project is one that the Staff has been working with either the petitioner or parties in Stonegate for several months. We’ve had several meetings with various individuals, some collected meetings, some with everybody in the room, some with just specific parties in the room. During that time various sign means and methods have been discussed. Certainly a sign that has a copy area that’s upwards of 12 now amended tonight in height is not something that has previously been discussed. Certainly the petitioner is welcome to pursue that and present that request this evening. Certainly the discussion from last month focused on the aesthetics of the sign as proposed. At that time it was 8 feet tall as well as providing some level of copy area to be inclusive of, you know, the uses within Stonegate including the nonprofit or the municipal if you will corporation, the school corporation. From a Staff point of view we are not in support of a 14 foot tall sign or a 12 foot tall sign. Certainly Staff would be supportive of simply utilizing masonry columns on the sides of the 8 foot tall sign as proposed last month. Certainly the concept and the percentage of masonry was not determined last month, but the Board of Zoning Appeals spoke to the desirability of having some level of masonry component, so certainly it’s fantastic that the petitioner is interested in providing a sign that has both the masonry sign base and a percentage of masonry that comes up the sides, but certainly if that’s causing the sign to gain height that’s at least 12 feet in height, certainly one idea is to reduce the amount of masonry that’s being used and simply apply it to the sides of the sign that are 8 feet tall, use it as a masonry component and work with that sign from there. The setback is of some concern as a 0 foot setback, just the mere construction of the sign would require the entry into the right-of-way of Whitestown Parkway, which is controlled by the Town of Whitestown. Staff certainly can’t speak to any methods that the Town of Whitestown would do to provide for the encroachment, either temporary or permanent, to provide for that construction, but we are merely providing that as advisement for this evening and certainly ongoing the need for maintenance, mowing, other types of service to the sign, certainly can appreciate that the sign could be maintained from its side and rear; however, there might be some reason to work on the sign from the side that is closest to the roadway and Staff would encourage a mower deck width setback to allow for some ease of maintenance and that typically relates to a 2 to 3 foot setback to allow for the placement of the ladder, allow for the use of a mower to circulate around the sign, the exterior lighting restriction, certainly Staff would not object to that, to a commitment or * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 6 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 condition regulating the lighting to be limited to functioning during operating hours of the businesses. With those thoughts in mind, Staff would certainly encourage a continued dialogue. Certainly, work through these issues this evening and move this project forward, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Jones I’ve got two. Under Staff recommendations the last line, further the timing of the installation of the eastern most sign shall be timed to the establishment of improvements in proximity to the contemplated sign, what’s – DeLong Well the, it’s Staff’s understanding that the petitioner is proposing two signs per Exhibit 3. Certainly, the Board of Zoning Appeals has that choice this evening to provide some level of control as to the timing of the installation of that eastern most sign. What Staff is attempting to do is structure that installation and time it to a point that the eastern roadway cut is constructed to allow for additional use of the area that has the original horse barn and the other area that’s zoned PB as also an R3. So that’s where Staff is attempting to take that. Jones Mr., it’s Reitz? Reitz Yes. Jones If you could please come back up to the podium. So my question’s going to be are you agreeable to, it sounds like holding off on the installation of that eastern most sign until there’s commitments on the road up there, is that what I’m hearing? DeLong Commitments in the form of somebody moving forward with the project. Jones Correct. DeLong Yes, that’s what Staff is expressing. Jones Is the property to the east owned by Stonegate? Reitz __ (24:46) * Jones Okay. Reitz It is not part of Stonegate. Jones But do you guys have control over that property? Reitz Yes, but it is also for sale. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 7 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Jones Okay. So the question, I guess, if what I’m trying to think of or hear, is that if for some reason a road cut is placed farther east on this adjoining piece, would this sign want to be in closer proximity to that road cut? Am I making any sense? DeLong Certainly, the petitioner could pursue another cut onto Whitestown Parkway. What Staff is striving for here is to time the second sign as to when the Stonegate area, the original Stonegate or the expanded area owned by a different entity builds out. We’re just trying to set a metric for that trigger. So, certainly if, you know, Staff could say, you know, if a second road cut was constructed, just time the location and installation of that sign to that act and then one thing I didn’t, just to highlight here, any action tonight by the BZA certainly does not augment any control that Duke Energy or whomever controls the power lights out front they’re certainly going to have criteria as to separation and for different purposes. I certainly want to be clear that if a reduced setback, whatever that dimension is, the power company may have some concerns about height as well. Jones And then, Mr. Reitz, would your intent be to build both signs at the same time or if some sort of condition is placed on that eastern sign, is that a concern? Reitz We hoped the signs could be constructed simultaneously. Jones Well that’s what I’m trying to do is prevent that from actually happening. Reitz Right. Jones But the question is, can we approve a future sign on property that’s not part of the current development plan? Does that make any sense? Morical It does, but it would be for the signage on this property. Jones Correct – Morical A condition on a future thing occurring. Jones So, we are limited to being able to approve a sign on the current property? So, if for some reason they would want to move it farther east, and then the second question is, it sounds like they would like to proceed with getting the sign up correct? DeLong Say your second part of that again, please. Jones Is that whatthey’re wanting, Mr. Reitz and Stonegate, is wanting to build the sign sooner than there being any commitments on that adjoining parcel as to where any kind of road cut? DeLong Right, that’s, yep certainly that sounds like that’s being proposed. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 8 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Jones The third was going to be are there any rules and regulations if we build it up to the right-of-way can they reach around with a weed eater to cut in front of the sign, but I don’t think that’s actually pertinent. Wolff I guess you bring up some of my concerns, which were 1) I certainly agree and support Staff’s recommendation on the right-of-way. I think 3 feet seems not that significant and does allow them maintenance. I didn’t observe the walls that you may have observed out there, so I’m not sure, maybe I defer to your expertise. My other concern would be Staff has kind of suggested an 8 foot height and what we do have, I think the sign Exhibit 5 is more attractive than Exhibit 4, but it did grow by, you know, this recommendation 5 feet, and they’re trying to get it down to 12. That’s a tall sign. Jones Yeah. The two towers at the entry are probably about 18 feet tall. I drove out there and was checking on them and poking at this a little bit ago. So that was one concern with the sign being 14 feet tall is that where it was going to sit it would appear to be almost as tall as though, a 12 foot it’s kind of substantially reduced. Like I said I wasn’t particularly concerned. Now that the height was reduced, that was my one concern. Wolff So your reaction is 12 is a significant; you thought 14 was too high? Jones Correct. Wolff 12 seems appropriate? Jones Correct. Morical And then the concern from Staff is that 12 is too much and the last time the petitioner came in with a request for 8. Wolff Right. Morical And did they really need even 12. Wolff Can I get a 10? Jones What you’re getting into is that when you start putting the stone base on it to match the walls and the other details you just lose sign area. Wolff Yeah, and I think I heard Staff say that we’ll take the stone base out and put stone columns up. I’m not a sign expert, but – Jones Yeah. Morical You’re on the Plan Commission, Larry. Jones So anymore questions or? * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 9 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical No. Thank you, Mr. Reitz. So, we’ve discussed the signage. Staff wants it shorter. The petitioner came back with something taller. We had asked the petitioner to work with Staff to work through this, so we could have a recommended approach that both the petitioner and Staff were comfortable with and Staff is telling us they’re still not comfortable with it. We don’t have the recorded copy of the commitments that was requested of the petitioner at the last meeting. Then we have two issues. First, the setback. It would seem that if they did the smaller 8 foot sign that was only to be 11 feet and 6 inches versus the 13 feet and 2 inches of the proposed sign that they would have the ability to move it back from the right-of-way and second the lighting issue. Wolff I think I’m comfortable with the lighting issue. I think your recommendation on operating hours of the businesses advertised seems reasonable to me. I guess I would like to see a petition that the Staff was more supportive of. I would defer, I think the Staff is an expert at signage, and I defer to their expertise. Morical What do you think, Larry? Jones I would concur. Morical Okay, Mr. Reitz, will you come back up again for a moment please? Mr. Reitz, would you be willing to continue to work with Staff on the size and location of the signage? Reitz Yes. Morical To hopefully achieve something that you’re both comfortable with. Reitz Yes. Morical And during that period of time obtain and provide the recorded copy of the commitments to Staff. Reitz __ (33:10) * Morical Okay, terrific and then we will continue this matter, which we’ll need to vote on, to the next meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is June 13. Does that work for you Mr. Reitz? Reitz __ (33:28) * Morical Okay good. Reitz __ (33:36) * Morical Okay, we appreciate that. Any further – * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 10 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Jones One other item, I’m assuming somewhere back in the old drawing files is the original kind of layout of those entry walls and stuff. Could you give us a piece of that just to sort of show a little better detail of the relationship between the new sign and the existing walls that are out there? Reitz __ (34:00) * Jones Yeah, don’t – Reitz __ (34:02) * Jones Yeah, those are in here, but they’re kind of – Reitz __ (34:06) * Morical Are you interested in scale too, Larry? Jones Yeah, I’m just more interested in just, if you could just Xerox or copy that chunk of the plan and draw it in by hand. We’re not looking for any kind of engineered, civil, blah, blah drawing. Just something just to give everybody a level of comfort as to where the existing walls sit in relation to the right-of-way and where the sign will sit. That’s easy enough. Morical Okay, so I would entertain a motion to continue this to the June 13th meeting. Wolff I will make a motion to continue Docket #2017-10-DSV to the June 13, 2017, BZA meeting. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Mr. Reitz. The next item on our Agenda is new business 2017-13-DSV, L. Selby. Please approach and state your name and address for the record. Selby __ (35:08) (petitioner spoke and acknowledged staff’s report)* Morical Great thank you. If you would provide a brief overview of what it is you’re requesting tonight. Selby __ (35:22) * Morical Thank you, Mr. Selby, and have you had the opportunity to review the Staff Report? * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 11 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Selby Yes. Morical Okay, so you know you would still need to go in front of the Plan Commission? Selby Yes. Morical And the review, and I think you’ve got something in here from the fire department already saying that your proposal is fine. Any questions for the petitioner? Jones So, in general, you’re supportive of being able to make the changes to what is basically going to be a private road to make it a sufficient turnaround for emergency and other utility vehicles out there? Selby Yes, there currently is an existing __ (36:18) * Jones I guess what I’m asking is there will be, you’re wanting to put in a private road and not a public street correct? What I’m asking is that you’ll conform to the dimensions required for a public street with your private drive, so that there is sufficient room for emergency vehicles to turn around and get in and out? Selby Yes. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Selby. 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 listing the items that the petitioner has, I’m sorry the Staff Report has referenced and specifically ties into the future filing of a Plan Commission submittal to provide for the division of the parcels. Certainly, the Staff Report speaks to the establishment of a maintenance plan related to the drive, the ingress/egress easement, which would appear on the future plat, and certainly Mr. Jones has referred to the Zionsville Fire Department and their interest in seeing an adequate turnaround as well as a drive that can handle their largest apparatus. This project comes to you with some history as outlined in the Staff Report. The project received various approvals and hearings with the Boone County APC back in the mid-2000’s. The plat was never recorded and certainly in looking at the APC’s subdivision control ordinance, plat approvals did expire, but certainly it’s good, a factual background, and certainly the petitioner is working to move portions of that plat action forward based upon the filings that are here as well as forthcoming. Again, Staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to the items listed in the Staff Report as referenced this evening, which is the maintenance plan related to the contemplated ingress/egress easement and the design of the drive being one that can support the Zionsville Fire Department’s largest apparatus. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 12 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical Thank you, Wayne. In the language on those two items proposed in the Staff Report you suggest that those commitments be reduced to writing and filed with the Boone County Recorder within 60 days of the grant of the variance. Would you be amenable to that being 60 days of the date of the approval of the subdivision by the Plan Commission? DeLong That’s certainly fine. Morical Great. Any questions for Staff? Wolff Wayne, in your opinion, we end up with a couple of odd-shaped lots. Well maybe they’re not. They’re perfectly square, but they’re kind of odd, but that looks consistent to you with the other lots in that area correct? DeLong That’s a great question. When this Board heard the Smith/Summers variance petition about 18 months ago, Staff’s Report at that time spoke to the unique land plan for this area, that the parcelization chosen by the landowners lists larger tracts of ground divided up with unique parcel boundaries. The fabric that’s being extended here and in front of you this evening follows that exact concept, and certainly as it’s following the original platting or the original hearing process that happened some time ago, it’s not changing anything. Morical Any further questions for Staff? If none, I would entertain a motion being mindful that we’ll need to address the proposed commitments. Jones I’ll make the motion. I move that Docket #2017-13-DSV, design standards variance, to allow deviation from the requirement for a parcel to provide 45 feet of road frontage, lot 2 and lot 3, and deviate from the lot depth to width ratio of 3:1, lot 2 and lot 3, all as illustrated on the site plan attached to the staff report in the Rural Equestrian Zoning District, RE, be approved as amended based on the findings of fact. Those amendments to be 1) that the following commitments will be reduced to writing on Town forms and recorded at the Boone County Recorder within 60 days of the date of the grant or within 60 days of the date of approval by the Zionsville Plan Commission and that those additional amendments be 1) a maintenance plan be established for the contemplated ingress/egress easement to be executed as part of any platting of the property and that 2) the design of the contemplated ingress/egress easement and terminus shall meet design requirements of the Zionsville Fire Department. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. DeLong And before you vote, just for point of clarification in that motion, I would suggest that you reference primary plat approval just so it’s very clear that your 60-day clock starts when the Plan Commission takes action specific to the primary plat. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Larry, are you amenable to amending your motion? * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 13 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Jones I’m amenable to that addition. Morical John, are you amenable to seconding that? Wolff I am. Morical Okay great. All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Selby. The next item on our Agenda is 2017-14-SE, C. Hammes. Hammes We are applying for a special exception for an existing residential building to remain in a rural I1 area. Morical Thank you very much. Any questions for the petitioner? Jones What’s actuall y creating the request for this? Is it consideration of financing? I saw some notes in there about that. Hammes We cannot sell to a buyer with conventional financing unless a special exception is approved. Jones When did this, do we know, Wayne, when this property got zoned to the, I can’t think of the actual zoning, the light industrial? DeLong No, I do not have that history offhand here. I mean the home was built in 1992. No record was provided as to a prior special exception being granted, so it’s unclear as to how the property got to this point. Jones Were you aware of the property’s zoning? Hammes __ (44:50) (petitioner spoke and acknowledged staff’s report)* Jones Yeah. Hammes Yes we were, but our mortgage company didn’t sell the mortgage so it wasn’t an issue. Jones Yeah. Hammes __ (44:58) * Wolff Just out of curiosity, approximately when did you purchase the home? Hammes About three years ago, in 2014. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 14 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Jones This one kind of reminds me of one of the first ones that we talked about north of the airport up there. North of 32 there’s a piece of land back in there that was along the railroad tracks that it’s zoned in such a way that you could smelt ore with used plutonium and that would be just fine and some homes have been built around it and now the homes are like, well, there’s these people doing these things on this land and you know we had to tell them that’s how it was zoned. You don’t get to complain, and so my concern is with doing this kind of stuff is it falls under the no good deed goes unpunished, maybe not for them and the sellers, but at some point this house gets developed and built and something more, but the adjoining properties then want to actually take advantage of the zoning and do something, and now we’re seeing videos of babies, you know, next door to warehouses. Is that what you do, you always bring a picture of your baby, never mind, so is there some way that we have to work through this to somehow, you know it’s almost like a right-to-farm kind of amendment to include with it? DeLong Yeah, and that’s where Staff would take this if following that, that line of thinking is there is right-to-farm paperwork, a form that we routinely utilize when someone comes in front of this group seeking a special exception that’s in an AG area to put that purchaser and future buyers on notice that the property is adjacent to industrial land. Certainly, if that is a condition the BZA wishes to affix to this particular process related to an approval, certainly the Staff would be happy to modify our form to make one that’s right-to-industrial. Hammes __ (47:40) * Jones And the difference is, is that the subdivision across the street was always aware that on the other side of the street was this kind of industrial zoning, so everybody’s been put on notice that that’s what’s going on. What you have is a situation here where the current piece is being used as a residence and can be used as a residence, the concern is that the adjoining property owners would then want to use their property as zoned and may need some sort of variance or change and you get into this situation where the adjoining property owner can then, the existing, whoever owns this parcel, you know, makes some statement and petitions against it and we don’t want to be put in the bind of having to tell somebody down the road it’s the no good deed goes unpunished doctrine that we don’t want to find ourselves having to tell somebody who has maybe spent more on this home remodeling it down the line that no, the people adjoining you are able to put in a car lot or whatever. What Wayne is suggesting is a way that we can actually walk out of here where you get your special exception, but there’s also just a little piece of paper that follows the property that makes everybody aware that the adjoining properties are zoned industrial and that they can do as per what their zoning allows and they kind of don’t get to complain. They get to complain, but they kind of pass on the right to complain too loudly. Is that close? DeLong I think that’s pretty fair. It’s putting, it’s the reverse of what we typically do is this property would put, you know, the world on notice that it’s zoned industrially. It’s, the legwork falls to Staff. We create this form for you. We do everything – * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 15 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Hammes __ (50:14) * Jones Correct, but their property is zoned appropriately for the type of financing attached to their home. You’re asking for a special exception, so you get special consideration from your financing. Hammes __ (50:50) * Morical But in this case the property owners come immediately up to the property that you’re talking about versus across the road. There’s the road. There’s the setback. There’s the parcel that they appear to have retained for either a common area or a future light commercial development and then those houses. Hammes __ (51:24) * Morical But it’s not immediately right next door. You’re asking for a formal acknowledgement that this house can be used as a residence, which is fine. And we’ve got corollary to this industrial use issue with the right-to-farm, which is if somebody moves in, wants a variance, they acknowledge that people around them have the right-to-farm. I think it makes all the sense to apply that same logic here, and we can do this on a go forward basis and ask Staff to recognize it and recommend it each time, that is, the right-to-industrial use of the neighboring properties, and we’ve got the ability to condition giving people variances on things that we think makes sense, and I think that makes sense. Are you willing to – Hammes __ (52:28) * Wolff You know, I understand you sort of feel like, oh potentially, this may be a negative mark against our piece of property. I would say that what it really does is protect the town, which is good, and if the person looks at the property and doesn’t recognize the fact that there’s an industrial, then that person’s probably not qualified to get a mortgage anyway, so it doesn’t do anything other than – Hammes __ (52:54) * Morical Kind of in your face. Hammes __ (53:10) * Morical That it’s in your face. Hammes __ (53:14) * Morical What it really does is drive transparency. Hammes Right, right – Morical Which isn’t a bad thing. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 16 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Hammes __ (53:28) * Morical A nonissue. Yeah, we hope so, too. Okay, great. Any further questions for the petitioner? Any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the Staff Report please? DeLong Thank you. Staff is certainly supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly you know we can definitely work through and quickly update the forms. We can get this to the applicant, the petitioner here, so that can be recorded and certainly not delay anything here. Certainly that would certainly show up in title work, so that may likely cause maybe an update to the title, title search, so that’ll be an instrument number that will pop up. Again, Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly we’re working with a circa 1992 home that’s been there for a few years. The history is a little cloudy as to how it got there in the first place, but certainly ultimately the right to industrial form that we can come up with certainly serves a good purpose in the long run. Morical Right, thank you. Any questions for Staff? Jones Can I just make one quick mention? One, what we’re putting together and going to propose, and hopefully you know say yeah or nay to, is it’s not really binding on you until you decide to accept it, correct? DeLong Correct. Morical Right, if she wants the special exception. Jones If she wants the special exception, so what I’m going to suggest is after we do this, take a little time and go talk to some other people other than us, to get a little better read on this because I’m thinking it really, it’s the kind of thing that basically, like he said, drives transparency. I think once it’s put out there it’s just basically you know you got your special exception and the special exception to get it we had to make sure we agreed that everybody was aware that the surrounding properties adjoining, directly abutting properties, not across the street, are zoned a certain way and keeps everybody on a level field, so I think, and from the lender’s standpoint, you’ve got your special exception that they wanted, so it doesn’t affect the lending side of it and it really is just an additional notice, and it should be something everybody’s talking about, so it you know – Hammes __ (55:54) * Jones We do the right-to-farm, so when people build their, you know, big dream home and all of a sudden they find out that the cattle that they like to look at actually are, you know, they’re downwind from them, that’s why it’s there, you know. You know, we’ve heard it over and over again people love looking at the horses. They don’t like being downwind of the barn, so you can’t own the view without smelling the smell so. Hammes __ (56:22) * * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 17 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Jones All right, sounds like I got to make a motion. I move that Docket #2017-14-SE, petition for special exception to allow for an existing residential building to remain in a rural industrial zoning district 1) be approved as recommended with the addition of the filing of and recording of a right to, how do we describe this? Morical Industrial use. Jones Right to industrial use as presented. DeLong Yeah, that sounds adequate as I email my Staff to get on this. Jones Okay. Morical Real time, real time service. Wolff Our legal counsel’s– Drake Yes. Wolff I’ll make a second. Morical All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Motion approved. Thank you very much. Good luck with the sale. The next item on our Agenda is 2017-15-DSV, D. Kennedy. Mr. Andreoli please state your name and address for the record. Andreoli __ (57:48) (petitioner spoke and acknowledged staff’s report)* Morical Thank you, Mr. Andreoli. So their property, the petitioner’s property, is within a platted subdivision? Andreoli __ (1:00) * Morical The property is within a subdivision? Andreoli Yes. Morical Is there an HOA? Andreoli No. This is an old subdivision. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 18 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical Okay, thank you Mr. Andreoli. Any further questions for the petitioner’s representative? Hearing none, 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, as Mr. Andreoli indicated, there’s a fair amount of requests that come in front of you related to accessory versus primary use. Certainly, Staff is taking great interest in the amount of petitions that come in front of you, certainly looking for ways to work on ordinance changes that mirror more of what is desired by community residents while still achieving the goals of the community related to accessory versus primary lot coverage. Certainly, when you’re working with a parcel of this size, the location of accessory uses are more of an interest to Staff than in the percentage per se as long as everything stays in its own checks and balances if you will, but given, you know, the location of the proposed accessory uses concentrated within the proposed parameters of the parcel and that the accessory use that’s questioned this evening is a use that will be living space, if you will, for the occupants and the owners. Staff is certainly supportive of the petition as filed. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Jones I’ve got a quick question. So this is a little bit of a different question than we get into with our lot coverage issue, so the pool area doesn’t really count? DeLong The surface area of the pool does not count against lot coverage. Jones Okay. Because we’re not really worried about lot coverage. It’s more about the size of the accessory structures covering a larger – DeLong Correct. Jones Okay. Morical Than the primary, right. Any further questions? __ (1:03:40) * Morical Great, thank you. Any further questions for Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Wolff I will make a motion. I move that Docket 2017-15-DSV, design standards variance, to allow for the addition of a pool house which exceeds the allowable roofed accessory structure footage (providing for 4,886 square feet of roofed accessory structures in association with a 3,536 square foot dwelling) be approved as filed, based on the findings of fact, and as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 19 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Jones Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations Mr. Kennedy enjoy your pool and your pool house. The next item on our Agenda is Docket #2017-16-DSV, Mr. Lister. Hello Mr. Burrus. Please state your name and address for the record. Burrus __ (1:05:02) (petitioner spoke and acknowledged staff’s report)* Morical Hold on one second. I think we maybe, are you the Lister’s? __ (1:05:22) * Morical Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you’re the Agenda item after the Lister’s. Sorry, Mr. Burrus. We have to wait a few more moments to hear about Coyote Lake. Mr. and Mrs. Lister, please state your name and address for the record and give us a brief overview of what you’re interested in tonight. Lister __ (1:05:56) (petitioner spoke and acknowledged staff’s report)* Morical Okay, thank you very much. Any questions for the petitioner? Hearing none, 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. As noted, the property is located along two roadways. Therefore it has two primary front yard setbacks. The front yard setback along County Road 50 South is one of greater interest as it is a roadway that appears on the thoroughfare plan for potential widening to the collector classification. If that widening were to ever occur and the minimum 40- 1/2 right of way was acquired, the proposed addition would still comply with the required setbacks if that were to occur. With that in mind, it provides a little bit better measuring tool than the standard setback of 70 feet measured from the center line and given that any future widening of the proposed addition would comply with the required setback measured at that time. Again, it is why Staff is supportive of the petition, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Wolff I will make a motion. I move that Docket #2017-16-DSV, design standards variance in the Agricultural Zoning District to provide for a minimum 62 foot front yard setback, measured from the center line of east County Road 50 South, and a minimum 37 foot front yard setback, measured from the center line of South County Road 840 East, all per the plans on file for the property located at 8399 East County Road 50 South be approved based on the findings and based on the Staff Report. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 20 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Mr. and Mrs. Lister enjoy your new porch. Now I’m excited to say that we get to address Docket #2017-17-DSV, best for last, Coyote Lake, LLC. Burrus __ (1:09:14) * Morical Okay, so Mr. Burrus you’ve already given us your name and address. We appreciate that. If you could give us a brief overview of what it is you’re asking for tonight. Burrus __ (1:09:32) * Morical Thank you, Mr. Burrus. I suspect you’re correct that the roadways on the parcel would support the Fire Department’s usage of their largest vehicle, but we would want to have that confirmed as a condition of this if that’s okay. And then Wayne would we need a commitment to maintain the roads in that way? DeLong Certainly if that’s, the Board could require that as a commitment. You have structured things in the past that way when you have not had a level of checks and balances if you will by the Plan Commission. The history that I’m thinking about is maybe a touch more intense where there has been divisions of land such as the one that is in front of us this evening and that was as well as a two-lot division, so you could go ahead and include that as a part of your motion. Staff would not object to that. Morical And would your clients be amenable to that Mr. Burrus? Burrus __ (1:14:00) * Morical Once someone wants to build more than one primary residence on a parcel, we want to make sure there’s good fire access to it. Even within just the single ownership and in light of the extensive use of the property to host events historically, I suspect it’s not a problem. It’s just something we would want to have included. Burrus __ (1:14:44) * Morical Great, thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner? Hearing none, are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the Staff Report please. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 21 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed and certainly, as noted, there is some history when there has been contemplated placement of a second dwelling on larger tracts of ground. Staff does not review who would occupy that second dwelling, but certainly you generally hear that it’s somehow a relation with the current landowner, and certainly Staff would not object to the proposed commitment related to just an ongoing maintenance agreement being established related to the contemplated access drive that maintains a level of care that supports the fire department’s largest apparatus. Again, Staff is supportive of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Wolff I guess does there, maybe I’m getting lost in the weeds here, but does there need to be a maintenance agreement if it’s all one property owner? Morical Carol? Drake I don’t believe so. My recollection is, for instance, on Mr. Keeker’s party barn – Wolff Yes. Drake You initially did have some specific requirements that the Fire Department wanted. When it was renewed again you continued to require that the Fire Department drive be maintained consistent with what you had required before. So I think you can do it as long as it’s single ownership via commitments similar to what we did in that instance. Morical In other words it would be recorded. Drake They would be recorded commitments. Morical Any further questions? Jones I was just going to say just along with the easement is that, you know, with the Keeker it was more or less a, you know, creating a public use versus this is strictly going to be a private use. Morical It was a commercial use. Jones A commercial use, yeah. That we were kind of approving, which I don’t know if the easement, the maintenance portion would really be a, do we get into the question of address in this, what’s sort of shown up before in front of us where, how does, what is the, how is this separate – Morical How does the Post Office know who gets what mail? Jones Well, we were having that conversation a couple of meetings ago, somebody wanting two addresses for one piece of property, correct? * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 22 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 DeLong Correct and that was the assignment of an accessory address to an accessory building. Certainly, as this would be two primary dwellings on one piece of property, you know, Staff would move forward to assign addresses to the second dwelling, so there would be no question, at least from the GIS response point of view, that the second habitable structure has an address. Jones But I guess the question is, why was the previous one where they were required to come before us for a variance or attempt to get a variance and we sort of, I thought we turned them down. DeLong It’s a double, yeah it’s an interesting conversation. I mean your Subdivision Control Ordinance specifically discourages the assignment of two addresses per parcel; however, for purposes of life safety and for purposes of mail, the Post Office is going to be looking for an address to be assigned. Utility companies are going to be looking for an address to be assigned. Fire department or 911 responders are going to be looking for an address to be assigned and as this parcel is not being subdivided, that Subdivision Control Ordinance is not applicable. I think when we were referring to the SCO in that prior discussion, we were articulating that there are ordinances that discourage the assignment of two addresses to a parcel and the fire department was against and not supportive of the assignment of an address to an accessory building; however, they would be supportive of the assignment of an address to a second primary. Jones Okay. Morical So my thought is that when we’ve had the subdivisions, even the small ones, like we heard tonight we require that there be adequate Fire Department access, so for all practical purposes this is substantively identical to what that was a little further east on Hunt Club Road. Any further questions or comments? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Wolff I move that Docket #2017-17-DSV, design standards variance to provide for two primary structures to exist within the same parcel in the RE, Rural Equestrian Zoning District for the property located at 7400 Hunt Club Road be approved as filed, based on the findings of fact, and as presented with the additional commitment that access to the second residence be maintained to the Fire Department standards. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical Quick question Carol, should that commitment be to both residences or just the second one? Drake I think that access to both would be appropriate. Morical Would you be – Wolff I’m amenable to that. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 23 of 24 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals May 9, 2017 Morical Would you be amenable to seconding the amended motion? Jones I’d be amenable to seconding the amended motion. Morical Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Burrus. Any further items to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals tonight? Hearing none – DeLong We do have some updates for you. Specifically – Morical Do we need to deal with anything on the record? DeLong I’d say we can give you a brief update. Certainly Estridge Homes, which is the Oxford Woods docket number, we’ve spoken to the agent that was here last month, which was Bryan Stumpf, he indicates that they may have some concerns getting that plat amendment put together. We’re working with him to see what language can be generated to facilitate the condition from the BZA’s action specific to Fischer Homes and Ansley Park. We have no new information related to the amendment of that plat. We did speak with the petitioner’s agent, you know, shortly after the conclusion of the prior meeting, and he indicated that he didn’t believe we’d have a problem getting that taken care of, and we’ve not heard anything since then. Specific to the Beazer Homes, Hampshire subdivision statement of commitments, we still have not seen a filing related to that, but did receive an email today indicating that they’re working on putting together proposed modifications related to removal of two portions of privacy fence as required by a previous action, addition of architectural style as contemplated in your last month’s BZA and some other items related to, other items that are beyond the BZA’s interest, but it does speak to some hydroseeding of the front yard, but it looks like they’re moving forward with a filing. I would suspect that we would see that here in, maybe even filed in May for a June hearing. So, just providing those updates for your reference only. Morical Terrific. Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for Staff? Any further items to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals? Hearing none, we are adjourned. * Petitioner’s audio was not recorded Page 24 of 24