Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

for doing that because that works out better for the council I think. Okay, I will end the recess for 6 42 and reconvene the meeting. 4642. The bit the meeting is now reopened. We will continue with with new business for public hearing docket 2026-005. Petitioner Cynthia Lopez requesting a developmental standard variance for the following. The variance is to allow a concrete pad on a lot already over the alluded 30% imperous surface ratio. Miss Litzell, can we please have the staff report?

You can. And actually before I start on the staff report, Grace, can you pass me I know I know that we have a second written item. I have one of them. I don't It should be on your packet. Yep. It's attached on the very back.

Amazing. Oh, hey, look at that. Okay, you're amazing. I'm not used to that on my side. I clearly should. Uh, all right. So, with that, I'm going to dive into this um staff report. So, the applicant is Cynthia Lopez. This is at 1531 East Kelly Road. Uh, as noted, this is a development until standard variance request from UDO 304 to allow a site to have an impervious surface ratio of 38% instead of the permitted 30%. This property is zoned a residential and it is a conforming single family dwelling use in the zoning district as is the adjacent property to the east and the west. The property to the north is a mix of a church in the a residential district. Again, religious institutions are kind of allowed across the board by one way or another and then agriculturally zoned land with a house on it. The property to the south is a farm field in the county jurisdiction that's zoned R2, lowdensity residential, which is um in terms of standards pretty much identical to a residential, roughly quarter acre lots um for future development. This site's on the south side of Kelly Road. It's between Man Road and Airhead Drive. And I'll note those are both road stubs to the south that don't really go anywhere, so you may not be super familiar um with them. It's a roughly 3,000 foot single family dwelling on the lot that was built in 2002. The property is um legal non-conforming with regard to imperous surface since it had 33% already covered when the city adopted the regulations in 2023, limiting them to 30. As a result, they need additional impervious surface to place a structure anywhere on their lot. The applicant would like to put a 24x36 concrete pad behind the east side of the house to place a carport style storage building on. Uh they previously had a carport at the rear of the lot uh which did not get permits and had been back there for some time, but it was removed and so it's now compliant uh due to aging condition. There is also an illegal shed sitting against the back of the house that does not meet setbacks and did not get permits. I did speak to the applicant and they will remove the shed from the property once they build the new carport structure. They're using

it to temporarily store some things from the old building that they didn't have anywhere to put temporarily. So they're aware that if the variance is not granted, they will need to get permits for the shed and move it 10 foot out from the house into a permissible location. On the second page, um you've got just an aerial view showing the uh the agricultural district and the city, the a residential, and then the R2. And uh then there's a site plan here on this first page as well. Um on the third page, you've got a picture from the road. You can kind of see the edge of that shed on the left side of the the brick house, but it's a it's a nice looking well-maintained property uh residential structure. Um I've referenced the impervious surface standard in terms of uh developmental variance request analysis. Um UDO 203.12 specifies three findings that must exist to grant a variance. First, the approval will not be injurious to public health safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. And uh Dan Sheets, county surveyor, had noted that he has no drainage concerns um created by granting the requested variance. Nothing injurious would appear to be created. This finding is met. Um two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Um I'm going to note what I wrote and I'm going to allude to something I'm going to get into once I get past the staff report, but um upon writing this, I noted that the county surveyor feels granting the variance will not create any additional water runoff concerns. So there would not seem to be an issue with affecting adjacent properties adversely. Um I have learned something since that could potentially have an adverse effect. I do not think it changes where I land in my staff report, but it does change my conditions that I recommend. So I'm going to kind of come back to that so that I don't peacemeal as I explain after the staff report what else we've worked our way through um today. So the third one is a stretch backa application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So this house is a large house

with a lot of driveway area. Thus it's already over that impervious surface. There is no way to add anything at all on the lot without needing a variance. So the finding would appear to be met. So consequently, staff would recommend to approve the developmental variance from UDO 304 to allow up to 38% of the lot to be covered with impervious surface with the condition the illegal shed be fully removed from the property. I'm going to pause and just going to give you some context. I'm actually recommending another I think three conditions be added. I'm going to get into those as I explain kind of where we went from there. So release the staff report. Um we did get um two letters concerning this. Uh the first one was um a letter that was received from um Elvis Portillo, am I pronouncing that correctly? And Jennifer Diaz um and they're at 50 or 1559 East Kelly Road. I believe this was sent to the board. Did everybody receive this and read it ahead of the hearing?

Yes. Okay. So, as such, I'm everyone states they've read it. I'm not going to read it verbatim into the record, but I will summarize. Uh this neighbor noted that they have no objection to the proposed addition of a concrete pad as long as it's maintained uh at a minimum distance of 2 to three feet from their property line uh because they don't want to have any drainage issues from runoff or interference with their property. Um and as you'll have noted from the site plan, this will be more than two to three feet away from the side lot line. So from staff's perspective, we don't believe there's any issue um related to this other than just to verify that um their statement would seem to be in support given the setback is met.

The second um email that we received and did you did you send this one on to board members as well? Yeah, I translated it to perfect. I was going to ask what I'm holding isn't translated so I don't want to ask if everyone's read it. So um if you all received the second one which was from Maria Valencia if I pronounced that right. Um and the original email was in Spanish. Grace kindly um I would say loosely translated the concepts of rather than transliterated um that into English. Did you read as you were able to understand it the Spanish and or the English versions of that comment? Yes.

I'd like to read it real quick. I've got it. Hold up just a second. Okay, no problem. And and this is one if you want me to I can just read it. I can probably read it in two seconds. It's nice and short. I'm going to end up getting into the content of it here in a moment in more detail anyway because this led to a whole series of things that relate could certainly. So, um Okay. So, have you read it now? Yes.

Okay. So, for purposes of the record, um all board members received this and did read either the Spanish version or the English translation from staff. Um, I don't speak Spanish, unfortunately. I wish I did. So, I'm going to summarize off of the English summary uh for purposes of the record. So, this neighbor um stated first off, they don't have a problem with the garage itself. That's not what they're concerned about, but they do have a concern because they said that there is an alley to the rear of the property that the owners use regularly and it's become very muddy and it gets flooded and um if this garage is going to result in more access going back and forth, um then they're concerned about that because they don't want they're taking damage to their property and they don't want more damage. Uh they were very clear they don't have any issue with the garage. They like their neighbors. um you know, their goal isn't not to allow the approval. They just don't want to take more harm. So then when I read that, I thought, well, that's weird because I've been in the area for 20ome years working as a planner and I'm familiar with the subdivision and I don't think it has an alley. So I went and pulled the plat um and looked at the area and discovered that in fact um the applicants have been trespassing. There is no alley here whatsoever. There is no stone here. This is not a legal location for cars to drive. On the last fly over, they had four vehicles uh back here at that point in time. I did note um on the Plat and Covenants, what is back here behind some of the lots is a drainage easement, which also goes across the backs of all the lots in this subdivision, which specifically prohibits buildings, fences, driving, all of those things. And then uh the city has placed and I talked to Todd Corey this afternoon about this. There is both a sewer line and a storm water line running right behind these houses which these vehicles have been driving on and two are parked on in the flyover and city utilities is aware if any problems occur. The applicant will be liable to pay the city

to cover those. Um as well as any damage. We don't believe that the farm field owner is aware that this has been happening. Um but the reason he doesn't farm all the way to the edge is because he would end up catching the the city noted that their sewer and storm water are shallow there because there's no design there to incorporate for vehicles, houses, traffic, you know, or anything else. It's just simply a line that serves all these homes and is there for future development to the south. So, um that then in the process of uh looking at the plat and talking to utilities, utilities pointed out that they do have and enforced their easement and this uh garage cannot sit at 5 foot from the rear property line. Um and for utilities, they have a general standard in town, but in the case of this particular situation, the plat actually has a 110 foot drainage easement. Part of that is on Gene Marshall's field on the back where these cars have been driving and part of that is on these properties, the rear 40 46 foot of these properties. And you can actually see on most of them where they've cut off. They've been following their covenants. Um is not allowed to have per the covenants any structures, any buildings, um any driveways, any traffic going across it. Um, and this board has no authority to wave an easement or allow somebody to build in it. So, um, with that said, I did do a rough measurement, um, because Grace and I talked a couple times today and somehow, even with having a table, I've managed to lose something. Um, I'm going to have to explain it verbally because I don't see where it is. Or maybe I handed it to you, Alicia. I did do a rough measurement on Beacon just to kind of see if we move forward 46 feet. Is there

Oh, hey. Would you mind passing that down so that I'm not guessing at distances? The rules require them to be 10 foot off of the house and then because of this easement, they have to be 46t forward, which the utilities, even if there's no easement, require 15t, but once I realized there was a 46t easement, I'm not concerned about them meeting the 15. If they meet the easement for the subdivision, they'll obviously meet the utility requirement. So, when I roughly measured the 46 foot off the back and then 10 foot back from from the house, um they're being left with about 28 foot of width. So, it's tight, but if the BZA does grant the impervious surface of variance, it does appear that there is a way they can still put a pad and garage in there. They're just going to have to move it forward. So, um, leading me into the additional conditions, there's three conditions that staff would recommend adding to the staff report that are not currently there based upon what came out as we looked into this and realize we're dealing with an illegal trespass situation that could damage city infrastructure um, and is damaging, you know, other properties in the area. So, uh, first, uh, clarifying that, uh, this is a given by law anyway, but, just to make it clear, they need to call 811 and get stuff marked before they start construction, and they need to be 46t off the rear lot line out of that easement. Um, secondly, they can only access that from Kelly Road. They may not, nor is the BCA giving them any impression that they're allowed to trespass or cause damage to city utilities or other people's property. that's not an alley and the board has no jurisdiction to make it an alley. Um, and three that they would mark this building out um, you know, and indicate, and I'm not sure, I didn't get a chance to ask Grace, do you know, will this be getting a permit for the pad and an inspection of the pad before it's poured?

Yes.

Okay. So, then I would probably phrase this as this specifically needs to have a setback measurement double check done at the pad inspection before pouring to verify that they have indeed prepared the pad. 46 foot off the back property line and 10 foot from the house. And if there's any issue, it needs to be caught and moved at that point before they pour concrete. Um, so I don't feel, you know, other than making sure the applicants know they can't be driving back there and they've been informed, um, there's no reason to believe they do have room on their property on both sides of their house, you know, that they can get back and forth. So there's no reason to think that they can't store things in their building. They may or may not be able to drive to it depending on how what they've been doing. But um but staff doesn't see any reason that granting the impervious surface variance and allowing them to place um a storage building behind their house that meets those regulations is a problem. But wanted to be super clear both for the sake of um the field owner back behind city utilities and any effect that they may suffer and the applicant who may not be aware that that's not actually an alley. So, giving the benefit of the doubt, making sure that they know as of tonight that they can't be driving back there or using that um for any kind of vehicular access. The only vehicles that the easement authorizes to go back there are governmental vehicles making repairs to the utility infrastructure. That's all that's permitted to be back there. So, um with that staff would still recommend to approve with I think that's four conditions total. And I would note the applicant needs to agree to those conditions. So, you should probably check that. If they would not be willing to agree to them, then I would recommend to deny because if it doesn't stay out of the easement and if it's going to create trespass issues, then I would be concerned that it would not meet um the second finding about how it's affecting the properties um and the utilities around it. You were asking me a question.

I I wrote down three conditions. 811 46 for the easement and the pre inspection 34 inspection from setback. you've missed only access from Kelly Road. Um, they may not use the neighbors field or the city utility and drainage easement to move vehicles or construction equipment or anything else related to this. Everything for construction and everything for the use of it in perpetuity can only come off Kelly Road, which is legally true whether we say it or not. Um, us saying it doesn't change it. Um, but because of the situation, I felt it was wise, and I think I talked to Alicia about it, to make sure it's abundantly clear that the BCA is in no way authorizing um trespass or damage to city utilities or neighbors property and doesn't feel that it's necessary for them to have a building. I mean, they they do have room. So, I think if you that's where staff would fall um on that. And if you've got other questions, I have a whole packet of info. It took it took a little bit of research getting there, but um

I would still recommend to approve and let them have the garage. They just need to be able to move it. The uh accident looking at the picture that looking south off of Kelly Road, it appears that they have a driveway and then and then there's a gravel extension of the driveway to the east. Correct. And it is very narrow. They don't have a lot of space there, but yes, there is kind of a I don't know if it's a drive or just a stone drainage area next to the house, but there is an area there that is stone that's next to the house. Um, they may have more detail on that than I didn't enter their property. So, but I did notice that there was something that came up next to it.

When you have a gravel driveway, which that appears to be to me on the one portion of it, is gravel driveway considered impervious surface? It depends. So, we calculated it as part of the impervious surface, but when you actually look at the ordinance, if it is packed, which most things you drive on are packed, it's considered impervious. If it is loose stone, like you would throw in like a garden bed to allow water to percolate through. The ordinance does say that you wouldn't consider like somebody's landscaping stone in their front flower bed that's loosely in there and that the water just goes around into the dirt and goes down to be impervious. If in doubt, then we usually would kind of defer to the drainage ordinance and how the drainage board would look at it. Um,

but you're considering for this, we're considering that in we went ahead and measured it mo mostly because we're sending them for a variance. We didn't enter the property and check. We do these calculations off the aerials. So to us, I mean, I'm assuming what their logic was, but I would have advised the same thing if I've been looking at it. is better to air to the side of caution and assume since that's extending off a driveway and it looks like it's been there a while that it's probably packed stone because they can do less than if it turns out that was loose stone they can do less than what the board grants they can't do more than so if we didn't count it and then we realized it was packed stone they'd have to come back a second time

okay so let's let's assume uh that uh they have only access to this uh not assume but we know know they're only going to need get access have access to this building in the back, this garage off of Kelly Road. Is it logical to assume that they would just extend that driveway that that where that one truck is parked? Well, there's two trucks, but the truck to the east, would they would just extend that gravel that right that gravel now stops at the front of the house. Is that correct? Uh, actually, I think it's midway back. Okay. So that if they

and then there's what appears to be a concrete pad back behind but flyovers admittedly I didn't pull up 3D imaging. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between different materials when you're looking at flyovers. But I think what you're asking is if if they could put a drive back there. So I'm going to give you a dual answer. First off, um an accessory storage structure does not necessarily require a driveway. If somebody's parking vehicles in it, obviously they're going to need a driveway. But if they're storing the stuff that's in their small shed or they're doing woodworking, they may have no need of a drive. So, I would note that approving them to have the building and them being able to get a drive-in aren't necessarily connected. That said, if they're going to have a drive and they actually want to put vehicles back there and the reason they've been driving cars back on the neighbor's property thinking that it was an alley was because, you know, that was a more convenient access. There are a set of parking standards which I'm turning to look at and I believe there's a setback off the property line. Um

five feet.

I Yeah, I was thinking it was five foot. I was just going to check it. Yes, five foot. So, I am concerned that on that side of the house, even though they may have a legal non-conforming driveway partway up that they would need a variance if they were going to extend it along the property line back. Now, if they can get, you know, if they can move it in five foot without getting any closer to the neighbor's property, we might not have to converse about it. But if they were going to extend that drive along the property line and increase the nonconformity, um, then they would need a variance to do that. Now, on the other side of the house, it's really hard to tell just looking at the flyover. We don't have a specific measurement over there because they're not but if they have enough room on the other side of the house to stay five foot off the property line and put a way back. Um now I don't know obviously they've got to figure out how that affects whether or not the city would give them a second coat or the zoning ordinance would even allow it because we have limitations for how far apart drives can be. So all this to say this all kind of came up today. In fact two minutes before I arrived at this meeting I was still finishing up doing measurements. So there wasn't any time or opportunity to ask the petitioner and it may be relevant when you talk to them to ask them if they intend to try to put a drive in because if they do they are probably going to need to file another variance for that looking at it whether it's because their drives are too close together or because they're up against a property line. It's a tight space. If they're not planning to have a driveway to it and they're just going to use it for other storage and enjoyment as a personal structure then you know no concerns. and the impervious surface, they can build it without having a driveway. There's not a requirement that they use it to park cars in or that they have their cars parked inside. So, I don't know if that helps clarify it, but there are there are rules about driveways that would apply. And had they submitted a site plan that included driveway extensions, we would have looked at that. Um, to be honest, when they submitted this,

I was just thinking I was just I was just thinking I was just wondering. No, and that's good. It's it's all good questions. I just want to make sure I distinguish between answering the questions and making something sound like it would prohibit their ability to do what they want to do automatically. Gotcha. So I I guess my question is are we even to the point where we're ready to make any kind of findings on this or do we need their input? Yeah, hold that thought. So I think you want to get their input either way. We're still on the staff report. Thank you for the staff report. But I think you could approve it regardless. They just can't put in a driveway unless they come back with a new filing. And you can't grant a driveway variance tonight because it's not advertised.

Uh at this time, we'll call for the petitioner to speak additionally.

My name is Cynthia Lopez. Um basically, yes. Um, we have been, ever since we've been there, we've had mixed um, say so about what that area back there is with the farmer. Um, those cars that are back there are the farmers. They were not ours. Um, they park back there very frequently during um, what do you call harvest time with their semis and people we never say anything. Um, basically because we don't care. Um, yes, we we did use that once in a while. It's not all the time. Now that we know it won't happen again because again, we were very You didn't know what it was.

We didn't know what it was because according to the farm, it's his land. Well, and he can drive anywhere on his land. Obviously, if he damages it, he's going to have to pay the city for fixing. According to what he says is where the grass is. I don't know if you guys have been down there. The grass is and so much in is his land as well.

Correct. That grass is his land there. Yeah. And then ours is from there. Um, in which I talked to him and he had no issues whatsoever with us. Um, because he actually came to our house to make sure where we were at and everything like that. I can I can show you just so you have the knowledge and um, and we can probably email you. I'm looking for a copy of that plat. Here it is. So, just so you can see, you've got your property line here, and then these lines here that are green and blue, those are the city utilities, um, storm water, um, and sewer that are within that easement. And, uh, I presume the reason he's not farming all the way up is so he doesn't catch that. So, here's the plat.

So, starting these houses right on the corner aren't included in this plat, but then all of you that are have the the lots that face Kelly, right? you know, that are this way. The back 46 foot is part of that drainage easement that can't have anything on it. And then, um, Gene Marshall's land, um, the first, uh, 64 foot going back into his land is part of that easement. He can't put any buildings or structures on that either. Um, and this was platted way before my time, so I can't tell you what the logic was, but they recorded it that way. And, um, if it's helpful to you, you're welcome to have, you know, a copy of that. It's not a big deal if it gives you the information. Um either you can take it now or we can email it. Oh, you can email. Okay. Paper copies. I just don't

Oh, you're okay. I don't keep track of those. So, you don't you don't you don't have any problem with not using that land back there as a drive as a as a alleyway. You don't And that you don't you don't plan on using it as a you don't need to use it as a No, we don't need to use it. We have a side we we normally 80% of the time always use the side of our house. Okay. to go back and forth to it where that gravel is. Yes. Is there any other questions? Did you Is the purpose of this to drive vehicles back there and you need to have a driveway or is it on a rare occasion where you just need to drive something back there and drop it off and come back out?

Um, two things. We have a classic car which is a 1968 truck that gets taken out once a year and it comes through the thing because of course it's classic. We're not going to ride it through the mud. So, we take it through our yard. What my um neighbor was talking about is my son goes back there and takes chairs and tables out from the storage that's in there cuz he rents them out and takes them out. That's what he's talking. she's talking about. And as long as we know that that's no longer allowed then because we were we were considered that was always an athlete. Yeah. It's it's no as long as you understand that.

Yeah. We've always and we've been there for 20 we built the house. So we've been there for 22 20 23 years now. So we've always considered an alley and really no one's ever they just now put new houses there recently. So now that I know that it's not a problem. I'll make sure my son uses right before the way we use our truck at but normally but it's for two reasons. One to store the classic which barely gets driven um to be back there and then for storage. How often do the chairs get rented out? Is it a weekly thing?

No, like maybe he just rented out once. I think he did it twice last year. Okay. So having that structure back there is not going to inherently make the sight of your property a driveway. No. No, it's not. So there were three conditions that I don't think that you had been informed of until tonight. The first one was um call 811 and get it marked and it has to be 46 ft from the rear lot line. The second one was to only access it from Kelly Road. And then the third one was to mark the building out and then get the setback measurements uh taken by staff um when you had the concrete pad inspected. Are you agreeable to all of those conditions?

Yes. Okay. Can I ask one question? How do I get a survey for my land and know exactly where my lot is? You So, you need to hire um a private survey to do that. And sometimes if there's already property markers, it can be fairly simple. They can locate and mark them. If there's not, then they have to find it. If you're not aware of surveyors, if you want to like reach out to Grace's office, um I know uh on our side, we have a list of like eight different uh licensed surveyors in the state of Indiana that are qualified to do that work and we can send you a list. We don't recommend one over another. Well, 22 years ago, they provided them. That's how come I ask you,

yeah, we do have a list that both the county surveyor's office, which is not a legal surveyor, they just confusingly call it the same thing. Um they deal with drainage. licensed surveyors in the state deal with property boundaries. So, but we do have lists that um if their office doesn't already have a copy, we can make sure that Grace has them she can send to you. Okay. And you can use that as a reference to make sure you know exactly where that back is so you can get your setback right. Okay. Y but yes, I agree to those. Anything else for the petitioner? Okay. Thank you, Cindy. We'll go ahead and open discussion for the public for additional qu or I'm sorry for the board for additional comments or questions. Do

we need to put on record that we're not authorizing a driveway there? It's just an incidental use.

I think you could put on record that um any addition of a driveway would require an additional impervious surface ratio variance and additional standards variances because of not having enough room for setbacks so that it's in your minutes. I don't know that you actually need to make a motion, but I think there is wisdom in stating it clearly. So, if 10 years from now, suddenly a driveway popped up and if they hadn't talked to you, you'd be able to point to it. You know, I would hope in that case it would be a different property owner who just didn't realize, but you know that it's clear that they have been informed if they realize they want one, they're going to have to file and come back to discuss the appropriateness of that and let neighbors weigh in on it. Um, you know, same for any future owners, there'd be something to point to to say, you know, we were aware of this and we made you aware. So, yeah, I don't think there's any harm in making sure you ask Grace to put it in the minutes.

Any other discussion from the board? Okay. Uh, before we get into a motion, I skipped over uh public comments. Do we at this time any take any comments from the public? Okay. Hearing none, we'll close public discussion. At this time, I'll go ahead and open the uh motion to the board.

I'll make a motion that we approve um based on the staff report the variance to the UDO 304 to allow up to 38% of the lot to be covered with imperous surface with the condition with several conditions. First being that the legal shed be from the property. Um second that prior to any digging um 811 is contacted and utilities are properly marked. Uh third condition that the pad is placed 46 ft out of the utility easement from the back property line. 46 from the back property line. Correct. Which is the

the utility easement is actually 110t wide and is on both the property behind and on this. But from their back property line, it's 46 foot into there as well. Uh fourth would be that the setback that there is a inspection conducted by staff prior to the concrete poured once the path has been marked out, a setback inspection. And then fifth, that it is clear that access to the rear of the property can only be made from the north side of the property, which is Kelly Road. Um and that BZA is in no way authorizing access to the back of the property from any other location.

Was that good? All right, I'll second. Okay, I hear first and a second. Roll call, please. Mike Nichols. Hi. Isaac Chavez. Hi. Charles Spates. Hi. Motion passes. Moving on. Take a look at new business. Public hearing docket 2026-006. Petitioner is Kim Kimberly Timmons requesting a developmental standard variance for the following. The variance is to allow a concrete pad on a lot already over the alluded 30% previous service ratio. This time, Miss Litell, can we please have the staff report?

I can. I did want to note for Mrs. Lopez, you guys don't have to stay unless you want to, but um also you will need to revise your site plan to show that you've got a position that meets the setbacks out of the easement. and you can contact staff um whenever you're ready to work on getting your permit to get that started. And with that um the staff report for this final case, the applicant is Kimberly Timmons. Address is 600 Ricker Drive. It actually sits on the corner of Ricker and Alhamra. And this is another request similarly to the last one from an impervious surface ratio variance um to allow them to have uh 45% of the property covered instead of 30%. This property is owned a residential. It is a conforming single family dwelling use in the district and the adjacent property um on the east south and immediate west are also all a residential single family dwellings. To the immediate north is a Wesley Manor zone C residential. There's apartments on that lot. And then the fairgrounds which is Jo zoned general business is also nearby. It's one parcel over to the west behind the adjacent houses. Uh this site's on the northeast corner of South Alhamra and Ricker Drive. It's one in the Ricker edition. There is a roughly 2,200 foot single family dwelling on the lot that was built in 1953 and is legal non-conforming with regards to its uh front setback for the house. It's 7 foot instead of the required 20 from Allera. Also legal non-conforming with the rear setback which is 15 foot instead of 20 as it was built before there were any rules. As long as it remains, it's allowed to continue to remain. Um the impervious surface is also legal non-conforming as it's already at 34%. uh but predates the adoption of requirements in 2023. There are also two sheds on the property. The furthest east shed is on flyovers for decades in the past. It appears to have been placed in a way that meets all required setbacks. The western shed was placed sometime between 2005 and 2011 per flyovers uh

and aerials. It did not get variances from the BCA or permits as required. So it is illegal with respect to its setbacks from both the house and the eastern shed as 10 foot is required between all structures. The applicant is wanting to add a 24x66 garage edition on the east side of the existing home. They plan to remove both of the older sheds, both the legal and the illegal one from the property completely, which will resolve any questions about the sheds, and use the new addition for all of their storage. Um upon reviewing the site plan, uh we realized that the addition is also going to need a rear setback variance which has not been advertised as it will be placed closer to the north lot line um in line with the concrete patio which is not subject to the setback as it's at grade. Um and so the legal non-conforming rear setback on the existing house of 15 foot is not sufficient to cover this addition. It would be I think if I'm remembering like five foot from the northern line. So while this variance can be heard because they could move this addition forward, have the same impervious surface variance and still build this size of addition without any issue. They do have room. If they do not wish to move it forward, which I think our understanding is they'd like to put it where they've designed it, they know that they are filing for a second variance that'll be at your special BZA hearing. In fact, I believe it's already filed. Um, and they're going to be asking about that setback at that point in time. But today, we're not considering the setback. We're only looking at the impervious surface. But I just want to make sure you're aware of the whole situation. Um, obviously if you have an issue with the impervious surface, then that kills the setback question. So on the second page, you've got a flyover just showing um where this house sits. Really pretty home. Um, very large on the corner lot, very wellmaintained. Uh, there's a site plan there as well that uh shows the proposed garage addition um, and where that'll sit. off the the right side there's a picture actually a couple pictures one picture looking

north from Ricker Drive um where this addition would go on the right side of that house and then um there's a second picture looking east from Alhhamra and you can see the patio there and where they would like to put the addition then it would stick out to the same distance as the back of the patio would uh if they were successful in obtaining a setback variance if not then it would have to stay in line with the back of the house so the standard uh is the impervious a surface restriction from UDO 304 that allows up to 30% to be covered with impervious a developmental standards analysis UDO 302.12 specifies three findings that need to exist in order to grant a variance. First, the approval will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. So, Dan Sheets, county surveyor, stated there are no drainage concerns created by granting this requested variance. He doesn't see anything injurious that would appear to be um occurring. the finding would appear to be met. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Um, so given that the surveyor feels there's no additional water runoff concerns created by allowing this garage to be built, it would seem that adjacent properties will not be affected adversely. This finding would appear to be met. And three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So this house is as terms of footprint a really large house, you know, for what you typically see. inside the city. So, it's legal non-conforming already in terms of its setbacks and its impervious surface. There is not any physical way to add anything on the lot without needing to request an impervious surface variance. Um, so they do have a practical difficulty with respect to that. So, consequently, staff would recommend to approve the developmental variance from UDO 304 and allow up to 45% of the lot to be covered with impervious surface with the condition that both sheds do need to be fully removed, which is their intent. Um, but just to make sure it's clear from the property because once this addition is put in, there is nowhere left for them

to legally sit around the proposed new addition. Um, and there should be plenty of new storage in that addition, which is sizable to place the contents of the shed. And as we noted, the applicant is intending to remove them. But, um, your ordinances don't allow accessory structures to be placed in a front yard between a house and a street. So, because of the way their lot is configured, if they were to try to keep those sheds, the only places they could go would be places that wouldn't be legal. So, I just felt like it was important to state that clearly and transparently. So, thank you, Liz. At this time, we'll call for the petitioner for any additional comments or information. I'm Kimmons. Um, I guess it's basically what I put on there. Um, I generally park my truck outside and I do right now have um a Denali that barely fits in my garage. Um, it's 2 years old and I probably have a thousand miles on it because it's a pain to get in and get out. So, I have tried to maintain that property. We do keep it up. The yard, we don't want it to look trashy. So, we would like to add the garage. Um, it's just myself and my boyfriend that live there, but I have two trucks, a van, and a motorcycle. He just sold his house in Cookamo, so that brings two more vehicles. And I don't use the street to park in. I park in my drive. And so, we'd like to park. We do have decent vehicles inside a garage.

I have a question. How much farther from the front of the house is the front of the garage going to be? Um, so that's why we are wanting to take it back to the back of the the deck. So that's 16 feet. My garage now is currently 25. And so I think that puts us like an additional 20 foot out is is why we want to come back and apply to get that back to the back of the property line. I think it would look better. So it's going to be the front of your house, then your garage is set back, and then it's going to come forward another 15 16 feet. It'll come another like 20 feet in front of where my garage is. Yes.

The setback variance is granted. If not, then it will be closer to probably 30 ft in front. If it'll be the front facade of the house and then you're going to have a garage. It'll be kind of L-shaped is how that house will look and it can still meet its front setbacks if it were to move all the way forward. And all of that has to come and all of that is in the setback rules. Yep. The for what they have to be house frontage. So, some jurisdictions say you have to put every house at exactly the same distance from a street. We don't have that in Frankfurt. A unified front. I don't remember. No. Some subdivisions say you can't have a garage that sticks out further than a house front door. We don't have that in Frankfurt. So, um, now if that garage was detached,

Frankfurt's ordinances do say you can't put an accessory structure between the house and the road inside town. But because it's attached, it's just simply looked at as part of the house itself. And it actually would bring it almost in line with the next house is kind of the way I was looking, right? I'm hoping not to. I'm hoping that's why to get that set back because when the house was added on, I went to great efforts. Larry Lawson did all the stonework on there and people that don't know that that house has been added on have been amazed at how well it matches. I realized when I looked at assessor's records, it was added on and I was impressed because I thought it was all original.

Right. And so that's our goal. We are on a corner a lot. So many people comment about that house and I want to make it look good, you know? I mean, he takes care of the art and we just we want to make it look great. So, and speaking of the aesthetics, is there anything that we need to be concerned with with the uniformity of the since it's attached? Is that something that we have to deal with? Um, so your ordinance doesn't require it to look the same. If that if the board is concerned that it needs to look exactly identical, you could add a condition. Um, you know, typically for me as staff, unless I see a specific reason, like it's in an overlay district or I have a unique concern because of a property's existing state of repair. I don't usually put it as a condition. I just didn't know if that was in here.

That was the other. Yeah. No, there's nothing that says that the entire house now, the property maintenance ordinances in the city do say you can't have like chipping paint. you can't have like siding falling apart or you know I think we dealt with once a house that had like eight different colors of sighting in our mix like weird things but there's nothing that says you you have to have the exact same okay facade over the entirety of a structure if you wanted to have partial stone partial sighting or you know whatever that's discretion of the homeowner now I will note having that not I don't I think this is part of Frankfurt's original plat but if there's any covenants there may be some standards in that that talk about percentages that have to be brick but This house actually already has we're the only brick house in there.

And the plans are not to do no metal siding. It's going to be vinyl sided and if it doesn't match up because the existing garage is vinyl sided on the east and the north and then back on the west and then back where the breezeway is. So if the siding does not match up accordingly, I will replace all of it to match the new part of it. All right. Thank you, Kimberly. Thank you. At this time, we'll go ahead and open public comments or questions.

Hearing none, we'll close public discussion. This time, we'll go ahead and open additional discussion to the board for any additional comments or questions. Hearing none, we'll close discussion for the board. I want to open a motion to the board. I make a motion that we um make a motion to approve um the developmental variance from MDO 304 with the condition that both sheds be fully removed from the property.

Is that according to the findings in the staff report? As you as you might imagine, it is indeed. I'll second. First and a second. Can I have roll call, please? Mike Nichols. Hi. Isaac Chavez. Hi. Charles Bates. Hi. Motion carries. Moving on. Do we have any other old business? I don't have anything. Hearing none. Motion. I'll take a motion to adjurnn. I will second. All in favor say I. I. Thank you for coming everyone.

No Casey Alicia take you on our boards. I actually like seeing um seeing an ordinance and seeing