Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 03-25-19 F 4���oT CA/141,,= n ___ Cityof C I Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals . Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, March 25, 2019 Members Present: Kent Broach Leo Dierckman Brad Grabow James Hawkins Alan Potasnik Staff Present: Angie Conn Joe Shestak Mike Hollibaugh Legal Counsel: John Molitor Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings: A Motion made by James and seconded by Kent to approve the minutes from Feb.25,2019 BZA Meeting. Approved 5-0 Reports,Announcements,Legal Counsel Report,and Department Concerns: John Molitor: • The Court of Appeals ruled in the BZA's favor in the pending litigation involving the Board's approval of the 111 Islamic Life Center proposal at 141'Street and Shelborne Road. • The 6 hours a year training for BZA and Plan Commission members are being proposed by the State Legislature. I will ask them to see if it's not necessary for experienced Board members to receive additional training. Old Business (V)Van Schaak Residence,Side Yard Setback. The applicant seeks the following DSV approval for a cantilevered fireplace with built-ins: 1. Docket No. 19010011 V PUD Ordinance Z-553-11,Section 6.1 Min.5-ft side yard building setback required,3-ft requested. The site is located at 528 Terhune Ln. at Jackson's Grant, Section 5,Lot 274. It is zoned Silvara PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Matt Huffman of The Old Town Design Group LLC,on behalf of Kenneth&Nancy Van Schaack,owners. Alan: I was not at the last meeting on this. Has the public meeting been closed? John Molitor: Yes,but since you were not at the last meeting,you can ask the Board to reopen the public hearing. A Motion made by Brad and seconded by James to re-open the public hearing for brief updates and remarks. Approved 5-0 Petitioner: Justin Moffett,Old Town Design Group: • The question that was asked for us,are cantilever fireplaces allowed? • We believe we are allowed to have this cantilever fireplace by Staff and the Ordinance • The variance allows us to widen that structure for the built in cabinetry with windows • The PUD and UDO are silent for a lot of this topic • Required side yard setbacks for ornamental features that project out are 24" I • The ordinance does not define ornamental features • Fire chimney flutes shall be permitted to project in the required yard for not more than 48" • Not to obstruct light or ventilation • We believe the ordinance supports that we are allowed to have a fireplace project into the side yard setback • Cantilever fireplaces are allowed in other sections of the Jackson's Grant neighborhoods but it is silent in this neighborhood's PUD 1 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 3-25-19 • We submitted our plans to the architecture review board and to the City. We showed the cantilever in our plot plan. It was approved by the architecture review board and the City of Carmel. • There are many examples of cantilever fireplace structures in Jackson's Grant.Referred to pictures • The most common cantilever seen in homes is a bay window in front of the house • This bump out is repeated over and over again in the neighborhood • Our opinion is the ordinance is unclear whether or not you can extend these built-ins into the side yard setback Alan: We are reopening the public hearing. Who wishes to speak tonight? Can I see a show of hands?6 people raise their hands. You will have 1 minute each to speak. Public Comments: Jeff Hienztman,Attorney for Laura&Nick Miller: I spoke at the meeting last month. In section 5.78 of the UDO allows up to a 48"encroachment into a side yard for an ordinary projection of chimney. The UDO was not specifically for these PUDs. It was applies to all of Carmel when you have side yards of 30'. But when you are dealing with a 10' side yard it's entirely different. The Petitioner submitted a plan that was approved by Republic,but they stated they wouldn't allow just the dog house chimney. The Petitioner chose to do it this way. There's no practical difficulty by the Petitioner. Laura Miller,532 Tehue Lane: I live directly next door. I oppose this variance request. I have concerns for fire safety, increase of noises,privacy,and the requirement of lighting and landscaping in the side yard. I believe this will have a negative effect the resale value of our house. We don't see any other houses in this neighborhood that are this close together. I have pictures to show. Nicholas Miller,532 Tehue Lane: I live directly next door. It was originally reviewed in July 11,2011 and it was not approved. When it was reviewed later on December 11,2011,there was a 6 page attachment was added as a condition for approval for this. The original document had contemplated 3' setbacks,which was modified in the 6 page attachment to clearly identify the setback as 5'. Section 3.1D states all dwellings should all have at least masonry water table minimum of 18"tall above grade and no exposed foundation. It also states all existing chimneys need to be constructed of masonry. Joel Mowatt, 12032 Hobby Horse Drive: I feel this will have a negative effect to the neighborhood. While driving down this street, it is very noticeable how close the two houses are together. David Crest,Lot 265 in Jackson's Grant: Our home is currently being built by Old Town Design Group. I oppose this variance application. There are certain standards and covenants in place that were factor in us deciding to build a new home in Jackson's Grant. There's a reliance that those standards continue to be upheld. It is becoming a slippery slope when you start approving exceptions to those standards. We all had discussions about how our homes would fit on these narrow lots. Ken Vanshaak,homeowner of the subject property: I'm in favor of the variance. We knew the lots are small and expected the houses to be close together.The bump out cantilever on my new home contains our fireplace and cabinets for our living room. This design feature was a must have for us. We consider this our dream home. I hope you take in consideration of my comments. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Justin Moffett • There's a lack of consumer understanding of terminology of home building and reading ordinances • The reality is this is a standard design detail that has occurred throughout the community • We are asking a request to widen this structure • Cantilever fireplaces have been in place throughout the neighborhood in multiple homes • Code Enforcement stated at last month's meeting this is not a fire safety issue • It's my belief if the PUD is silent,then you refer to the zoning code of the UDO • We have done everything by the book • We are clearly honoring 5' side yard setbacks throughout. The discussion is how we apply that 5' setback. • There are certain conditions that protrude into the side yard setback and that's why we are asking for the variance • We are not asking permission for a 7' wide firebox that's protruding the side yard setback,which we believe is allowed by the ordinance. We are asking for a variance for the widening out of the structure to be 15' so it includes the built-in cabinetry 2 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 3-25-19 Department Report: Angie Conn • The zoning ordinance does allow for chimneys to extend 2' into the side yard setback • An email was sent to the Board from the Building Permits Department to clarify the safety and fire issues 111 • If this was just a cantilever chimney,they would not need to seek a variance approval • Planning Department does recommend positive consideration of the variance request oard Comments: Leo: Can you pass out the pictures you reference? Laura Miller: Passes out photos to the Board members Leo: Can Counsel explain your interpretation of the PUD and UDO?John Molitor: This particular PUD states the development is governed by the provisions of the PUD ordinances. Plus any provisions of the UDO that are specifically referenced in the PUD. Unfortunately this PUD is silent on cantilever chimneys or structures. Leo: Is this positive or negative for the Petitioner? John Molitor: The PUD states the setback is 5' for the lot or 10' between structures. It doesn't say anything about cantilever structures. Kent: Usually, does a PUD specifically reference the UDO? Normally, if the PUD is silent,then usually we would look at the UDO for guidance? John Molitor: I agree with that. But it is not silent. It states the only provisions of the UDO that apply that those are specifically referenced. It's just different wording. Kent: If this was just a chimney,and there were no built-in cabinets involved,this would not be heard tonight? Angie: Yes,that's Staffs determination on that. Leo: Counsel,does Staffs determination correspond with your position? John Molitor: It does not. Leo: Seems like you and Staff have different interpretations. John Molitor: Staff does not consult with me before they create the Department Report. No one challenged Staffs determination regarding the fireplace being in the setback. But the remonstrance has said it's an encroachment to put anything into the setback. Leo: Based on you interpretation of the law,you agree with that? ohn Molitor: There's nothing in the PUD that states you should refer to the UDO. Staff and I have a different perspective n it. eo: What does the petitioner see that's different than Counsel's viewpoint? Justin: I don't understand the statement that cantilevers are not addressed. Section 6.1 states full-height chimneys are required when exterior fireplaces are present. Shed-style or cantilever chimneys shall only be permitted on the rear elevation of homes and basements. It does reference cantilevers. We acknowledge at last month's meeting that Section 6.2 states direct vent chimneys shall be permitted. This is • specific to the The Estates,Creekside,and Bridgemont sections. It's silent in the Village section. It doesn't clearly acknowledge if cantilever chimneys are conditioned in this neighborhood. Brad: What's the aggregate setback between this extended chimney and the adjacent property?The ordinance speaks to a 5'minimum setback, 10' aggregate. Justin Moffett: The aggregate would have to be no greater than 8'. Joe Miller: I actually measured it and have a drawing of it. Presented drawing to the Board. Brad: You measured 95"as it currently exists before the siding and the bump out is completed. Joe Miller: Correct On a Motion made by Leo and seconded by James to approve Docket No. 19010011 V. Denied 4-1,Potasnik John Molitor: I recommend you delegate to me the responsibility to prepare the findings of fact. Alan: So moved. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m. i . 16 °C) ;°C lan Potasni -President Joe Shestak—Recording Secretary 3 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 3-25-19