Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS- ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVEMBER 14, 2017 The Regular meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. in the Zionsville Town Hall Room 105, 1100 West Oak Street, Zionsville, Indiana. The following items were discussed: I. Continuance Requests Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered None at this time II. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved, with Dusk to Dawn Lighting – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to allow Tom Wood for eleven signs (seven permitted), which: 2017-39-DSV 6408 Crane Drive Toyota Signs 1) Exceeds the allowed square footage maximums 2) Exceeds the allowed height maximums all within the Rural General Business Zoning District (GB). Approved, subject to compliance with conceptual elevations – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to provide for the construction of a detached garage which: 2017-40-DSV V. Brewer 150 N Main Street 1) Exceeds the required lot coverage of 35%, to 45.5% 2) Deviates from the required side & aggregate yard setbacks 3) Deviates from the required rear yard setback 4) Deviates from the maximum accessory square footage in the Urban Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). Approved – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to provide 10833 Marquette 2014-41-DSV B. DeCoursey for the construction of a detached garage which: Road 1) Exceeds the allowable accessory square footage in the Urban Single-Family Residential Zoning District (R-SF-2). Continued to December 12, 2017 – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance in order to provide for a new single family home on a lot which: 2014-42-DSV R. Glenn 8662 E 200 South 1) Deviates from the required 3:1 lot width to depth ratio in the Rural Low Density Single Family and Two-Family Residential Zoning District (R2). Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development November 16, 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Greg Morical, Larry Jones, John Wolff, Julia Evinger, Steve Mundy. Staff attending: Carol Sparks Drake, attorney; Wayne DeLong. A quorum is present. Morical Good evening and welcome to the November 14, 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? Evinger Present. DeLong Mr. Mundy? Mundy Present. Morical The next item on our Agenda is the approval of the meeting memorandum from the October 10, 2017, meeting. We prepared a memorandum of the meeting because of some issues with the audio that night, and that memorandum was distributed to the Board as part of the meeting packet. Are there any questions or comments on the memorandum? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I would like to make a motion to accept the memorandum as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is the setting of our meeting dates for the year 2018. Those dates were distributed to the Board as part of the meeting packet. Are there any questions or comments? Have we inadvertently landed on somebody’s anniversary or anything like that? If there are no comments, may I have a motion please. Mundy I move to accept the scheduled dates for the 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals 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 very much. The next item is continuance requests of which there are none. Then we move on to new business, Docket # 2017-39- DSV, Tom Wood Toyota signs. If the petitioner or the representative would please approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Price Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Board. My name is Matt Price. I’m an attorney with Bingham Greenebaum Doll in Indianapolis, and I’m here tonight on behalf of Tom Wood Automotive. My colleague Greg Ewing is handing out some packets that will help explain our variance request this evening, and a representative of Tom Wood, Kevin Cobble, is here, who is the Director of Administrative Services for the company. Although you may be familiar with it a little bit from just seeing it being built over the last several months, Tom Wood has a new Toyota dealership under construction at the southeast quarter section of the intersection of Whitestown Parkway and I-65. It received development plan approval earlier this year from the Zionsville Plan Commission. It is a full service dealership, meaning that it will sell parts, provide service on vehicles, oil changes and the like, as well as more extensive repairs, as well as being a new car dealership. The property in question is located behind the Cracker Barrel, if that gives you a frame of reference. It’s approximately a 10-acre parcel. It is somewhat unique as far as the access to the property. It’s off a street called Crane Drive, which kind of meanders off of Whitestown Parkway and goes back to this 10-acre section that is located approximately 700 feet south of Whitestown Parkway. So, it’s located quite a bit off of Whitestown Parkway. It doesn’t have any frontage on the parkway itself. You gain access, just from Crane Drive. The building itself, which may not be entirely apparent, but the building itself is actually oriented towards I-65. So, if you were to take the Whitestown Parkway exit as you’re heading north up I-65, if you look to your right, you would see really the front of the new car dealership that is under construction today. We’re here tonight on a number of variances relating to the sign package for the dealership, and I can describe kind of why. What the areas of variance are relates to just the total number of signs. We have a proposal of 11 signs. Under the zoning ordinance that’s applicable to this portion of Zionsville, only 7 would be permitted. That’s a function of the amount of street frontage that we have. That’s how you calculate the number of signs. As far as the square footage of the overall sign package, the ordinance is more permissive in that it would allow up to 3000 square feet of signage on the buildings and on the site. We’re proposing significantly less than that in total square footage. So, the total square footage of our signs only comprises a little over 582 square feet. But, the Page 2 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 variances are necessary because of the overall number of signs, and because of the height and square footage of 2 of the pylon signs. Let me talk just a little bit about those 2 signs in particular, and I can do that, probably the easiest way is just to look on the front page of the color exhibits that Greg handed out. The red lines point to each of the signs that comprise our sign package, and the 2 that we’re referring to as pylon signs. I think you may sometimes hear them referred to as a blade-style signs. The point is that they are stand-alone signs. Those are located at the rear of the property. So, at the far eastern or northeastern corner is the shorter of the two pylon signs, and then the taller one, which also requires a variance, is located in the far southwest corner of the property. And, they really just serve, I think, two distinct functions for the property and the business to operate here. The one on the northeast is more of a sign for the property itself and would be somewhat visible to travelers along Whitestown Parkway. So, it identifies the business from that thoroughfare and provides kind of a demarcation of where the business is located for east-west travelers. The one in the southwest corner of the property is a taller sign, considerably taller than what’s permitted under the zoning ordinance, but not uncharacteristic for businesses that are oriented towards an interstate highway, and in particular, ones that are attempting to provide evidence of a location of the business for users of the interstate itself. Let me explain a little bit about how that works. This property in that southwest corner is at a low point on the property as far as elevation. You can see actually immediately south of where the sign is located is a retention pond for the property. There is approximately a 20-foot difference in grade between the land where the overpass is for I-65 and where this sign would be located on the south portion of the property. And, the idea is that for travelers, in particular, coming south on I-65, perhaps at great distances before they get to the interchange, perhaps behind a semi with an additional 13 feet or so of height on a vehicle, and with the elevation change, before they come up on the overpass itself, or near the overpass itself, they would be able to see where the business is before they are immediately upon or even past the interchange. And, so that’s the reason for the height of the sign. If you go out and travel around this vicinity north and south on I-65, you can actually see exactly where our sign is proposed. If you look back north, you can actually see a sign that I believe is taller. I have not measured it, but a taller sign at the Travel America. But, I think it does provide a similar service in that it identifies where the Travel America center is, or in that case, travelers, truck drivers and others who are heading north on 65, and identifies that business location before they are actually at the interchange. We think that’s going to be important for this business because while we’re certainly hopeful that it will be a draw for residents in Zionsville and around Whitestown, you are perhaps more familiar with the area and the location of this dealership, it will also be a draw for individuals seeking to have their car worked on, or for a vehicle that’s been called back in for additional service work, or for warranty work, and for those seeking to buy a new car and maybe coming from areas that are more removed from the immediate Zionsville/Whitestown community. Also, just to mention, that as far as the uniqueness of this property, I don’t believe there is another property that is in Zionsville’s planning jurisdiction that is oriented towards I-65, as far as a business offering of any kind. And, so, it is a uniquely situated property in that regard. We don’t think the approvals, for example, of these variances, should they be approved, would be precedent setting or would be subject to a lot of repetition by later applicants because there just aren’t other properties that are oriented towards 65 and have similar characteristics to this property. Those are the highlights of the proposal. We have sent out, I will just note this. We’ve sent out 26 legal notices to all the adjoining property owners and have not received any negative comment or any comment as far as the proposal. We’ve worked closely with staff in developing this application, and we would Page 3 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 be available to answer any questions you have about the operation and the sign package in question, or any other questions pertaining to our request. Thank you. Morical Thank you, Mr. Price. So, in your comments, are you saying that the signage that’s along the interstate, that is, the signage at the southwestern portion of the property, is designed so that somebody driving southbound on I-65, north of the interchange, can see it over the top of a semi? Price Well, yes. I mean, we think it would at least aid in it being visible. I don’t know that you’d be able to see it from behind a semi. It would depend on a lot of factors, including how far back you were, etc. But, certainly it would, I think, provide you with at least some ability, particularly if you were looking for the business, like using a GIS or another navigation system, to at least be able to confirm that you can locate and see the business that you’re trying to identify as you’re traveling, in particular, south on I-65. Morical And, you said it’s going to be about the same height as the Travel America sign? Price No. This one is 61 feet. The Travel America, this is anecdotal, but take it for what it’s worth. I do a fair amount of cell tower zoning around the state, and so I have some experience just kind of looking at tall structures as I’m driving around and just eyeballing it in relation to surrounding power lines and telephone poles, etc. It looks taller than 61 feet. And, it’s certainly a different design. It’s more of what I would consider a traditional pole sign with a tall TA emblem at the very top of it. It looks like it could be upwards of 80-85 feet. It’s taller. But, I think it serves a similar purpose. Morical Their customer base is very different, right? They’re essentially, or frequently, transient people just driving through town trying to find a gas station along the interstate, whereas presumably people typically are more thoughtful about where they go to service their car. They don’t randomly say, “Oh, I forgot my oil change, and I’m going to get off at this intersection.” Price Well, the only thing I would say about that is that Travel America, that particular facility is a little bit different in that it does have a business center, and it offers amenities for truck drivers where they can stop and, for example, take a shower, check email. And, so I do think that particular center does have maybe a little bit closer analogy in that I think there are folks who are looking for that particular business because it provides a unique set of services, not unlike what I think the Toyota dealer is. Morical Still, their customer base isn’t people that live around that area, primarily. Price Right. Morical So, the Cracker Barrel that’s just to the northwest. What’s its signage on the interstate? Price On the interstate itself, it has really in both directions, but particularly as you’re heading south, it has interstate signage, meaning that it has informational signs that identify for a traveler heading south, you are going to come upon a collection of restaurants, including the Cracker Barrel. Morical Those little square – Page 4 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Price -Yes, the identifiers. That would not be available for a business like Tom Wood. Morical But they don’t have any other kind of significant signage? Price As far as like a billboard? Cobble -inaudible- Morical Cracker Barrel does? Cobble I’m Kevin Cobble with Tom Wood, Director of Administrative Services. Just to the north of us, that Cracker Barrel sign is a, what I’ll call a multi-tenant sign. It’s very large. It’s 100-120 feet tall. It’s very significant. Price Yes. I think he’s talking about interstate, signage on only the interstate. Cobble Oh. Sorry. I thought you meant signs in general. Morical No, there is signage in general on the building. I’m trying to get a sense for the scale of your signage compared to their signage. Because, they’re also trying to pull people in from the interstate. Cobble Yes. Our sign is much smaller than theirs. The sign we’re asking you to grant us a variance for is much shorter than their sign. Morical Cracker Barrel’s sign is taller than 61 feet? Price No, it’s not. Cobble -inaudible- Price You may give an answer to that. Cobble I’m talking about height, I guess, and maybe you weren’t talking about height. I was talking about height. DeLong I’m not familiar with that sign. I mean, I don’t know the height of it, but I know where it is. Jones Isn’t there something about that sign that the pole existed when Cracker Barrel came in. I remember when we discussed the Cracker Barrel restaurant and the approval of it, but I thought for some reason that that sign, or the pole or something was existing. DeLong Unfortunately, I wasn’t here on staff when that came through. Jones It is much taller than what Matt is – Price - It’s taller than 61 feet. Jones Yes. Page 5 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Cobble One of the things I want to point out to you, just based on one of your earlier comments if you don’t mind, we are relocating a dealership from, what I’ll call the west-central side of Indianapolis. We hope to bring many of our customers with us, and I would venture to guess that many of those people probably don’t get to Zionsville frequently. So, in terms of helping them to locate our business. Morical And, for these larger signs, you intend for them to be lit at night? Price Lettering is illuminated. Yes. Morical Rear illuminated. Price Yes. Morical Right. So not from the outside. And, 24 hours a day, or from dusk to dawn? Cobble We typically run those on turners, dusk to dawn. Morical Okay. One thing that’s a challenge for me is to see how this signage, the tall signage, fits in. The signage on the property I don’t have a concern about. The significant signage and how that kind of affects that surrounding area, and how it fits into the surrounding area, we kind of talked about that. Any other questions for the petitioner? Jones Do you have a real question? Mine is kind of unrelated. Evinger I was just going to go back to the illumination. But you noticed all the people that are in the subdivision that’s immediately adjacent, and no one had a concern with light pollution or anything else? Price No one did, and that area is, so you’re separated by the retention pond, and it’s very heavily treed and a lot of vegetation on the south side of that retention pond. It really screens that area pretty well. Mundy That was my question, about the residents that would be adjacent. Jones Mine is more just kind of long-term. Do you think at some point up there, would the access off of Whitestown Parkway, either Crane, or do you think eventually Perry Worth would become, my question is, at some point, would there be some additional signage put out there at that intersection for the entire development? And, if so, just for Wayne, how does that flow through to us, or would it at all? DeLong For the campus that is owned by the petitioner or derivatives of the entity, we talked to their representatives about this, and ultimately additional signage would require additional variances. You know, it’s very likely that the next dealership or the next improvement that Tom Wood takes on in this location, again, the signage would be vetted by the Plan Commission. The discussion would occur. Certainly, this was no surprise that they were pursuing a variance was well known, you know, at the onset of this project to begin with, that this would be a request that would eventually come to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The signage ordinance which we adopted from the county when we consolidated simply doesn’t adequately address the needs of a modern dealership, so just Page 6 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 with that statement, I would assume you’d see another request again in the future if this is replicated. Jones Once the development sort of fills in as to what’s happening with the surrounding properties. So, okay. DeLong It will be a campus. Jones And, then, the last thing. Thanks for getting that road out and putting the curb in back there behind the neighborhood. It looks good, and I think it will clean up just fine. Cobble -inaudible- DeLong Could you repeat that again? We could see the microphone wasn’t lit up, and so we could tell that that was not recorded. Cobble. We’re talking about adding a berm as well as a screen for the neighbors, and so I think that will be just another step towards making sure everybody is happy. Morical Any other questions for the petitioner? Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the staff report, please? DeLong Thank you. Provided to you this evening is what staff is calling an updated staff report. Again, we’ve been working with this project for quite some time, and when we put together our version of the staff report, we talked about 12 signs and not 11, when in fact, the petitioner did file for 11 signs. When staff reviewed this many months ago prior to its filing, there is particular mechanisms and means that the staff uses to review signage. One particular sign we counted as two because of the separation between the logo and the letters, hence 12 versus 11. The staff report marries and mirrors up to the petition that’s in front of you this evening. Petitioner’s representative did a fantastic job describing the petition. Certainly, staff is supportive of the petition as filed. As we mentioned, the ordinance is difficult to manage when it comes to a larger dealership. It allows for a larger land use. As we mentioned, the ordinance would support upwards and north of 3000 square feet of signage on this building. That is not a number I think that the community would look to see, and certainly the petitioner is managing that application, but also seeking interstate-style signage. This 61 foot sign, for example, is something that is within that street scape. Certainly, there are billboards across the street that are 40-45 feet in height. The Toyota emblem on this particular sign is modest in nature when it comes to the overall scale of the sign, and certainly that, with the neighborhood there and any other uses, any illumination of signage on this corridor would be visible if it was 40 feet, 62 feet, 61 feet. So, in looking at that, looking at the height issues that the petitioner has outlined this evening, and then the filing, staff is supportive of the petition as filed. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Also, kind of emphasizing the note that was made earlier that all the neighbors were provided notice of this, and nobody has chosen to come here or otherwise write us a letter to express their concern. So, by virtue of that, they’ve essentially assented to this, and the signage. So, I think that’s significant. Any questions or comments for staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Jones I move that Docket # 2017-39-DSV, Development Standard Variance, for the property located at 6408 Crane Drive to allow for 11 signs, 7 permitted, which exceed the allowed Page 7 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 square footage maximum, and exceed the allowed height maximums, all within the Rural General Business Zoning District be approved as presented, and as recommended by staff. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Price. The next item on our agenda is Docket # 2017-40-DSV, V. Brewer. When you come up to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. V. Brewer My name is Verlon Brewer. E. Brewer And, I’m Elizabeth Brewer. Morical Okay, thank you. And, we received your packet of information that shows your interest in replacing your current garage with a new garage. I think that’s pretty clear. So, we appreciate that. Is there anything you want to add that isn’t already in your petition? V. Brewer I don’t believe so, no. Morical Any questions? Hearing none, are there any remonstrators here tonight? Would you like to come up to speak? Okay, great. Mr. and Mrs. Brewer, if you’d give her a little space, that would be wonderful. Again, please state your name and address for the record. Lacy Actually, I’m speaking in favor of the project, but my name is Amy Lacy. I’ve lived at 105 North Maple Street for 15 years. I also own another property in the Village at 140 North Maple Street. So, I feel I really have a vested interest in the Village, in the homes there. I want to express my support of the variances regarding the setbacks and the increased lot coverage for the proposed garage at 150 North Main Street. Though, I know it requires increased lot coverage above the standard 35%, and it does deviate from standard setbacks and square footage, but based on the plans that I’ve seen, I feel that the Brewers have really tried to make sure that the scale and the style of the structure fit in with the neighborhood and with the character of the Village. I think a garage of this size and style is an improvement to their property. I think the proposed new garage will be beneficial to the neighborhood. I think it will help increase property values, and I believe it will maintain and contribute to the unique charm that makes the Village such a desirable place to live and to visit. So, I hope you will vote in favor. Thank you. Morical Anybody else who would like to speak tonight? Seeing none, may we have the staff report, please? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. We do outline a procedural note in the staff report, and we do this with all projects that we’ve run across these issues previously, so we just want to make sure the petitioner is aware of the anomaly. Certainly with the Duke Energy power lines and all the other services that come through there, Page 8 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Comcast and others, they do have separation requirements, and those are beyond the Town zoning ordinances, and definitely your contractor should coordinate with Duke Energy to make sure your separation standards are met, the minimums are met. Secondarily, again, staff is again supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly, it would be remiss not to mention staff’s concern that we always mention about structures up against the right-of-way. You know, the right-of-way is, of course, a public place. Lots of things go on the right-of-way. Utility installation, others, vehicles, pedestrians, dog walkers, and so on. And, certainly at a minimum, when this building is constructed, it will require some management of the right-of-way for the encroachments of contractors and footing, construction and so on and so forth. Certainly, the ongoing maintenance, when it’s needed, and mowing around it, will cause some entry into the right-of-way to conduct that type of activity. Certainly, staff always encourages some level of setback from the right-of-way. Certainly, again, the staff report is acknowledging that request and certainly staff is supportive of it, but I do want to acknowledge on the record here this evening just the overall long-term issue of having a structure up against the right-of-way and the maintenance and what these folks might run into. And, certainly always encouraging, at least, what I call the mower deck width, 22 inches, 24 inches of setback just to allow that ongoing maintenance, but certainly petitioner wants to speak to how that can be addressed and conquered and dealt with. That’s certainly something to cover on the record this evening. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. And, obviously, as the record notes, this is an improvement over their current structure encroaching 2 feet into the right-of-way, which is helpful. DeLong Right. Morical Are there any questions or comments for staff? Evinger I was just trying to clarify again just from the analysis versus the actual. So, with the new structure, it’s carrying the 2-foot encroachment, but now it’s just set up against the right- of-way? DeLong Correct. Evinger Okay. That’s where I just wanted clarification. Thank you. Wolff Wayne, just another question. In Exhibit 2, where is that software technology, where is that map produced out of? DeLong That is our WTS managed GIS software. It’s an internal software system. The structure of the software it’s county-wide. So, a fire truck, police car has this in their database for use. The County uses this. The County’s GIS system, which has a public-facing side, is available, but it doesn’t have this level of detail, utility lines, things like that. But, yes, this level of detail is an internal document. But, we’re certainly happy to share. Wolff Well, I just noticed the structure to the south is not consistent with what is currently there. It looks like some of the satellite images haven’t been updated. DeLong That’s correct. That’s a new build. I believe that is Rottmann, to help with that project, but certainly this aerial photograph would not reflect last year’s effort by that family. Page 9 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Wolff But, this petition would be consistent with that? DeLong That’s correct. Yes. Morical Sharp eye. Any other questions or comments for staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I move that Docket # 2017-40-DSV, Design Standards, in order to provide for the construction of a detached garage, which one, exceeds the required lot coverage of 35% to 45.5%, and two, deviates from the required side and aggregate yard setbacks, and three, deviates from the required rear yard (front yard resulting from North First Street) setback, and four, deviates from the maximum accessory square footage, all as illustrated on the site plan attached to the staff report, in the RV-Residential Village Zoning District for the property located at 150 North Main Street be approved as filed. DeLong I do have a suggestion. Since it was indicated tonight, there is a reference to the submitted conceptual elevations, and those being important to the testimony this evening, certainly would suggest the motion also reflecting compliance with the conceptual elevations. Morical Are you amenable to amending your motion to reflect compliance with the conceptual elevations? Evinger Yes. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs. Brewer. The next item on our agenda is Docket # 2014, which I think has got to be a typo. It’s #2017-41-DSV. Thomas My name is Rob Thomas and I’m from Thomas Law Group, 4600 Northwest Plaza West Drive, Suite D, Zionsville, Indiana 46077, on behalf of the petitioner Brenda DeCoursey. My client has filed a petition for development standards variance in order to provide for the construction of a detached garage, which exceeds the allowable accessory square footage in the Urban Single Family Residential Zoning District, and we have provided a site plan, and it shows where the accessory unit is going to go. We’ve also provided detailed information concerning the construction that is going to be used. It is in conformity with the neighbors. Staff is recommending support of this petition. The only thing that I really wanted to talk about is that they pointed out there is a utility shed on the back corner, that’s located on the southwest corner, and my client would like to keep that. They are consolidating 300 acres in Seymour, down south, to this property and want to make sure that they have room to put stuff, so that’s what they’re going to be able to try to use that for. So, we would like that to stay. If there are any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Page 10 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Morical Just to clarify, the proposed garage complies with the covenants in the neighborhood, and you’ve otherwise gone through any process required by your home owners’ association? Thomas Correct. Morical Okay. Thomas And, we’ve also contacted the neighbors. We’ve provided letters of support from the neighbors. Morical Questions for the petitioner’s representative? Jones An issue with the existing shed, since it’s sitting over the setback lines, that we ought to get that covered in this. Just housekeeping. Thomas So, it could be moved to a location that does not cause a problem with the setback. Jones If we could amend whatever motion we made just to include it, or is that going to cause a round of issues we shouldn’t bring up? Evinger How large is the shed? Is it easily moved? Could you move it to be inside the line? Within the lot line? Thomas 12x16. So, it could be moved within setback. I’m sure the reason they put it there is because there is a tree that is blocking its view from the road, but I think that that tree, I think that they could move that and locate it and still have the shielding of the tree. I think that would be possible. Morical And, I know we’re asking this on the fly, but this is a circa 1983 shed, AKA a Reagan-era shed. Is it a legal non-conforming use by virtue of its date? DeLong It would appear to be an existing non-conforming use. Without analysis, I know that looking at the aerial photographs, it looks like it has been there for a while. Certainly 1983 is the date that appears on the property record card, so certainly your analysis is correct. Morical Okay. So, technically even though it’s inside the setback, or outside the setback, it may be lawfully placed? DeLong That would be a safe assumption. I mean, certainly the era of the timing, certainly an accessory use might not have complied with the platted setbacks, but it certainly complied with the minimum requirements of the County ordinance at that time. Thomas So, about every home in there has the exact same shed in this exact same location within the neighborhood. Morical Any other questions for the petitioner? And, as with everything from the Reagan years, I think we need to treasure it. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. Any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the staff report please? Page 11 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 DeLong Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. As we mention in the staff report, you know, we talk about encouraging a discussion regarding the shed. I believe that discussion has occurred, and certainly staff is not looking to push the issue, no pun intended, but certainly looks supportive of the petition as filed. And, I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move that Docket # 2017-41-DSV, Design Standards Variance, to allow for the construction of a detached garage which exceeds the allowable accessory square footage, providing for 1,440 square feet of additional roofed accessory structures in association with a 1,920 square foot dwelling, as illustrated in the site plan attached to the staff report, that the shed would be untouched, and within the Urban Single Family Residential Zoning District. R-SF-2, for the property located at 10833 Marquette Road, be approved as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. The next item on our agenda is Docket # 2017-42-DSV, Mr. and Mrs. Glenn. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Collier Good evening. My name is Richard Collier. I’m a resident at 930 West Pine Street, here in Zionsville. I’m the authorized representative of Robert Glenn and Trina Glenn, located at 8662 East 200 South. It’s my clients’ desire to subdivide the subject property into two parcels. The house and all the improvements are to remain on 3 acres. The remaining two acres would be available for construction of a new home. While the new parcel would meet the necessary requirements for a single family home in an R2 Zoning District with regards to road frontage, minimum acreage for a well and septic, which is two acres, and the necessary setbacks, it would require a variance for its deviation from the required 3 to 1 lot width to depth ratio. It’s my desire to gain a variance so that newly created 2.0 acre parcel is a viable and buildable lot. We did have 8 adjoining parcel owners. It’s my understanding that one came in and reviewed the documents prior to this meeting. I was approached about 10 minutes prior from the Kuehl’s. There are concerns with what might go in as far as new construction, with regards to a business or a, I believe, it’s indicated a manufactured housing. And, that’s the only remonstration that I’m aware of, but I’ll let them talk to you about that. Morical Are you willing to make a commitment on behalf of your clients that you would not put in a business, a commercial enterprise or – Collier Yes, obviously. They’re going to be living right next to this lot, so it’s their desire that whatever is built is consistent with the adjoiners with like material, like price points. Morical So, no manufactured housing. Correct? Page 12 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Collier That’s correct. Morical Okay. And, no commercial use. Okay. Any questions for the petitioner’s representative? Evinger In the rural area, I know before, with the County, it was always necessary that you had, in case your septic system failed, that you had enough room to install another. So, with this lot being a little bit narrower, do we have the same ordinance here in Zionsville as they did in the County? DeLong That would be a County Health Department ordinance, and so it would be up to the party that wants to improve the parcel to make sure they have adequate well and septic, and adequate areas to meet all the standards to maintain that compliance. Morical Are there any remonstrators here? Please state your name and address for the record. Kuehl Sandra and Tim Kuehl. We live at 8670 East 200 South. So, we’re in the house that would be basically right next to it, to the east of it. And, to be honest, we really literally just found out about this today, because I know a certified letter was sent out, but our hours weren’t compatible with the post office, then you throw in Veteran’s Day and we literally just found out about it this afternoon. So, to be honest, we haven’t really had time to process it. And, people who live out in the country, we have 4 acres, and you’re kind of use to that peace and serenity and privacy, and having a house then all of a sudden with the potential being right next to us, I don’t want to say no yet, but we really, truly have not had time to process it. He and I haven’t even had a chance to talk about it, because that would be a house that obviously we wouldn’t have control of where they would put it on that lot, and it could be anywhere from right next to our house, to way behind our house, way in front of our house. We just have no control over that. And, then we do have somebody on one side of us that has a business, so we’re a little sensitive to that because he put in a big garage and was told that when he did that that he would put all of his safes and things in it, and didn’t do it. And, so we already have one thing on the side of us that’s aesthetically not the most pleasing. So, we’re just concerned about the privacy and the change of the aesthetics and peacefulness that you have that you kind of expect when you build out in the country like that. So, again, we’re not really saying no, but we just haven’t had time to think about it because literally, I got home tonight at about 5:45 and that was the first he and I had a chance to talk together about it. Morical As a practical matter, are you asking for a continuance? Kuehl We would like to because the Glenn’s didn’t tell us about it, so we have no idea what’s going through their heads in terms of any type of covenants that they would want. And, I know Rich already made the comment, of course, like the house that’s there now actually was one of those pre-modular homes. So, it’s a matter, and their house is beautiful. So, it’s not that that is what we’d object to. We just don’t want to take the chance of somebody putting in a mobile home when putting the footers in and things. We just, again, we don’t understand the covenants enough and what can happen to be comfortable with it yet. Morical Carol, do they have the ability to request a continuance as a remonstrator? Page 13 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 Drake They can request a continuance. It is at your discretion since it was not filed before the hearing tonight. But, it’s certainly their prerogative to request, and yours to act upon. Wolff Is it Kuehl? Mrs. Kuehl? Okay. What was your address again? Kuehl 8670. Wolff 8670. And, does that put you, as I’m looking at a satellite image. Does that put you directly east of the property? Kuehl Correct. Wolff And, you have a longer driveway than your current neighbor? Kuehl Correct. Wolff Okay. And, so the petition that we’re discussing would put this new parcel between you and the petitioner, right? Kuehl Correct. Wolff Okay. Got it. Just want to make sure I’m clear on what we’ve got going on. Okay. Thank you. Jones I had a quick question. So, the parcel that’s being subdivided is how many acres? Collier 5 acres. Morical So, the petitioners’ representative just said it’s 5 acres. And, that’s on Exhibit 3. Evinger On Exhibit 3, it doesn’t look like it’s, is it equally divided? Morical No. So, Exhibit 3, it’s a little difficult to read, it’s the middle parcel that they’re then splitting into the two parcels, the one to the west being slightly larger than the one to the east. The one to the west about 3 acres. The one to the east around 2 acres. ? -inaudible- Morical Hold on one second. We record everything for the minutes. So if you don’t speak into the microphone, we’ll hear you but posterity won’t. Okay. Further questions or comments? Jones What are the setbacks for the remaining parcel then? What will they end up being? Morical Question for Wayne. DeLong I don’t recall the setbacks offhand. They are 5 feet for accessory buildings, for example, in the rural area. I don’t recall the setback offhand. I’ll see what resources I have in here to answer the rest of that question. Morical My sense is that this is a significant development right next to their structure, and you know, as a general rule, we think it’s a good idea for parties to have an opportunity to Page 14 of 15 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals November 14, 2017 understand issues and to work together to try to resolve them, and under these circumstances, it’s unfortunate that they didn’t get notice until just recently. I know certified mail can be difficult. If they would have provided us the motion in advance, we would have given them this extension as a matter of right. I think it makes sense to give them the time to work with their neighbor to see if they can come to a mutual understanding on this. So, I would suggest we grant the request for a continuance to the next BZA meeting, which is on December 12. Wolff I can make a motion to continue, are you looking for a motion? Morical I am looking. Wolff Okay. I will make a motion to continue petition # 2017-42-DSV, to the December 12, 2017 BZA meeting. Morical Thank you. Those in favor please say aye. All Aye. Morical Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, and please take the time to work with your neighbor to see if you can get a mutual understanding. Thank you. Any other business that we need to take care of tonight? Drake You do need to vote on the Pittard Findings of Fact. Morical Pittard Findings of Fact. Those were distributed as part of the Board meeting packet. Does anybody have any questions or comments on those draft findings? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I’ll make a motion to accept the Findings of Fact, go ahead. Morical The Findings of Fact for Michael and Debbie Pittard. Evinger Docket #2017-26-AP. Morical Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Opposed? Motion carries. Anything further we need to tackle tonight? Drake Just to get a couple items off the agenda. Schmidt, those Commitments have been recorded. Clarke, those have also been recorded. And, it’s probably time for graduation. Morical Yes. Thank you. Other matters that come before us? Hearing none we’re adjourned. Page 15 of 15