Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)

MEETING RESULTS - ZIONSVILLE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MARCH 13, 2018 The Regular meeting of the Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals occurred Tuesday, March 13, 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 w/Conditions– 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Use variance to allow for chiropractic services 2018-01-UV D. Swiney 5779 S 900 East within an owner's personal residence in the Rural Low Density Single Family and Two-Family Residential Zoning District (R2). II. New Business Docket Number Name Address of Project Item to be considered Approved – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to 2018-02-DSV T. Lewis 465 W Cedar Street provide for the construction of a detached garage which: 1) Deviates from the required side & aggregate yard setbacks in the Urban Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). Approved – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to provide for the construction of a Single-Family Home & accessory uses which: 2018-03-DSV J. Stehr 190 N Sixth Street 1) Exceeds the required lot coverage of 35%, to 51.2% 2) Deviates from the required side & aggregate yard setbacks 3) Deviates from the required front yard setback in the Urban Residential Village Zoning District (R-V). Approved – 5 in Favor, 0 Opposed Petition for Development Standards variance in order to 2018-04-DSV J. Scott 660 Bloor Lane provide for the construction of a front porch which: 1) Deviates from the required front yard setback in the Urban Residential Single-Family Zoning District (R-SF-1). Respectfully Submitted: Wayne DeLong AICP Town of Zionsville Director of Planning and Economic Development March 14, 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 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 Tuesday, March 13, 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 review and approval of the February 13, 2018, 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. Evinger I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. The next item is matters previously continued, and that is Docket #2018-01-UV, Mr. Swiney. Welcome back. Again, please state a very brief description of what you’re interested in tonight. Swiney All right. What we are asking for is a variance of use to extend a home occupation from advising and consulting, to allow treatment as well, from a chiropractic standpoint. Morical Great. Thank you. And, have you read the staff report? Swiney Yes. Morical And, the staff has certain recommendations in there. Are you amenable to the recommendations? Swiney Yes. Morical Okay. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mundy Do you intend to use a sign of any kind to advertise your chiropractic request? Swiney I do not intend to use a sign. No. Morical Any other questions? Thank you very much. Are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may we have the staff report please? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition. Certainly this is a unique location for this particular subdivision to have the three lots, and this particular home site is well off the road, and certainly given that this is located on a shared driveway, there is a maintenance agreement that provides for that. There are several characteristics that staff finds that support this particular request in this particular location. Certainly staff would have a different, you know, thought process that just goes along with a county road without the feature of this as described within the petition. Specific to the staff’s recommendations, certainly there is a conflict, if you will, between, certainly what the petitioner describes the average of 3 to 4 visits per day. Certainly, staff is certainly not objecting to the petitioner’s very descriptive means, and certainly the more restrictive, so certainly just want to clarify for the record, you know, exactly what sort of those final items that the petitioner is agreeing to. Certainly, the use of average does add some complexity to a conversation. So, certainly trying to tighten that down a bit, and then specific to when staff refers to a day that’s probably better described as a period of time, you know, no visits before X a.m. and after X p.m. for example. So, probably just a few things just to tighten up, as part of the petitioner’s information for you this evening. Morical Carol, would it make sense to have the petitioner work with staff on the specifics, or do we need to approve the specific limitations? Page 2 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 Drake I recommend that you have that discussion with the petitioner at this time so that your approval incorporates what’s agreed upon. Morical Okay. So, Mr. Swiney, what would you propose in terms of the hours of operation? Swiney Hours of operation, I have had hours as early as 7 and as late as 7. I don’t anticipate continuing that. For one, part of the reason for me working from home is my wife’s job has gotten busier, so I’ve been cutting back over the past year. So, the kids get on the bus at 8:30. I don’t see anything going sooner than that. However, I do know that a lot of times people like to come in a little bit later in the evening, but I don’t anticipate having people come in later than 6:30, just because, sometimes after work is the best time for people to come in and see me, but it’s not something that I would anticipate it being late hours of the night, or early, early morning. And, honestly, it really wouldn’t be much more traffic flow than my wife’s Amazon Prime shopping. Morical Sorry to hear that. So, for you to actually provide services between 8:30 and 6:30, or are you saying somebody would come at 6:30 and you need that to go to 7? Swiney Probably, be there by 6:30, leave by 7. Morical Okay. So, hours of operation between 8:30am and 7pm. Is that 5 days a week? Do you see people on the weekend? Swiney I have on occasion, but with sports and everything, it’s not a standing time that I have open. I don’t advertise weekend hours, but I have on occasion made it work, but it’s not something that I advertise or have ever advertised as a standard business day. Morical But, you would like to continue to have weekend hours? Swiney Something like 9 to 12, maybe, in the morning on weekends. Morical Saturday only or also on Sunday? Swiney It would not be on Sunday. Morical Okay. So, 9am to noon on Saturday. What was your other item that you wanted to confirm, Wayne? Drake Frequency. Morical Frequency. Swiney Not an average number of visits, but more, right? DeLong It’s just more time to, just your maximum number of patients you think you would see per day. Swiney Well, I think there was something in the minutes of a cap of 12 per day in the staff report, and I’m fully amenable to that. Page 3 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 Evinger To make that clear, a maximum of 12 patients per day. Morical Any other questions or comments on the proposed restrictions? Evinger Do you foresee adding anybody else into your practice that would also be there? Swiney No. Evinger All right. Jones Should we address the one remonstrant’s note we got, just basically make sure for the record it’s, while it is a medical practice, it’s more or less along the lines of a personal service, kind of roughly akin to an accountant or tax preparer, or somebody doing sort of a one-on-one service. Also, with the limitation of, you know, getting renewed every, is it 4 years or 5 years? What’s the math work out to, 5 years? Swiney It’s 5 years. Jones It would not then entitle the property to be a permanent kind of medical-type use. It would come up for review. So, while we’ve received and reviewed the remonstrant’s letter, I don’t think it would really be substantially adverse to the neighborhood or set a precedent that we wouldn’t want to follow in the future. Morical Thank you, Larry. When I read it, I looked at the elements that the petitioner needs to meet and didn’t feel like it substantively impacted any of those elements, but thank you for calling attention to that. Any further questions or comments? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion, and I think we should include a reference to the restrictions that we’ve talked through. Wolff I’ll give it a shot. I move that Docket #2018-01-UV, use variance for the property located at 5779 South 900 East in the Rural Residential Single-Family Zoning District (R2) be approved as recommended by the staff, with the following additional limitations that the use shall be: (1) limited to no more than 12 consultations or interactions within a day. A day shall be defined as 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday; (2) the use shall be limited to no more than 2 consultation interactions within a 1-hour time-period, and (3) the approval for the use shall expire on March 12, 2023, and is eligible for consideration for approval then of another use variance petition in the event the use is to be extended in time. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Jones Second. Morical Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Page 4 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 Morical Any opposed? Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is Docket #2018- 02-DSV, T. Lewis. Please state your name and address for the record, and provide us a brief description of what you’re interested in tonight. Rottmann Hi, my name is Todd Rottmann with address at 320 West Hawthorne Street. Here with me today are Tom and Monica Lewis, with address of 465 West Cedar Street. They are the homeowners. They are wanting to build a new 2-car garage at the rear of their property on the existing alley. In order to preserve as much back yard as possible, they’re wanting to locate the garage in line with the existing 1-car garage that’s attached to the home. That location is 3.7 feet from the east property line, which requires a variance, since the minimum side yard is 5 foot. And, the 15-foot minimum aggregate side yard variance is also needed because ours will now be 12.3 feet. In the packet from the Town, do you guys have the site maps in the packet? Okay. So, I wanted to point out that on those site maps, there is both a historical one and then a current one from the Boone County GIS. You can see on those that the garages in that area are located tight to the property lines, both on the side and the rear yards. You can also see that this new garage will be adjacent to the neighbor’s garage immediately to the east as their home is oriented and located close to 4th Street. Many of you may remember that we got these exact same variances for this home about 3 years ago. Now we just would like to get those same variances for the side and aggregate side yard for this garage. And, that concludes our formal presentation, and we’re open for questions. Morical Thank you, Mr. Rottmann. So, would you be removing the driveway that is on the north side of the property? Rottmann It would be remaining at this time. Morical But the vehicular access would be at the south, to the new - - Rottmann --There would still be the 1-car attached garage. Since it’s historic, we’re not removing it from the house, and it has the driveway leading to the north, to Cedar Street. That will remain, and then we’ll have the new garage in the rear with the drive off of the alley to the south. Morical And, in terms of lot coverage. Rottmann Yes, we’re below the 35% lot coverage. So, we don’t need any variances there. Morical Thank you. Any further questions for the petitioner’s representative? Jones Do we get any answers on the, there is a note in here about Duke Energy and the overhead power lines. Have you gotten any more additional information about that, or is it going to affect the location? Rottmann I went out there and looked at it. The power pole is not in the way. There is a power pole and power line running down that side of the alley, however, the property line is further north than those power lines, plus we are moving the garage further away from the property line, and being 1-story I think we’re clear of the 15 feet the power Page 5 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 company requires. The house immediately to the west, was built within the past 2 years, the garage is located roughly the same distance from the alley. Its 2 stories, and it did not need any variances or have any issues with Duke. Morical Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Rottmann. Are there any remonstrators here? Seeing no remonstrators, may we have the staff report, please? DeLong Staff is supportive of the petition. The garage setbacks that are requested are similar to what is enjoyed by the property currently, and the area is comprised of home sites, which do enjoy detached garages. Again, staff is supportive of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Questions for staff? Evinger Have you verified the lot coverage will be less than 35%? DeLong Yes. That’s something we review during the intake just to make sure that there is not additional variances necessary. Morical Any further questions? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Evinger I move that Docket #2018-02-DSV, development standards variance, in order to provide for the construction of a detached garage, which: (1) deviates from the required side and aggregate yard setbacks, as illustrated on the site plan attached to the report, in the RV Residential Village Zoning District for the property located at 465 West Cedar Street be approved as filed, with a note to contact Duke Energy prior to the commencement of the project. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Mundy Second. Morical Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Rottmann Thank you. Morical The next item on our agenda is Docket #2018-03-DSV, John and Amy Stehr. Again, Mr. Rottmann, please state your name and address for the record, and give us a brief overview of what you’re interested in tonight. Rottmann My name is Todd Rottmann. Address at 320 West Hawthorne Street. With me is Amy Stehr, who, along with her husband, John, own 190 North 6th Street. I first want to direct you to Exhibit 2 that’s in your packet. It’s the site plan, the aerial photograph. I think on Exhibit 2 you can see that this site has a very unique context with apartments, library, and school surrounding it. You can also see that there are Page 6 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 multiple homes that have been built within the last 40 years that are larger than the historical homes in the area and are also built on 2 lots instead of just 1. If you’ll look at Exhibit 5, that’s the site plan that we created that shows the current conditions of the lot with an existing house and tons of gravel, concrete, and pavers. The current lot coverage is 51.8%. You can also see that the existing house is in non-compliance with current zoning for side yards, front yards, and the vision triangle at the corner. In total, there are 7 non-conformities on this site as it sits today. Finally, I want to point out that the area that’s hatched in the center of this site is what the allowable area per current zoning would allow for the building of a house. Clearly, current zoning would require variances on this property, not only to build a new house, but for existing houses as well. So, that brings us to why we are here today. The current house is worn down from years of being a rental and does not accommodate the Stehrs and their 3 children. So, we are proposing a new, beautiful home that we feel fits the character of the Village, both in scale and in detailing. It’s similar in size to other homes in the area, but this lot is on a corner with land that we can’t count toward setbacks or lot coverage, and the lot is smaller than what current zoning would require, even though it’s a historical lot. So, we need variances for front yards and side yards, and for lot coverage. In total 5. Not only is this 2 less than what the current home requires, but it’s important to note that we are improving the conditions on every one of those 5 variances from the current conditions. Our setbacks are greater, and our lot coverage is less. Understanding the importance of maintaining permeable surfaces and green space as a way to enhance the character of the Village and also reduce the amount of water runoff into the streets, John and Amy very graciously purchased as much land from their southern neighbor as they could in order to preserve more permeable land. And, you’ll see on the new site plan the area of land that they purchased. They cannot build on this land due to lot coverage restrictions, but their neighbor could have, so this is a way to help preserve some of the permeable green space. With that additional land, we are at a 45.4% lot coverage. The remaining 5.8% of lot coverage that we’re requesting in this petition, it’s all permeable pavers on the south side of the house for a patio. John and Amy definitely want their home to benefit their neighbors, so they have personally reached out to all the adjacent homeowners and the library, and they’ve received signed letters of support from all of them. Those are included in the Town’s file, if they’re not included in your packet. I can honestly say that the Stehrs and I have worked incredibly hard throughout this process and the design of their new home to bring it into better compliance with current zoning, yet still meet their needs as a family. While I would never encourage a typical home construction to pursue so many variances, because we’ve improved all the conditions that already exist, we believe that this particular home on this particular lot is appropriate. Morical Thank you, Mr. Rottmann. A couple of questions for you. So, we’ve dealt with petitions in this area before, and a concern by the apartment owner of surface water coming towards them, and drainage issues. It sounds like you’ve worked to try to address those particular concerns on this parcel by virtue of the new construction and the pervious materials. Do you think you're improving the ability of that lot to take in water, and reduce the shedding of it? Rottmann Correct. I think we’re the same, if not better. But, one thing that’s important to note is we’re actually pulling further from all of the property lines, so we actually have more Page 7 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 room in which to capture the water to let the water percolate into the soil. For example, coming down further off the downspouts than what they currently have. Morical And, that’s by virtue of acquiring the additional property? Rottmann And, just by the design, we did purposely move the house, you know, further to the north, and east, and west from the different paved areas and houses that are there now. Morical So, you believe net net this is going to have a positive impact on drainage? Rottmann Yes. Morical Okay. Thank you. And, then, secondly, we did receive all of the letters of support, which were helpful. Thank you for going through that effort. Mr. Leonard had a concern about contractors parking in the area and particularly parking on Academy Drive. Is that something you’ll work with your contractors to ask them to not do? Rottmann Yes. Having visited the site many times, there are contractors and supplies all over the place with the home that’s being built to the west. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner’s representative? Mundy I have a curiosity question. Does the, currently the address is on North 6th Street, correct? With the change in the entrance, does that change this to an Academy Drive address? Rottmann It does not. The front porch still kind of faces both of them. It didn’t seem reasonable to run the sidewalk to 6th Street since there is no walk there, and the hill is so steep, it really would end up being stairs and all that. So, we took it to the north, to Academy Drive, which is closer, and that’s where the current walk is, so we’re matching where the entry and where the walk is currently. So, we would not anticipate changing the address. Mundy I wasn’t sure how the post office determines the address or if the Town does that. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner’s representative? Hearing none, are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, may be have the staff report, please? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly this is a unique petition as Mr. Rottmann has outlined. This area is a specific location within the Village that this Board knows rather well from the various conversations and petitions that you’ve heard on Academy Drive over the last 3 or so years. Certainly, this property was in a part of that conversation. The original owner, the previous owner, focused on concerns specific to their lot. Certainly, that person has moved on. Certainly the proposal that’s in front of you is a project which lessens the intensity of the established non-conformities as outlined. Certainly the extra step of the 5.8% pervious paver usage is certainly encouraged and applauded and appreciated, and certainly is used as Mr. Rottmann has outlined. Specific to the address in question, as Page 8 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 a corner lot, certainly the lot owner could seek to re-address the parcel to Academy Drive, if that was so desired. Certainly, though, the addressing is assigned by our department. The fire department, 911 would look into that as well. I can’t say that it would be something that would be supported, because it’s all about orientation and response times, and certainly this being the historic address, it might be encouraged to stay 6th Street. But, it is certainly an option. Thank you for pointing it out, Mr. Mundy. Other than that, staff is happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Drake I would just bring to your attention that you have revised findings of fact that are slightly amended from what was in your packet. In paragraph 2 of what was in your packet, the language ‘eliminates two current zoning violations’ has been removed, and in paragraph 3, the language ‘because current zoning will not allow the construction of a reasonable house’ has also been removed. And I would recommend to you the revised findings in lieu of those originally submitted. Morical Thank you, Carol. I would entertain a motion. Mundy I move that Docket #2018-03-DSV, design standards variance, in order to provide for the construction of a single-family home and accessory uses which: (1) exceed the required lot coverage of 35% to 51.2%, inclusive of a 5.8% lot coverage comprised of pervious pavers, and (2) deviates from the required side and aggregate yard setbacks, and (3) deviates from the required front yard setback, all as illustrated on the site plan and conceptual building elevations attached to the staff report, in the Residential Village Zoning District (RV), for the property located at 190 North 6th Street be approved as filed and based on the revised finding of facts. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Wolff Second. Morical Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Rottmann Thank you for your time tonight. Morical You’re welcome. Enjoy your new house. The next item on our agenda is Docket #2018-04-DSV, J. Scott. Please come up and state your name and address for the record and provide a brief overview of what you’re interested in tonight. Scott Yes, my name is John Scott. I reside at 660 Bloor Lane in Zionsville. I’m here for a petition for development standard variance in order to provide for the construction of a front porch. Page 9 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 Morical Thank you. And, we’ve read through your materials. Any questions for the petitioner? Wolff Mr. Scott, just so it’s clear, and as I drove by the property, you lost a little bit of property with a recent addition of a sidewalk, correct? Is that true? Scott They put in a pathway. Wolff And, that went through your front yard, is that right? Scott Yes. Wolff Okay. Just making sure I had the right property. Morical That was property, he gained an amenity. Wolff And, I enjoy the amenity, thank you, Mr. Scott and the Town of Zionsville. Scott I want to thank, Mike, my neighbor for coming out and supporting the porch, as well. Mundy I think that actually was the right-of-way, wasn’t it? The sidewalk was placed on the right-of-way. Wolff I stand corrected. Again, I enjoy it, though, thank you. Mundy I do, too. Morical Any further questions for the petitioner? Hearing none, are there any remonstrators here tonight? Seeing none, anybody want to speak in favor? Are you a remonstrator? In favor? Come on up. Please state your name and address for the record, and why, you’re here to support the petition. Kojetin I’m Mike Kojetin. I live at 665 Bloor Lane, directly across the street. And, would like to speak in favor of John’s petition to get a variance to build a new porch. I support his efforts to improve the neighborhood. Morical Great. Well, thank you very much for coming. Kojetin Although, I might correct you a little bit. There was no right-of-way there. John donated the right-of-way for that path. Scott The neighbors did, but thank you all. Morical Well, we’re not done yet. Hold on. We don’t let you off the hook that easy. Okay, no remonstrators. May we have the staff report, please? DeLong Thank you. Staff is supportive of the petition as filed. Certainly the items noted in the staff report, which primarily revolve around the fact that this particular property via its 2005 platting, dedicated a 40-foot right-of-way, which the home happens to sit 40 Page 10 of 11 Zionsville Board of Zoning Appeals March 13, 2018 feet back, which is a total, or which is a large dimension compared to the remaining properties within the area. There are only 2 properties along the stretch of Bloor that have dedicated right-of-way over the years. Certainly, there are homes in this area that are as close as 35 feet to the travel lane of Bloor. The proposed setback is something that’s supportive, the staff is supportive of, and certainly results in the 64- foot setback from the travel lane, which is in excess of what many of the properties provide in that area. Again, staff is supportive of the petition as filed, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Morical Thank you, Wayne. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Wolff I move that Docket #2018-04-DSV, design standard variance, in order to provide for the construction of a front porch which: (1) deviates from the required front yard setback, all as illustrated on the site plan attached to the staff report, in the Residential Single-Family Zoning District (R-SF-1) for the property located at 660 Bloor Lane be approved as filed, based on the findings of fact, and as presented. Morical Thank you. Is there a second? Evinger Second. Morical Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. All Aye. Morical Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Enjoy your front porch. Carol, is there anything else we need to act on tonight? Drake Just an update. The Scheidler storage commitments, it was reported last month that we worked out the language. We now have the recorded commitments. So, those have been finalized for both the use variance and the development standards variance. Morical Great. Anything else? Thank you very much. We’re adjourned. Page 11 of 11