Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS- ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JANUARY 9, 2018 The Regular meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred Tuesday, January 9, 2018 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 Approved – subject to 1-9-18 Memo 4 in Favor, 1 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to construct 2017-46-DSV (B) S. Singer 145 N Third Street a single family home and accessory uses which: 1) Exceeds the required lot coverage of 35%, to 50% in the Urban Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). II. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Ellipsis Petition for Special Exception to allow for the construction of a 2017-48-SE 11870 Sandy Drive Memory Care new Memory Care Facility in the Urban Office Business Zoning District (BO). Approved – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance for the construction Ellipsis of a new Memory Care Facility which: 2017-49-DSV 11870 Sandy Drive Memory Care 1) Deviates from the required side yard setback 2) Deviates from the required buffer yard setback Urban Office Business Zoning District (BO). Approved with Conditions & Commitments S. Scheidler 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed 2017-50-UV 1230 Parkway Drive Storage Petition for Use Variance to allow for the operation of a self- storage facility in the Urban General Business Zoning District (B2). Approved with Conditions & Commitments 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards Variance to allow for the S. Scheidler 2017-51-DSV 1230 Parkway Drive operation of a self-storage facility which: Storage 1) Deviates from the platted front building line setback and the required side yard setback in the Urban General Business Zoning District (B2). Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development January 10, 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Pledge of Allegiance was said and attendance was taken by the Secretary. Present: Greg Morical, Larry Jones, John Wolff, Julia Evinger, and Steve Mundy. Staff attending: Carol Sparks Drake, attorney; Wayne DeLong. A quorum is present. Morical Good evening, and welcome to the January 9, 2018 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 December 12, 2017 meeting minutes that were distributed as part of the Board meeting packet. Are there any questions or comments on the minutes? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move to approve them. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. While it’s not on our agenda, I think we need to appoint our officers for 2018. DeLong Correct. Morical Okay, so you’re the Secretary, right Wayne? DeLong Yes. Morical Yes. Okay. Will you be interested in continuing? DeLong Yes, certainly. Morical Thank you. DeLong It will be a long night if I don’t. Morical Yes. Larry, you are currently Vice Chair. Would you like to continue? Jones Yes, I’ll accept, I guess, unless somebody else will step forward as I step back. Morical Anybody who has a burning desire to be Vice Chair? Okay. John is a no. Okay, then I’m happy to continue in my capacity, as well, if that works for everybody. So, then the proposed slate is me as the Chair, Larry as our capable Vice Chair, and Wayne as our very capable Secretary. Any questions or comments on the slate? Hearing none, may I have a motion please? Wolff I make a motion to approve the proposed slate. Morical Great. Thank you. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, great. So, the next item on our agenda is continuance requests, and we’ve got none of those that we’re aware of. Continued business is Docket #2017-46-DSV, S. Singer, for 145 North Third Street. Please state your name and address for the record. Singer My name is Scott Singer. I’m at 450 West Hawthorne here in Zionsville. We’re here tonight to discuss the variance request for lot coverage. I have with me tonight David Marks of Williams Creek Engineering. I also have Gary Nance of Gary Nance Design, my general contractor, Stan Schreckengast, and my wife, Stacey Singer. Page 2 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Morical We received a copy of the submission from Williams Creek. Thank you. I appreciate that. Did you guys receive a copy of what the Street and Stormwater Department prepared? Marks Yes, we did. Morical Again, Williams Creek representative, please state your name and address for the record, and then make sure to speak in the microphone, and could you respond to the questions raised by the Street and Stormwater Department? Marks Yes. It’s David Marks, 619 North Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. And, yes, we did receive the letter from Lance and from Wayne today. Morical So, the memo identified some potential concerns. Have you had the opportunity to go through those to see whether or not you can address the concerns identified by the street department? Marks Sure. Yes. I don’t believe there were necessarily concerns outside of specific comments that would need to be addressed as we move forward into actual design and going into our stormwater ILP that will need to be issued at some point before the project comes to fruition. In general, it seemed like the memo that we prepared, the street department agreed with the concept that we put together with our analysis of both existing conditions, and then what we also propose to help alleviate the drainage concerns. So, I guess with that, are there any specific questions that you would have for me? Morical Your point is that from the larger perspective, you guys have mapped out a plan, and the Stormwater Department is saying, okay, we understand that, but there is a lot of detailed work that still needs to be done? Marks Correct. Yes. Morical Would the issues that they’ve identified as part of the detailed work, do you have any concern with your ability to deliver on those? Marks No, none at all. Morical Okay. And, you’re familiar with this particular site and the challenges involved? Marks Absolutely. As part of this we’ve gone through a detailed topographic survey as well, so we have a firm handle on what existing conditions are. Morical Other questions for Mr. Marks? Evinger You have 0.5 for offsite grading of the unimproved alley to show appropriate conveyance, capability and protection of the neighboring home is critical. Who would be responsible for that offsite grading? Is that going to be owner or the Village? Page 3 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 DeLong The responsible party ultimately would be the petitioner. In looking back to another petition that you all had a number of years back on Academy Drive, you had a very similar situation where a party was putting in improvements and stormwater drainage was a concern, and some offsite items were identified. I don’t remember if it was the Town or the adjoining property owner that indicated that with some appropriate re- grading of a certain swale in a certain location, that could help the situation, and so a monetary value was identified, put into the record, and the petitioner, at that time in that particular project, agreed to, I believe a $2000 cap on offsite improvements, drainage improvements, and that was capped to occur within a two-year period from the time the permit was issued for the new home. So, it would burn off in the event that, you know, it would just expire. But, at the same time, checks and balances were put in place that an inspection would be conducted by the Town Street and Stormwater Department to ensure that those improvements had been made and the Certificate of Occupancy on the home would be held up until such time that there was a pass or fail on those improvements. Jones I have one question. In the memo from Lance, midway through the first paragraph they talk about that regardless of what’s being put in the street, there is still the potential for surcharging in very heavy rains at this location. Wayne, are you familiar? Is that based on the existing pipe or even with the new system? DeLong Well, I would say that’s with any system. Certainly, the drainage expert here from Williams Creek can speak to that, but certainly, in streets, drainage systems are only built to meet a certain year’s standard for a particular rain event, and I’m not offhand with the knowledge of what we’re designing the street system for, but certainly if we’re going to experience a 100-year rain event, and the pipes in the ground are only designed for a 25-year, in theory, there would be, you know, some level of drainage that would not be held within the pipes, and the above-grade would not be able to handle that for some time. And, I would say it is very typical to design in-ground storm systems for the, I would say, under the 100-year flood event. Morical Thank you. Mr. Singer, why don’t we talk a little bit about the lot coverage issue. Have you had the opportunity to review what’s in the staff report? Singer I have. Morical So, I believe staff is expressing a concern with the movement from about 42% to 50%, which is essentially the pool as a feature as being too intense in terms of lot coverage. What are your thoughts about that? Singer I think the last meeting before we asked for the continuance that the first point was that the variance that was given on Walnut Street, it was noted that the apartment complex had a 60% lot coverage. So, when you draw a circle around my lot, that’s only 2 layers deep on that, if we’re going by specific examples that are within the area from a density perspective. I also believe that when I said, okay, we’ll go out at our own economic cost and get an engineer study, I said, would the Board look more favorably upon the 50% coverage if we could prove that we’re not going to put a burden on any other neighbors that exist around me. And, I think based upon the memo that was put together, and the Town’s response, that regardless that we’re Page 4 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 actually providing a benefit to the entire neighborhood by taking care of the ponding issues for the whole entire street. So, I think those would be the comments that I would have in regards to that. Morical Any other questions for the petitioner on the lot coverage issue? They were from Wayne, too. Wolff Regarding the petitioner’s comment, I would add that, you know, each petition we review is unique, and all the circumstances are unique. So, yes, we have issued variances similar to this, but we do need to address them all individually because every situation comes with its own unique set of circumstances. Singer Also piggybacking on top of that, as well, is other people that are addressing and asking for, you know, 45-46% lot coverages I don’t think have gone to the extraordinary effort that we have gone to by bringing in somebody that’s an expert to come up with a system. Now, granted, we have a unique situation within here, but we have conducted a topographical survey. The very day after this meeting, we reached out to Lance and to Gavin at the Stormwater Department, and then with Wayne as well, and we’ve opened up communication to say, hey, how can we make the downtown area even better and improve this lot and keep it away from being a pooling situation for the rest of the neighbors to enjoy. Morical Right. And, it’s an attractive house that seems reasonably scaled. Just that it’s the lot coverage piece. Wayne, I know we typically ask for your staff report later in the process, but could you weigh in on your thoughts on the lot coverage issue? DeLong Certainly. Staff is focused on drainage being a non-issue. Time and money can solve almost any problem and hurdle. So, certainly, the effort to resolve the drainage issues that exist in any particular portion of the Town can be addressed with the appropriate amount of time and the appropriate amount of money. With pushing all that aside, staff is back to looking at the lot coverage request based upon the 2-pointed test that we typically provide to you, and are bringing to you again this evening, is what is the lot coverage that we see enjoyed by the neighbors, by the adjoining property owners in the area. And, that is a sampling. That’s not an average. That’s not looking at a 50% and a 27%, because there is plenty of homes out there that are under the 35% lot coverage, and that number, as indicated in the staff report, is that 42% number. And, speaking to the 2 petitions that were represented and brought up last time, 360 Linden and the project on Walnut. 360 Linden, I know there was a mention this evening, but I’ll mention it because it’s in your record, that was a petition that was granted in 2000-2001 for 51% or 54%. I wasn’t here. I don’t know the merits of that particular case. I think it was 54%. And, so when that petitioner came in a few years later, I think 2013, and wanted to redo that but at 42%, staff was, you know, working with them to facilitate that, and that was in front of you and you approved it. That petitioner came back again a few years later and said, hey, I didn’t build that house either, I want to go back to the 50 number, but this time it’s 51%. Again, the Board, since it was lessening the intensity of that particular request, it was supportive of that 51% lot coverage. Specific to the Walnut case, that property was enjoying a 39% lot coverage, and was requesting a lot coverage for 46% to improve the property with a 2-car detached garage. Again, and noted this evening, the lot coverage that’s enjoyed Page 5 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 by the apartments that were built in 1950-1960s, I don’t know offhand. Again, these are pre-dated improvements that are well past the design standards of your zoning ordinance. The same thing with the lot that’s in front of you this evening. This lot was platted, you know, many, many years ago. Yes, it was re-platted and readjusted, but the lot has a right to be built up under the standards of your zoning ordinance, and 35% lot coverage and different standards. And, so when there is a request to deviate, that’s what’s in front of you this evening. And, then we’re back to that 2-pointed test again. Staff is pushing the drainage conversation off the side just for the merits of going through this particular exercise. And, again, with the adjoining properties and the proximity, and our sampling, finding that 42% lot coverage number is where staff would find itself recommending to you this evening. Certainly, the other test that we don’t speak to as much, but certainly is of equal point to discuss here, is the second part of that staff report, which generally deals with, what is being requested. And, it’s generally something, an amenity or some sort of feature that other property owners enjoy, be it a 2-car garage, 2 1/2-car garage, a porch, a deck, some sort of outdoor living space. A pool is definitely outdoor living space. I’m not questioning that. But, when you couple this against a petition that’s already asking for a lot coverage at 42%, and then putting on top of it an additional piece of outdoor living space that puts it at 50%, staff sees it as it’s asking for requests out of both of those buckets, and staff is back to the 42% lot coverage as the maximum that we can support. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Is part of your concern that if everybody, if we granted this at 50% and others then came in and said, we’ll, I’d like a pool, too, take me up to 50%, that that would overwhelm the Village? DeLong There is a statement in this memo that speaks to, from Lance at the Street Department, dated January 9, 2018, that talks about the granting of variances, and the detrimental impact, and I’m paraphrasing because I’m not, I don’t have the moment in time here to scan this and find that exact language, but it talks about, you know, I believe the perpetual impact of just variance after variance. And, certainly you have a Town Council with action of its Plan Commission that recently amended its ordinance to allow for additional lot coverage, 2% additional lot coverage, as long as it was pervious. So, you have an environment where stormwater events, rain events are greater in duration, greater in capacity, greater occurrence, and so you have these changes in climate that’s one of the reasons the Town is investing a lot of money in updating its stormwater infrastructure. Certainly, we have an antiquated ordinance that speaks to a 35% lot coverage requirement, and in other portions of the Town it’s 20, other portions of the Town, it’s 60. So, that number varies greatly, and in more modern subdivisions where there is potential lot coverage can be addressed by more robust and standard stormwater facilities. Those simply cannot be constructed in the Village currently without massive changes to the Village. But, yes, this memo does speak to a level of concern with just variances in general when it comes to lot coverage. Singer I guess right now that I would point that, to that, I’m a land owner that’s willing to make an investment in the Town and take care of a problem that I think I am bearing the brunt for the entire area around that, right? Because if you look at the topographical survey, which we produced, at the middle of that lot, you’re about 30 inches, right? So, I’m acting as the collector for everybody around, and I’m willing to Page 6 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 solve that problem with funding that I’m putting up, and if I can produce this particular property. So, I think that I’m coming to the table with skin in the game, and I’ve made an investment with experts, not just me coming up here and babbling, I brought expert opinion that nobody can say, hey, that’s going to actually cause a negative effect to your neighbors. Morical Right. And, when you look at the staff report, it identifies the 3 items that you would need to be able to prove to be entitled to a variance. That the approval is not injurious to public health, that the use and value of the adjacent area to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, which is what you’re talking about with the water. Singer See, I’m going to make everybody’s property - - Morical - - Nobody’s remonstrated against it, we’ll invite people up. Then there’s the last item, that strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship in the use of the property. And, that’s the trickier one. The right to have a pool. The right to take it to 50%. Singer I mean, other people have, you know, like the one on Walnut, I think it has, you know, 5% or so of outdoor living space. I’ve got hardly any concrete around that outdoor living space in my proposal. I’m basically asking for the pool. Nance Gary Nance with Gary Nance Design. When we were at the meeting previous, you know, I stressed how we incorporated that pool in an L-manner with the house so it doesn’t, it works in and doesn’t affect really the neighbors. We’ve tucked it in with landscaping. It’s low. It’s not an impact. It’s not like it’s a pool in somebody’s back yard that people are going to drive by and see. We’ve got it tucked in so it’s more of a courtyard like you’d see in Georgetown or Beekman Place, or something like that. So, we’ve gone to great effort, like Scott has said, not only to help the Town with the drainage issue, but we’ve also been so sensitive to the design of the house, incorporating it into the Village atmosphere, and tucking that pool in where people, quite frankly, aren’t going to see it. And, I understand, you know, the extra percentage of the house, but it’s not like we’re building a structure. We’re not building a 2 1/2-car garage. We’re not building a studio. This is something that, there is no verticality to it. So, I just wanted to add that. And, also, if you remember, for whatever the family’s situation when they first hired me, we were looking at acreage out in Zionsville, and they’ve rented a house in the meantime in the Village. They love the Village, so they’ve gone to forego the horse stables and the typical Zionsville setup to do this in town and bring some vibrance to the Village. Thank you. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner before we ask for any remonstrators? Jones I’ve just got a general comment. You know, the fact that this lot is low, if it was being a nuisance or a, sort of, a health-related issue, breeding ground for mosquitos, I’m assuming the Town of Zionsville has a health and hospital or some other way that the current or previous land owner could have been told to address the standing Page 7 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 water, which is basically, fill it and get it up to some sort of surface so that it does not hold water. Is that correct? Singer Yes. That’s correct. The County Health Department would get involved, yes. Jones So, some of the comments about getting rid of this drainage issue, or this ponding issue, is making the Town of Zionsville a better place. That could be addressed whether or not this house gets built, if someone chose to complain or have it addressed. Secondly, you know, this lot just by its location, is a low point. Nobody on the Town’s side, no other previous owners, you know, when God created Zionsville, he just dug a little deeper right there, and that spot is a little low. So, basically, this drainage and everything that the Singers are proposing really benefits them and them only. There is other means if this was a community problem that could be addressed. So, the core issue is getting involved in bumping up our level of lot coverage from the 35% to the 42%, and now we’re pushing 50%. In Lance’s memo, as well as other reports, it becomes fairly evident that the Town, and especially the old part of town, has some drainage issues, and that trying to maintain the 35% lot coverage formula is something that is manageable. And, that once we open the gate to start going to 42% and 50%, regardless of what the purpose of it is, lot coverage, hard surfaces, hard surface period. And, that all affects drainage and whether it affects this property or has a cumulative effect on other properties somewhere down the line, the core problem is, and the simple solution that we have put in place for the Town, for the Village portion, is to try to adhere to this 35% lot coverage. Does that make sense? Mundy I guess I heard Wayne say, they’re not considering the water issue. They believe that this is solved with the engineering that has been done. The 35 has drifted to 42. We’re really talking about 42 to 48, and frankly, I think they’ve shown that they can manage the water problem, but staying with 35 we know is not happening anyhow. We’re really talking about the difference between 42 and 48. The 48 giving the 2% credit for the permeable surface that they’re going to be using. Jones I guess the situation is that the additional drainage work they’re doing on their property benefits their property, but it doesn’t create a cumulative problem for somebody else downstream. The upgrades they're doing to the stormwater system out there on Third Street is meant to alleviate problems that exist today with existing math and existing numbers. In other words, they’re assuming, if it’s 35% or 42%, whatever lot coverage is for the area, they’re increasing the pipe size. We start getting to a situation where we then start allowing additional coverage above that, we start putting more hard, we start putting more water into the storm system, and so whatever upgrades we did are rendered useless. You see what I’m saying? It’s circular in nature. Mundy Your theory is correct. I agree with that. I think we are splitting hairs at this point. Morical I think the challenge is that Larry’s comment and Wayne’s comment is we’re looking at this particular parcel, but if you expand that concept of lot coverage, and if everybody wants a pool, and it goes to 50%, I agree, with what Mr. Nance said that it’s not as visually intense. Then, it’s this property, and if you extend that, while, you Page 8 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 know, as John noted, every variance we review on its own merits, but if we granted it here, why wouldn’t we grant it someplace else. And, eventually it’s like, “Oh, my God!” The infrastructure of the Town could not handle that. Mundy I fully agree with that. Again, this is hypothetical. The likelihood that every lot owner would wish to expand to that just won’t happen. And, this is not a precedent. There are already the precedents set that have exceeded the 50%, so I’m not looking for a way to deny this. Frankly, I think that the reasons that they have chosen to do this, and the exception they ask for are ones that are acceptable in my mind. Singer Regarding if the Town of Zionsville, if it was a nuisance or whatever, they would do something about it. And, I actually have a neighbor here who can probably attest to me is that the house next to me has put a curbing in, and basically put a frontal to put all that water directly onto my property, right? So, they’ve solved the water from going on to their issue, but now it’s my problem because it’s now on my property, right? So, the point about if it was an issue the Town would take care of it. Well, she’s taken care of it, and just by the force of gravity, now it’s become my problem to deal with, right? So, I guess just to the point of, hey, if it was an issue with the Town, I just wanted to point that fact that other people are dealing with it, but because it’s a vacant piece of property there is nobody there to actually look at it, and that’s where it goes. Morical Okay. Further questions for the petitioner before we ask for any remonstrators? Evinger Well, this is going to be kind of, I guess, splitting hairs a little bit too, but just on hypothetically. If they had a pool, you have to backwash a pool. Where are they going to discharge the water that’s being backwashed? Is that going to go into the storm sewer system? Is that going to go into the alley? You know, that’s something that’s going to occur basically on a weekly basis when you backwash a pool. Singer I would argue that the water is going to evaporate in the summer time and that you don’t drain a pool in the winter time. You basically take it below the skimmer. So, you’re talking what, you know, 5 to 6 inches, or whatnot. I don’t know what the volumes are. That’s a 12x20 pool. So, help me with my math here. Evinger You’ll have to do backwashing almost every week. But it depends on what kind of filter you have. Singer And, how many gallons of that, you know, on a saltwater pool, that’s not a whole lot that we’re talking here. Evinger So, but at this point, you don’t know what you’re going to do, if it’s just going to go across your own lot, or if it’s going to go into the alley or into somewhere? Singer We’ll take those into effect. Right now we have a 6 inch and a 12 inch pipe to deal with rainwater. Right now, you’ve only got a 12 inch storm sewer pipe. You’re moving to 24. Page 9 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Evinger It’s just all these little cumulative water issues. Just to make sure that everything is addressed so that, you know, again, for everybody to feel comfortable with however we proceed here. Mundy Typically, as a former pool owner, typically the backwash does go into a storm sewer if one’s available. You also control when you do that. Most of the rains we get are in the spring and early summer. You don’t backwash during the winter. Non-use of the pool you generally don’t backwash. So, I don’t think, yes, it adds some water to the storm sewer. I don’t think it’s an issue. Evinger Well, I have a pool as well, and mine actually goes into my swale, which drains off my, you know, down to the retention pond. So, that’s the reason why I’m asking. Because in this case, we don’t have that opportunity. And, so just wanted to see how that would be addressed. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner before we ask for remonstrators? Okay, thank you, Mr. Singer. Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Again, approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Reynolds Jamie Reynolds. 110 North Third Street. I’m right across the street from the petitioners’ proposal. I would only ask that, in regards to a pool, if someone wants to put in an above-ground pool, they have no restrictions on that. What my neighbors are suggesting are putting in a pool that is going to be a below-ground pool. It’s going to look a lot better than having an above-ground pool right there that I’m going to have to look at all the time. They’re going to be able to get it landscaped around that so it’s going to look good, so I’m not going to be looking directly at it. I would much prefer a below-ground pool that’s maintained than an above-ground pool that comes out every spring and sits on the ground all day, and we really don’t have anything. It’s still blocking the amount of rainfall and stuff that’s getting into the ground. It’s basically a hard surface right there. So, I’m not seeing a really big difference with the pool when there is an option to put in an above-ground pool, which definitely does not meet with what I would say would be a good look for what I would like to look at across from my new living room and my new kitchen area. Thank you very much. Morical So, Mr. Reynolds, it’s fair to say that you’re in support of the petitioners’ request? Reynolds I’m in support of the petition as it stands. Yes. Morical Okay. Thank you. Are there any other remonstrators here tonight? Mr. Singer. Singer I would also like to point out that we received two other letters of support that were included in your packet as well. So, the seven that I actually sent out notifications to, two/three have responded positively. The other four I didn’t hear from Morical Thank you, Mr. Singer. Any further discussion amongst the Board? Wolff Wayne, sorry to put you on the spot. I have a couple questions. And, this is the way I understand it. But this may be a neighborhood rule where I live. But, if I have a Page 10 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 downspout, I cannot discharge that downspout on my neighbor’s property. Is that, can you elaborate on that? DeLong Well, I can speak to what Gavin has said. From the Street and Stormwater Department, water is the common enemy, and that’s a term of art that they teach at drainage conferences. But, that said, there is supposed to be some level of retainage of stormwater from your own property, discharging it at the lot line is not permissible. I don’t know the dimensions offhand, I don’t have the information, but from that point, the Town would look for any pipes such as downspouts and sump pumps to run to daylight. So, you would not have the direct discharge of roof debris and particles of your shingles as they break down just from photometric issues entering the stormwater system. That debris needs to be retained on your property, and just like last month, the petitioners here, their agent, spoke to the use of bioswales and rain gardens as a potential way to, I believe the term that was used was to properly store the water on the rear of the property. I think that’s what they spoke to. Wolff So, I think you said, for the most part to the best of your ability, your water should be addressed on your property. DeLong That’s the goal is all drainage will run to the lowest point. Wolff If you’re on a hill, and your neighbor is not, I understand. Okay. The other one I had is, would an above-ground pool be counted as part of the lot coverage? DeLong Correct. The above ground pool - - Wolff - - Like a temporary above-ground pool you can buy at, you know - - DeLong - - a temporary above-ground pool would not have received a building permit or a review. All pools by the State of Indiana and Indiana pool code are to be enclosed by a latchable gate, or fence system, or utilize an automatic pool cover, one of the two. All pools are not required to use fences. But, an above-ground pool would be enclosed with a latchable gate system, I should say, and so the pool system that you pick up at a big box store, so to speak, is not designed to conform to Indiana pool code, therefore, it’s not permanent, therefore we would not, it would not have been run against a building permit, nor considered as lot coverage, because it’s temporary. It shouldn’t remain on the property. You put it up, you take it down. Morical Any supplemental comments to offer, Wayne? DeLong I don’t think so. Morical So, I think the challenge here is we’ve got the petition in front of us, and the petitioners’ burden, and the three different elements, and we know that our decisions are not precedential, however, it is important to understand what the impact is, because as the petitioners identified, hey, this property enjoys this lot coverage, this property enjoys that lot coverage. So, we can’t ignore that fact. But, it makes it a challenging situation. Page 11 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Wolff I still, I think your earlier comment on the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship in the use of the property. The example I have in my mind is like a pie-shaped lot, or something like that, where the property, if we were to adhere to rear-yard setbacks or things like that, a pie-shaped lot would be more challenging for that particular piece of property. I think you correctly identified the issue of, you know, is the lack of a pool a hardship. Morical I think the challenge is that maybe taking this petition on its own, it would be okay. And the risk is, if half the Town wanted to do this. Wolff Yes. I guess I appreciate Wayne’s comment, about money and time can solve most water problems. And, I think our petitioner has demonstrated that they have, to the best of their ability at this particular point of the project, addressed the water problems. I’m still wondering about standard C. Mundy I can assure you, as sure as the sun comes up every morning, half the Town will never have a pool. Anybody that’s had one will never have one again. Jones The issue is not about a pool. It’s about moving lot coverage from 35 to 50%. Mundy I agree. But the, for instance, if half of the Town, and that will not happen. Jones But, half the Town might want an additional 2-car garage on their lot in the Village or a larger deck or a covered deck, or, you know. The concern is, is every time we have a variance for lot coverage, typically someone speaks to the issue of drainage. Some adjoining property owner. A majority of the commentary we hear is not about the design, the look or the people moving in. It’s usually water related, and so my concern is, is regardless of it being a pool, it’s this, as we consistently move up the lot coverage ratio, we are creating more problems that there will not be a solution for, and we’re setting precedent for it. Like I said, I like the house. I like the pool. I like everything about it. I think that people probably still, regardless of what happens, would benefit by putting some additional drainage on the site because it’s always going to be low. They will always have a water issue at this location just because of the surrounding area. Period. It’s this issue of moving our threshold from the 35% to the 42% that we traditionally stay to, to now we’re moving all the way up to 50%. And, the standard is set in such a way that it’s hard surface related to the house. The house, the pool, the patios, the walks, they still get a path on the sides of the driveway. That’s always, you know, another number that kind of floats. It’s just, there is going to, eventually there will be a cumulative effect of this. Morical I see a split decision coming. Anybody want to make a motion? Singer One last word is that at 42%, I can’t build the house because I’ve got no outdoor area. So, if the vote is to confirm that 42%, I can’t build it. Morical Thank you, Mr. Singer. So, we’ll either approve what you’ve asked for tonight, or we won’t approve it. We won’t grant you something other than what you’ve asked for. Page 12 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Mundy Obviously I’m supportive of this. I don’t think that, I don’t believe that we have violated any of the requirements. It is somewhat subjective in terms of unnecessary hardship and how you view that, but I believe that this is worthy of approval. The plan for the lot looks good. I drove by again today, that property. No wonder it holds water. It’s a bowl in the center. That water wouldn’t be there, and I think we heard last time, the water disappears within 30 minutes after a hard rain. So, it’s not like we have a mosquito breeding place there. So, I will make a motion that Docket #2017- 46-DSV, design standards variance to provide for a single-family home which exceeds the required lot coverage of 35% to 50%, and I’ll say parenthetically, “I think that really is 48% given the 2% credit they get for the permeable surface, in the R-V Residential Village Zoning District for the property located at 145 North Third Street be approved. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff I’ll second that motion. Morical Wayne, do you agree that it is really 48% coverage? DeLong If the petitioner is providing 2% of pervious, yes. Morical Did the application include 2% pervious? Singer I believe it said the surrounding, around the pool was pavers, which I don’t have it in front of me, but I think it was like 280 square feet, or somewhere around there. Morical So, those pavers would qualify as pervious, so it would take it to 48%. Any further discussion amongst the Board? The challenge is, we have an attractive proposed use of this particular space with a potential precedential risk. We don’t, we’re not bound by our precedent. It’s relevant. The petitioner has worked hard to address the water issue. Something is going to go in there. If this is really 48%, that’s certainly better than 50. It’s an attractive use. Steve is convinced that few other people are going to want pools. Mundy Guaranteed. Morical And, then we’ve got the lack of visual intensity, which we could use if anybody else said, hey, I want to build a 4-car garage to take me up to 48%. Any further discussion before we vote? Mundy Mr. President. I would say that even staff has been supportive of exceeding the 35%. So, I have a little difficulty saying that we’re setting precedent in doing this. I don’t think we are. I think their examples were where precedent has been set. And, we would, even though the petitioner has told us he can’t build a house without the pool, so he’s not going to ask for 43% coverage, but I think that we still are saying that we’re quite willing to do that. It’s a matter of degree. Are we willing to do 43% but not 48%. Page 13 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Morical One question for you, Wayne, or Carol, do we need to put anything in the motion if we were to grant this relating to the water issue and what the Town came back with? Drake Wayne and I were just discussing that, and you do need, Lance has made recommendations in the staff report. DeLong Certainly I was commenting in the record earlier regarding the memo, and certainly speaking to item 1 through 5 that are documented. Number 2, specifically, talking about drainage easements are requested by the Street and Stormwater Department at such time when the project comes through for a stormwater permit, and those drainage easements would serve to protect the swales, or whatever, at the surface areas that are to be preserved in perpetuity for drainage, and certainly to not see those improved with landscape areas, trees, things like that. And, then the other one, number 5, is getting back to, at the onset here, discussing the off-site improvements. And, certainly, the requirement of some grading work be done in an unimproved alley. Certainly, out of fairness, like you did last time, is setting a dollar amount and a timeframe just so there is a closure to that requirement if there were to be one in place, and a dollar value, not that that would limit the petitioner’s exposure, if you will, to the requirement of making those changes. Morical Okay. Mundy Could I ask the petitioner one more question? And, I don’t know that this should affect our decision, but the stormwater plan, which is to start any day now. Singer You’re talking about the Third Street project. Correct? Mundy That’s correct. Nothing to do with your property. If, for some reason, that were delayed or didn’t progress, I mean, my impression has been you’d like to get on with this as soon as possible, but would you do this without that stormwater project well under way and near completion? Singer There is equipment out there right now. Mundy I know, but all things in government can go sideways. Singer I agree, but we’re still a few weeks for a finalization of plans. Right, Gary? So, and then we have finalization of the math behind everything that we’ve dictated in the memo. Nance I think I can help, too. To help answer that question, what we’ve proposed is in no way contingent upon the Third Street infrastructure being improved. We’re tying in an elevation that we can tie into whether the trunk line is improved or not, the pipe sizes that we’re proposing would fit well with what’s existing, and not just what’s going to be proposed. So, whether the Third Street project happens before, which is ideal, we can move forward with the project and in implementing the infrastructure that we’ve proposed with the existing that’s there today. Does that answer your question? Page 14 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Mundy Thank you. Morical Steve, with your motion, are you also including the memo from Lance Lantz dated January 19, 2018, that those conditions be included? Mundy I would assume that we should include those. I think those are all reasonable things which, if I read his memo right, he’s saying basically comfortable with what was said, but there is a lot of detail that’s not yet specified, and I think that that detail needs to be specified. Morical So, would you be amenable to amending your motion to add a requirement that they comply with the requirements of the Street and Stormwater Department? Mundy I would. Morical Thank you. And, John, would you second that? Wolff I will second. Evinger Mr. President. May I just interrupt one more time? Wayne also had suggested that we put a time and dollar amount to item number 5, which is the offsite grading improvement. DeLong Not establishing one, potentially this could go on forever. I mean, who knows where that alley could end. It could end downtown or Sixth Street. So, staff’s suggestion is to set a dollar amount, a cap. Morical Okay. So, you’re suggesting the amount of that would be $2000? DeLong That’s the amount that you used previously. The staff would have no knowledge of what it would cost. Certainly you would suppose that the applicant would use their equipment that would be onsite to save on costs. The re-grading of an alley. It’s already dirt and grass, so just a couple hours of work, new grass seed. Originally, the last time you had to deal with this, you set a cap of not to exceed $2000. Morical And, that’s paid by whom? DeLong It would be paid by the applicant. Singer That’s not my property next to me. That’s my neighbor’s property. ?? Is it a front alley? Singer So, the alley was 10 feet, and it was vacated, and 5 feet were given to me, and then 5 feet to my neighbor, and then 5 feet to Claghorn. DeLong I don’t have the particular answer to that. I’m just reading from the memo. Again, I mean, just like in your last case, you had offsite work. In this case, it was done on somebody else’s private property, much like the situation the petitioner just Page 15 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 described, and this same exact condition was one that you articulated. And, in that particular case, the Town was not involved at all. Morical Is that the apartment complex next to the library? DeLong Yes. The apartment complex next to the library. Correct. Jones Is there an alley that exists to the east of this property then? Wolff The alley is vacated. DeLong I’m assuming Mr. Lantz made the assumption that all parties would be agreeable to seeing site conditions improved in this area. Morical If we condition the grant on satisfying the Street and Stormwater Department, and I think that’s enough to cover all their concerns, they can work through that issue specifically instead of us working through it here. Okay. Any further discussion? So, we’ve got this particular petition in front of us. The question is, did they meet their burden of proof on these 3 elements? Any further discussion? Evinger May I just add one more point? We talked about 50% versus 48%, and the pavers were supposed to reduce that burden, that percentage by 2%. So, the plans you’re telling me are not finalized yet. Is there any commitment that they will remain pavers? Mundy As I recall in their submission - - Singer - - In our submission, I’m sorry. Mundy It says in their packet there will be pavers around the pool. Evinger Yes, it does, but the petitioner also said today that his plans are not finalized, and they won’t be finalized for the next few weeks. Nance The plans are not going to change. The only reason we haven’t taken it any further with the structural and the actual construction documents is depending on, you know, the outcome of tonight. The footprint, I assure you, I don’t know how else to do that, will not change one bit. Quite frankly, we don’t have room to change it. So, it will stay as shown. Morical Thank you. We’ve got a pending motion. All in favor, please say aye. All but Jones Aye. Morical Any opposed? Jones I’ll say nay. Page 16 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Morical Okay. Motion passes. Good luck. Okay. Sorry everybody. That one took a little while. So, I believe the next item on our agenda is #2017-48-SE, Ellipsis Memory Care. Mr. Andreoli, please state your name and address for the record. Andreoli Mr. President, my name is Mike Andreoli, 1393 West Oak Street here in Zionsville. I’m here tonight representing Ellipsis Partners. In addition, Lake Investments and Somer Dental, who are the actual owners of the property itself, that they seek to sell to Ellipsis. With us tonight is Doug Pedersen, one of the principals of Ellipsis to answer any questions. Aaron Hurt is doing all of the civil design of this particular project, and Moriarty we brought along tonight to answer any questions specifically if Larry had any questions with regard to some of the architectural stuff that he had inquired before at the Plan Commission level. So, we brought Dan along to be able to answer any questions or any thoughts that Mr. Jones might proffer tonight. First of all, we assure you that this facility will not have an aquatic feature to it, but to hopefully - - Morical - - I’ve read your plans. It appears that it does. What is that? Andreoli To relieve some burden. That’s our job. To relieve the burden. Essentially, this is a 3.6-acre tract located off of Michigan Road on Sandy Drive. By way of procedure, and where we’ve been, we first sought a rezoning public hearing in front of the Zionsville Plan Commission. It received unanimous approval for this current zoning classification to the Town Council. They adopted that ordinance on first reading. And, we are now here tonight on the next step of the process, which would be to seek a special exception, and then we have 2 variances from development standards, both setback variances, and we’ll explain that as we get into the particular project. Special exception is needed because of the particular health facility, memory care facility that is being constructed. This is similar by way of procedure to what we did when we brought the Hearth at Zionsville in, just north of this particular facility, which is a nursing home facility. This is exactly the same number of steps and procedures that had to be taken. Not to suggest that the projects are the same, and this needs to be scrutinized independently, of course, but that’s the procedure. And, we’ve also filed our request for development plan approval that has gone to TAC. That will not be heard until the February meeting. There were some small revisions to be made, but just with the holidays, we didn’t have time to get on the meeting agenda for January and decided not to push that given the holiday intervention. So, that will be heard at the meeting in February. As I said, this is a 3.68-acre site. This will be a 36-bed memory care facility. There will be parking at this facility, but as stated in previous meetings, given the fact that it’s a memory care facility, not a nursing home as such, or assisted living, but a memory care facility, the residents that will be housed there will not have vehicles. So, there will be no vehicles that will be owned by the residents who will be there. Most of those will not have licenses or be in a position to drive a motor vehicle. There will be loved ones and the employees that will obviously have to come to the site, and will utilize the parking that’s been provided pursuant to the site plan. And, there will be deliveries that will occur at the site generally through the front door. We’re not talking about a lot of deliveries. We’re not talking about big trucks or anything of that nature. Why we believe this is a good fit from a special exception standpoint, even to some extent, more so than the Hearth, is that this building is a 1 1/2-story building. There will only be 36 beds. The acreage of the site Page 17 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 being 3.6 acres. We’re going to cover about, I think, 1.4 acres of that in hardscape, either building, sidewalk, and parking. So, over 50% of it will be in green space. And, while a lot of people throw out those percentages, we think this is particularly meaningful in terms of how we structured the green space or the open space. If you look at the building itself, and hopefully, Mr. President, I’ll also address, as I’m addressing the special exception, address the two variances and why those might be necessary so I don’t want to have to double-up and save some time tonight with your permission. Morical That would be helpful. Andreoli Essentially, we’ve created, since you have residents back here, created a substantial buffer yard in the back that will have drainage, also maintaining that particular tree line. We’ve located the particular building so that it faces Michigan Road. We thought, and in working with staff, that since it’s a very attractive building, the front of that building and the length of it should face Michigan Road with people driving up and down Michigan. In addition, by locating it north to south, we also create areas of a buffer yard, green space and parking up front in this particular area. Again, the concern is that there are some residential dwellings back here, and we really wanted not to locate the building from east to west so to impinge upon either the tree line or cause issues potentially with people seeing the sides of the building, and those types of things from a residential standpoint. There will be no parking behind the building. There will be an access off a private lane, and we’ve secured agreements from the land owner, Mr. Sowinski, who owns Somer Dental, as well as Lake Investments, and he is here, and this is his lane that serves with easements, serves the condominium project to the back. We are going to have a cut-out there, which I think was much desired by fire and ambulance so that we would have an access off Sandy Drive, but also have an access off the lane back here. In addition, we would have what amounts to, essentially, a service drive where we’re going to put any dumpsters, and those types of things, and have it appropriately landscaped and cordoned off according to your rules and procedures. In addition, to the extent that any additional deliveries might be made, we can actually bring them in the door over here, or the door over here, in addition to the front door here. So, essentially, when we got looking to laying the building out on site, we talked with Mr. Lantz, and he requested a much more generous dedication of road right-of-way along Sandy Drive than what we had anticipated. So, what we did was, we moved the building as far to the north as possible given the fact that there is a drive right there. Moved the building as far north as possible, but still required a variance as outlined in the staff report on the north side and the south side. We far exceed any of your setback in the front, and in the rear, which we think are the two most significant areas where we wouldn’t want to impinge on Michigan Road, and we wouldn’t want to get too close to the neighbors in the back. So, that essentially is a hardship for this particular site as it related to the two specific setback variances. We don’t anticipate any other waivers from a development plan standpoint or anything like that. When we went through TAC, seemed pretty straightforward except for some technical issues with regard to some drainage and those types of things. So, we think we’re on track to make sure we get full technical support for this particular facility. There is water and sewer to the particular site, so the location of the sewer line, and we’ve been discussing with Clay Regional, as well as the Town through TAC, and that will be sorted out within the Page 18 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 next several weeks and days. The actual building, I believe that you’ve had some essential drawings that were submitted as part of your packet, as well as the site plan, and also a landscape plan. Those were submitted as far as our development plan approval. We thought we’d enclose them in your packet, as well, so you can see the detail that we’ve brought to the project before you would decide to grant approval for this particular project. So, the front of the building will be very attractive. As I said, it’s a story and a half building. It will have an interior courtyard that the residents will access. It will be a very secure facility. Obviously we don’t want people coming in, and just as importantly, in a memory care facility, we don’t want people by accident, or otherwise, leaving the facility that should not be leaving the facility. So, it will be a secure facility with a courtyard in the center. The actual site plan and the proposed building, I think, is pretty much detail oriented. I will not go through the specifics of those unless you would have some questions, and Mr. Hurt would be in a position to be able to answer any questions with regard to that. Morical Thank you, Mr. Andreoli for the description and your petitioner for creating such an attractive and interesting development. We appreciate that. Any questions for the petitioner? Mundy Is there a purpose for the drive on the east side? It appears that it just goes in a short - - Andreoli - - Mr. Mundy. Yes, there are some - - Morical - - Mr. Andreoli. It looks like your mic is not picking up. It’s got a little red light. Andreoli Yes, I talk a lot and figured it wouldn’t be a problem to pick me up. But, there are some dumpsters in the particular area, and then it could also be used for some deliveries from time to time if necessary. Have Aaron elaborate on that if I haven’t, if I’ve misspoke, haven’t included additional things. But, that was the reason to have it up in that particular area. By way of contacting the neighbors, we received a number of different requests for the specifics. We had them electronically transmitted to the neighbors. Hadn’t had any problems. I know one of the neighbors that’s directly across the street here that Mr. Pedersen went and had a meeting with them to explain the project to him, so that he fully understood the project as we have a lot more specifics with the project now than we had at the time of our land use change. So, hopefully the neighborhood is satisfied at this point, if not totally thrilled, about converting something from potentially part residential to commercial, but we truly believe that this particular use, in terms of its low impact to the neighborhood, is truly what we’re looking for up in that Eagle Village area, especially in an area where we already have some old, established residential buildings. Thank you, Mr. President. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner’s representative? Jones Just, real quick. Same questions I had last time. One, regarding the drive down to Sandy Drive, that portion across the front of the building, is it, I guess, I think at the previous meeting some of the residents along Sandy Drive had some concerns about that. Has that been relieved? Is there anyone here? Page 19 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Andreoli The gentleman that’s right across the street, actually, from the entrance is here, and he can speak for himself. I’ve known him for a long time, but I was not in that particular meeting. Mr. Pedersen was. So he can speak to that, but we’ve not heard any other negative comments once we rolled out the specifics of the plan, actually located it and understood where it was going to officially be as opposed to just a general location on site per the zoning application. Jones I guess my second concern was the side doors on sort of the north and south end of the property, that those wouldn’t be used for delivery purposes, or more importantly, that the Somer Lane or Sandy Drive would become, sort of, unofficial loading zones for the building. And, I guess I just want to confirm, is there someone here involved in the operations and just can confirm how those doors - - Andreoli - - Mr. Pedersen can speak to that. Pedersen Good evening. I’m Doug Pedersen with Ellipsis Partners, One South Rangeline Road, Carmel, Indiana. On the delivery answer, currently we accept one to two food deliveries a week, depending on the population, bed demand, you know, staff, over half full, up to two deliveries a week. We’re thinking that most likely those would come in that dumpster area, that drive, and approximately 60 feet from the door at that point. All other deliveries are basically FedEx, water, you know, just small box truck type deliveries that would come through the front door. Jones I did a little due diligence, and I actually spoke to a Ryan Ramirez at the Plaza of Barrington, and he kind of confirmed that with memory care facilities, there is a high degree of not wanting people to be exiting or using the other side or other doors, and then most of the materials and deliveries do come through the front door, which kind of caught me off-guard, but that is correct, I think, what you’re saying. So, like I said, my biggest concern is, especially with the Somer Lane and the condos to the back, you know, trucks or stuff parking out there are going to provide a little bit of a traffic hazard to the residents of those coming and going. So, as long as we can sort of keep them off the streets, it should be all right. Pedersen And, I think, we’ve looked into the size of those trucks. You know, the only truck that potentially be back in that area. There is 54 feet from that dumpster to the curb, and those trucks, the food delivery service trucks, run between 28 and 48 feet, so they should be able to back in there, you know, off the road. Jones Are these units furnished? Do the clients bring in much of their own? Pedersen People bring in their own furnishings, their own beds. So, they’re minimally furnished, partially furnished. Yes. Jones All that comes and goes through the front? Pedersen Yes. Morical Thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner? Thank you. Any remonstrators here tonight? Sir, would you care to speak? Okay. Thank you. Sir, unfortunately, we Page 20 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 record everything. So, would you mind briefly stating your comments at the podium and into the microphone, and first state your name and address for the record. Durham Mike Durham. 11875 Sandy Drive. The only thing I was concerned about was where the driveway came out in front of my garage there. And, it looks like it’s far enough west as to not going to open up right in front of my garage. You know? Morical You’re good with the petition as they’ve described their plans? Durham Yes. Morical Okay. Durham I think the rest of the neighbors are, too, as far as I can see. You know? Morical Okay. Great. Thank you for your time. Any further remonstrators or others here tonight? Seeing none. May we have the staff report, please? DeLong Thank you. Uniquely, you don’t have the opportunity to have had many special exception petitions related to commercial uses, so certainly staff tried to attempt to articulate the points that are captured in the ordinance that are touch points related to the project, and certainly the findings of fact, as well, as Mr. Andreoli has provided. Staff has provided responses to the 8 points as outlined in the ordinance of what the project is to touch upon at a minimum. At the same time, there is a variance that is pending specific to some setback requests, and certainly the project is ultimately required to interact with the Plan Commission related to its development plan. In summary, staff is supportive of the special exception as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Could you also address the two variances requested? Maybe we can deal with all this at once. DeLong The setback request as articulated in the variance portion of the petitioner’s presentation, staff is again supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly noting the overall width of the roadways, and either the roadway of Sandy Drive where the access being Somer Lane, given the width that’s there. The 20-25 feet. It does give the appearance of structures that conform to setbacks. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion, and we might as well do two separate motions, one for the special exception and then one for the variances. Evinger I move that Docket #2017-48-SE, Special Exception to allow for the construction of a new memory care facility in the Urban Office Business and Michigan Road Overlay Zoning District for the property located at 11870 Sandy Drive be approved as filed and as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Page 21 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Wolff Second. Morical Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. And, may I have a motion on the design standards variance? Evinger I move that Docket #2017-49-DSV, design standards variance to provide for the construction of a new single-story 36 bed memory care facility, which: (1) deviates from the required side-yard setback, and (2) deviates from the required buffer yard setback in the Urban Office Business and Michigan Road Overlay Zoning District for the property located at 11870 Sandy Drive be approved as filed and presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much gentlemen, and good luck with your development. The next item on our agenda is Docket #2017-50-UV, storage facility. Good evening, Mr. Jacob. Please state your name and address for the record. Jacob Good evening. My name is Jeff Jacob. I’m an attorney with Jacob, Hammerle and Johnson here in town, at 354 South Main Street. I’m here tonight with, and on behalf of Sam and Cathy Scheidler. To give you a little background, they were here in front of this entity, it’s been many years ago, seeking approval of their locally owned and operated storage facility just a little further up the street. For those familiar with that facility, it is a well-designed, well-constructed and maintained operation, One that we hope will be reflective of their proposal here this evening. The Scheidlers are the owners of the parcel located on Bennett Parkway, 1230 Bennet Parkway, known as the car wash in town. It is no longer operational. But the Scheidlers have worked with staff for approximately a year to work on this site to accommodate another storage facility. In order to do so, they do need two variances, which they are here tonight seeking. The first is a use variance. They are seeking a variance to locate a storage facility in a B2 zoned parcel. Initially, that kind of takes you off guard when you think of the Scheidler’s facility next to the CVS in town, however, if you look at the logic here, what you think of as a typical self-storage facility are large, long metal industrial rows of buildings and doors. You’ve got walls and security fences, and it makes sense to restrict that in a B2 zoned area, however, that’s not what we have in front of us this evening. Let me see. You should have most of this. The Scheidlers are presenting, and you should have this in your packets, a small boutique storage facility. It’s a subtle design. It has visual angles, masonry construction. It will create a visual buffer for the Zionsville shopping center in the rear, and I would argue would enhance the streetscape as you go down Bennett Parkway, and simply put, this Page 22 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 is a facility that’s designed to match the area. A few commitments that the Scheidlers have made, just to highlight a couple, no security gates. Back to our list of what you think of as a typical self-storage. No fencing or walls. No barbed wire. That kind of thing. And, another important one that they committed to at their other facility, is no vehicular surface storage. So, what you’re not going to get is RVs and boats. And, one that I think we should add to the list of commitments that kind of dovetails with that, is they’re not going to have Third party moving equipment rental on the site. So, every storage facility that you drive by, you see U-Haul rental here. That will not be permitted at this site as part of their business plan, and they would add that to their list of commitments this evening. Without addressing specifically each use variance tenant, we believe this proposed project benefits community and surrounding properties. It is a unique and challenging parcel, and if you look at your packet, I think one of the members pointed out, this is that teardrop shape, or pie-shaped parcel that’s difficult to work with. In fact, I think we really don’t have a western side yard. And, we’ll address that a little bit later with our setback variances. It’s a unique parcel, especially given what’s currently on it. We believe that the design that they have put together melds well with the surrounding uses, and that’s reflected in your packets by a number of the surrounding property owners. Mr. Scheidler has gone door to door, sat down with a number of those business owners, and in fact, tenants, one of which is here presenting this evening, who, I would be remiss to not point out, signed a letter indicating he’d be supportive of the project. But, that having been said, we don’t really have any negative comments from any of the surrounding businesses, and that should be reflected in your packets. So, what we believe that we’ve designed is just simply not your typical storage facility. It’s a subtle, tucked-away use that we think melds nicely with the area. The Scheidlers’ plan also calls for the need for two development standard variances, and those are both setback variances, front and side yard. Your zoning ordinance calls for a front yard setback of 10 feet, and a side in this area of 0 feet. However, when you look at the plat, when this was put together however many years ago, it has a front yard setback of 50 feet and a side yard of 10 feet. And, so we are seeking to vary those two to front yard of 21 feet and side of 6 feet, which is more than compliant with the ordinance. Our basis for that is, it’s a challenging site. It is teardrop shaped. In fact, as I mentioned, we do not have a real western side yard. Most importantly, we don’t have any objection from the surrounding property owners, specifically the owner, which we believe would be most affected, would be the property owner to the east, Control Tech, and he has been shown a copy of these plans. Mr. Scheidler sat down with him in person, and I believe you have a letter in your packets indicating he has no objection. So, given the proposed use, the commitments, the lack of adjoiner concern, the shape of the lot, we believe that this is an appropriate request. We believe that this is a very much needed use. The Scheidler operation right now runs at near capacity, and we believe that this is a nice boutique storage facility, unlike what you would typically see in the basis for not allowing these types of uses in B2 zoned areas. We believe that the plat restrictions are overly burdensome given the shape and how this area has developed. So, we would ask that you follow staff’s recommendation and approve the use variance, and the two development standard variances with our proposed commitments, adding the no third-party rental component. Page 23 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Morical First of all, let me commend you and your client for engaging with the neighboring property owners and working with them to make sure everybody supported this unique development of this particular parcel. Jacob I’d love to take credit, but that’s all on Mr. Scheidler. Morical Okay, well, good job, Mr. Scheidler. On the commitments, Commitment number 3, I believe, I think you’ve got two Commitment number 2, so we’ll call that one number 3. It talks about no vehicular surface storage. Jacob Correct. Morical A boat may or may not be a vehicle. Would you guys be willing to expand that to be no outside storage? Jacob I would very much consider a boat a vehicle, but yes, we would. Morical Okay. So, you would be amenable to providing no outside storage? Jacob Correct. Morical Thank you. Wayne, quick question for you. You made the suggestion as it relates to the use variance to provide for some expiration of that variance. DeLong Correct. With all use variances, staff brings those to you and mentions that exact point. In staff’s mind, there needs to be some end date for a use variance. In this specific case, staff has very little concern with the use of this property in perpetuity as an indoor storage facility, as proposed by the petitioner. In the event that the property should cease being operated as such, and the buildings are demolished and some other use comes out of the ground, and a property owner, or this property owner moves forward with a different project, staff would suggest that at that time, the use variance burn-off, go away, be sunsetted simply to get that off the books and have closure to that use variance. Morical So, you’re suggesting that if it’s inactive in that use for some period of time, that the use variance then terminates? DeLong Correct. Jacob Mr. Chairman, we would have no problem with that. Morical Would 24 months after the, you know, the complete inactive - - Jacob - - Cease operation as a storage facility. I would not have any problem with that, and it doesn’t appear as though Mr. Scheidler - - Morical - - Two years is a fairly long time. Staff, Wayne, do you think that makes sense? DeLong Yes. Page 24 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Morical Okay. Any further questions for the petitioner? Jones Will there be any kind of on-site office? Jacob No, there will not be. Jones And, the no security gates or fencing, is that a Town request, or just, there is a part of me, you know, there is a part of me that would almost prefer to see it fenced, but I don’t know if that’s not. Morical Larry, we used to be the safest community in the United States. Jacob Mr. Jones, Mr. Scheidler has put a good deal of research into why this is designed the way it is, and there is some specific elements he doesn’t want to see them, doesn’t want to utilize that kind of storage facility, and there is some unique design elements specific to what he would propose constructing, and he can address that more particularly, but they’re simply not needed, and they’re an eyesore. Morical Mr. Scheidler, please state your name and address for the record. Scheidler Yes, Sam Scheidler. 10325 Cottonwood Court. This particular process 13 years ago for our first project was scrutinized heavily. And we were asked not to use walls and gates and fences, and it’s worked out beautifully for almost 12 years we’ve been open. So, we don’t want to put them up. We don’t think they’re as good-looking as our project is as it stands. Mundy I guess I have a similar interest, at least, in a facility like this that’s not staffed. I’ve used your facility for some temporary storage for my mother at one point, and without any staffing, or without any form of, obviously each would have a key to access their own storage unit, but without someone there, is there any risk that it might be used in a way that we wouldn’t like, since there is no staffing. Do you have surveillance cameras. I mean, what’s the assurance that we don’t have some activity there we don’t want? Scheidler Just like you have seen in our original facility, the monitors with all the cameras, we’ll have the same sort of thing over there. We’ll have an abundance of video monitoring. There will be staff on site. There will not be an office. We propose to operate it as a satellite location. I always say we’re 400 yards away. That’s almost. I’ve never measured it. I’m guessing it’s about 400 yards away. And, you met Bruce and Charles, and you know how seriously they take their job. They’re enthusiastic about this. The place will be protected and run as professionally as our other facility. Jacob And, just as a note. That video monitoring is included in our commitments. Morical Thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner? And, we have no remonstrators here tonight. Wayne, may we have your thoughts? Page 25 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 DeLong Certainly, staff can speak to the use variance, and the development standards variance that’s in front of you. Certainly noting the comprehensive plan recommends this area for commercial development. Certainly the way the petitioner is proposing the improvements, as well as characteristics that are reflective of a previous operation in a B2 zoning district are characteristics that, you know, have shown the Town that this is a compatible use within this area, and in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So, therefore, staff is supportive of the use variance, and certainly as proposed with the limitation, as well as the proposed commitments. Specific to the development standards variance, yes, it is true that the development standards as proposed exceed the current ordinance standards, however, the plat itself, when it was put together, and staff could not find any information as to the logic behind this particular standards. But, certainly, it does lend itself to a vision of a Boulevard Drive through a particular area. But, certainly, the curvature of the street and the shape of the lot, those characteristics seem to still be reflected in the proposed layout. In staff’s opinion, and certainly as far as the side yard setback, adequate area is provided. Fire separation is provided for, and certainly staff is always focused on the separation specific to maintenance of contemplative improvements and those kind of all seem to be provided for by the proposed setback. With all those thoughts in mind, staff is supportive of the petition as filed. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for staff? All right. So, we’ve got the two separate items we need to act on. We’ve got the use variance that we need to provide for it being in existence for so long as it’s actively used for a self-storage facility and for 24 months thereafter, at which point it would terminate, so, 24 consecutive months of non-use as a self-storage facility. Then we need to reference the commitments, the modification of what would be item #3, where it says no vehicular surface storage to be no outside storage. And, the addition of what would be point #5, that there would be no third party equipment rental. And, we should probably make those commitments applicable to both variances. Drake And, I would recommend the commitments be incorporated into the standard form for your commitments so that we have all the other language on indemnification, etc. Morical That sounds great. Any further questions? I think it makes sense to do them one at a time, again. May I have a motion? Wolff I always get the hard ones. I’m sure I’m going to screw up the commitments. So, we’ll take a stab at this. I move that Docket #2017-50-DSV, use variance, to allow for the operation of a self-storage facility in the Urban General Business District for the property located at 1230 Park Drive be approved as filed based on the findings of fact and as presented, with the addition that the use variance will expire after 24 consecutive months of non-use as a self-storage facility. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical Any discussion? Page 26 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 Drake I would correct the docket number on the use variance. It’s #2017-50-UV, and recommend that the use variance incorporate the conditions in staff’s recommendation that indicated they will be subject to substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, execution of your standard commitments within 60 days of approval, and will terminate as you discussed. Morical Thank you. Mr. Wolff, are you amenable to amending your motion to include the items that Carol just specified? Wolff I am. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Then we’ve got the other one with, again, we’ve got to reference those commitments. Wolff I move that Docket #20, are you looking for a motion? Morical Yes. Thank you. Wolff Okay. I move that Docket #2017-51-DSV, design standards variance to allow for the operation of a self-storage facility which deviates from both the platted front building line setback and platted side yard setback in the Urban General Business Zoning District for the property located at 1230 Park Drive be approved as filed based on the findings of fact, with the additional commitments that were referenced in the use variance request #2017-50-UV. Did I pull that off? Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical Thank you. Have we clearly stated on the record the couple changes to the commitments? Drake I believe so. Morical Okay. Thank you, Carol. Drake The vehicular - - Morical - - Yes. The no outside storage and the no third party equipment rental. Okay, great. We’ll make sure those are in there when they’re finalized. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Page 27 of 28 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals January 9, 2018 All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. Jacob Thank you very much for your time. I do have one note of good news. We are reducing our impervious area, surface area, by 1%. Morical I applaud your care of our water shed. Jacob Thank you for your time this evening. Morical Are there any other matters that need to be addressed before this honorable Board? Drake I will report that Mr. Andreoli advised this evening that the Gummere commitments have been recorded. They aren’t back yet, but he said they are recorded, so, those should be received any time. Morical Great. Any further items? Thank you. We are adjourned. Page 28 of 28