The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBPW 031710 Paperless Packet Pt. 2CONSENT TO ENCROACH APFffOv23 AS TO FORM eY THIS CONSE#TENCROACH (hereinafter the "Agreement ") is entered into by and between The Estates of Clay West Homeowners Association, C/O President Doug Cole, 13370 Sherbern Drive West, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana, 46032 ("Owner''), and the City of Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana, by and through its Board of Public Works and Safety ( "City "), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner owns and is responsible for the operation and maintenance of certain Site Improvements (as defined herein) that are located in and benefit as a whole The Estates of Clay West Subdivision ( "Subdivision ") which is located within the corporate limits of the City of Carmel, Indiana, and is more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the official plat of the Subdivision was recorded in Plat Cabinet 2, Slide Number 665, as Instrument Number 200100061588 in the Office of the Hamilton County Recorder on September 27, 2001 as The Estates of Clay West (the "Plat "); and WHEREAS, the Owner owns certain real estate within the Subdivision, identified as Block "G" Common Area and Block "H" Common Area on the Plat; and (F.h W o.•da,,tx,—ron• —m Inmoj 0 4: yX 9 "4 1wa o � < << ' og ,s 1 I I 1 �• a IJJI 4 I I° Ln I 4) 00 W I to w NI 8 � a ; I a / J o 0 I � to w NI To the Board of Public Works: Below you will find the rejection letter provided to me from the Department of Engineering along with my counter points. It is my belief that the initial rejection is based off an arbitrary rule /standard that was put in place, however misrepresents the needs of some homes. I also believe that this board having the power to grant variances on these rules can allow my request to move forward in a way that both meets my needs but still retains the goals set forth by the standards of a visually appealing, functional, and publically advantageous improvement. I plan on attending the meeting on 3/17/10 and can further expand upon any points in person, however below I have made notes in red as my initial rebuttal to the Engineering departments issues. Mr. Davis, Thank you for your letter requesting approval to modify the existing driveway at 5771 Aquamarine Drive. As you indicate in your letter, the City standard for the width of the portion of the driveway within the right -of -way (excluding the flares between the sidewalk and roadway curbing) is 20 -feet. This standard is in place to reduce the potential for pedestrian /vehicle conflicts (there would be three conflict points now versus the existing two conflict points) I believe any resident would not divide a driveway into conflict points, a driveway has a beginning and an end, one entry and one exit. and to maximize the space available on the street for parking I would also argue that the benefit of parking personal vehicles in a garage or a driveway is the real benefit, In residential areas street parking only enhances problems. School buses and snow plows are required to navigate around parked cars, children can "dart out" between street parked cars, and general commuting is hampered. I believe that any homeowner willing to improve their residence at their own expense to help protect their vehicles and improve the community should be commended not denied.. There is also an aesthetic benefit to minimizing the size of the drive aprons within the right -of -way. As you can see on my attached plans, my expansion also includes a parking area at the top of the driveway; this feature breaks up the lines and mimics the current profile of the current driveway. Thank you for identifying the five properties that have improvements in place similar to what you are requesting. These modifications may have been made prior to the City formally adopting the current driveway standard or they may have been made without proper approval. These other locations were noted in my initial verbal communications several years ago to the engineering department. If they were not approved, by their existence alone with no actions having ever been taken against the homes, I believe non direct authorization has been given. This is no different than when Mayor Brainard noted to the gathering of community associations that when they do not enforce a covenant or bylaw they are by an act of silence granting permission. Additionally, allowing time to pass further reinforces the lack of ability for sanctions. I would also argue the point that any home has the right to update its appearance and or functionality to at least match others within its direct community in a harmonious way. In either case, new improvements are still required to conform to the current standard. Ultimately, the decision to approve your request lies with the Board of Public Works and Safety. Fortunately I have the opportunity to approach the board directly with my request. If you have any reason or question that might jeopardize my request I ask you give me the opportunity to demonstrate on a point by point response how this improvement is both a benefit to me and my community without adverse affects. The Engineering Department reviews such requests and submits a letter to the Board that supports or does not support the request. Unfortunately, the Department cannot support this request and recommends that your improvement project conform to the current standard. The current standard allows you to widen the driveway within the right -of -way to a width of 20 -feet. This is 6 -feet less than your request; but even this amount would be expected to be an improvement to the existing condition. I find it puzzling how the engineer is willing to allow a 4 foot extension but not a 10. This would also appear to contradict their stance of a 2 verses 3 conflict point problem. I believe that the engineering department is simply following a written standard without taking into consideration the actual positive verses negative impacts. Provided that you do not create any drainage problems I have a letter from a contractor stating that no drainage problems would be created and do not violate any zoning standards or the restrictive covenants of your development, I have a letter of approval from my neighbor on the improvement side stating they do not object to such an addition, and have the request sitting with my neighborhood architectural review committee waiting for approval from the Board of Public Works you may widen the driveway outside of the right -of -way. Also at this point I am allowed to widen the area outside the right of way according to the engineer. I believe if this was done alone it would create a very un proportional visual appearance, and would refrain from any such addition. Please let us know if you would like for us to present this request to the BPW for further consideration. Thanks so much, Gary Gary R. Duncan, Jr., PE Assistant City Engineer City of Carmel Department of Engineering One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 571 -2441 (317) 571 -2439 (fax) gduncan @carmel.in.gov J -AL -- Lpq I 1 •,f - 4- rriflAdby:brccotnct". it, _ Yu. 50p 'J prymat>4"cgaflmoob fop of Castnq tJsa�otbeni0aoas tot hwimatal flee. = 118.81` dLOW4t ofpave==or oodot= Lmduhus dtive"Y1 a Oww aam S wau,KCa crwoQa. of .rpialc m.tciaL ,. C4' S.V d yi MI;`l1MUM SETBACKS 4,'� MhL R& - J Fat c w/ 10 Toot NAM-92 ' { liar ��0le \ ; ^J e °�•, � `x'71 \ y 4 C 9 \ q: b � G Lot 81 1� 11,524 7, �s• as.i; as.6 uo° 1 � L MIS* N o I J ' (v ,�� 2.00• U 1200. u Proposed Residence hn. F6. flev.= 187.30 57 $ I r 4.7 F r 4.4 r r)acri;60n: beted Eiyhty4)= (8 1) in Bmcmld Craft it Kraal Dell Stmmti4 Station Two, an Adc$oon on ft City of U per plat tbcrwt mvotdW to lnI Ument 00- 61586, in the ot5ce of the Raotder of iLmilton County, PLOT PLAN D Y3 H�MFn4, INC MSEthdSt. Sttklie _: Poplm - 313 rwab%7 Reside= [N'4VAS -UU Dntwq by: DEM ty AIN tuy 13, 2003 Revisod. 5771 A mui�e Dtiv� Cannel, 1.18604 1S( No. SOS1 ct +rc.x