Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 10-28-19 • .,- ,(. ) l o arme : , I /ND I AN% Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, October 28, 2019 Members Present: Alan Potasnik-President Brad Grabow-Vice President Kent Broach Leo Dierckman James Hawkins Staff Present: Angie Conn Nathan Chavez Mike Hollibaugh Legal Counsel: John Molitor Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings: A Motion made by Leo and seconded by Brad to approve the minutes from September,23, 2019 BZA Meeting. Approved 5-0 ICommunications,Bills,and Expenditures: Angie Conn: • Docket No. 19090018 V: Ashton Subdivision Perimeter Fence,are requesting for a suspension of the Rules of Procedure.Their legal ad stated to be heard by the Plan Commission rather than the BZA Hearing Officer. Everything else was met for their public notice requirements. • Remonstrators have requested that the agenda item#1. Sprunger Residence/Pool Setback,CA to be tabled. A Motion made by Kent,and seconded by Alan to Suspend the Rules of Procedure in order to hear Docket No. 19090018 V: Ashton Subdivision Perimeter Fence at tonight's meeting. Approved 5-0. Reports,Announcements,Legal Counsel Report,and Department Concerns: John Molitor: Does the Board want to make a motion to tabled and continue the Sprunger CA? There's no right for an interested party to request a continuous. It's at the Board's discretion. James: Is there someone here representing the remonstrators for the Sprunger Residence? What's the basis of this request? John Molitor: Yes,you may ask him to make a brief statement. David Shelton,DeFur Voran, LLP: I am here on the behalf of the remonstrators. We sent a letter on October 25. The two reasons for this request because Larry Delia cannot be at this meeting tonight. Mr. Delia is one of the homeowners that is mostly impacted by this petition. Also, we have not seen the new site plan for the buildable area of Lot 9, which they will probably present it tonight. We would like some time to look into this. Alan: Are there any concerns from the Board? Leo: Has the Petitioner followed the process?Angie: For the most part, yes. Typically we like to see a site plan 5 days before the meeting. We do have instances where Petitioners present their Isite plans at the meeting. Staff is ok with that. Leo: From a legal standpoint,are you aware of anything that is preventing us from hearing this? Angie: No. Brad: We don't even know if a site plan is relevant to our deliberations and voting on the petition. Alan: I will rule that we will proceed with this. Public Hearings: 1 Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 (CA) Sprunger Residence/Pool Setback,Commitment Amendment. The applicant seeks the following approval: 1. Docket No. 19070011 CA Request to modify existing commitments related to variance Docket No. 18110001 V. The site is located at 2180/2198 Steffee Dr. It is zoned S1/Residence and located on Lots 8&9 of Towne Oak Estates Subdivision. Filed by Rick Lawrence of Nelson&Frankenberger, on behalf of Jason& Sarah Sprunger,owners. Petitioner:Rick Lawrence: • With me tonight are Jason Sprunger,homeowner and Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger • The Sprungers seek a CA to allow them to sell Lot 9 independent of Lot 8 • We have spent the past several months working with Staff in regarding this request and to ensure it would be supported by the Department • Presented an aerial photo of the lot 8 and 9 • In Nov.,2018 the Sprungers with the assistance from their builder,filed a petition seeking a variance from the minimum 10' sideyard setback,and crossing 20' over side property line was granted by the BZA Hearing Officer with condition of the execution of recording a commitment prohibiting the individual transfer of lots 8 and 9. • Tab 3 in our info packet contains the recorded commitments.Presented the original proposed site plan that includes the pool. The location of the proposed pool crosses over the lot line between lot 8 and 9 by 20'. • As construction at this residence progressed, it became apparent to the Sprungers the house was not going to be develop as originally intended. The layout of the house no longer made it feasible to install the pool in the location reference in the commitment.The desire to no longer install the pool in prior proposed location have resulted in the Sprungers reevaluating the commitment. • Staff noted the driveway for lot 8 would encroach into lot 9. Staff asked the Petitioners to provide a conceptual site plan that addresses how a potential house can be built on lot 9 with the same driveway entrance. • Presented a concept site plan showing a potential house and copies were passed out to the Board members • The new conceptual site plan shows the new location of the house and incorporates a shared driveway for these two lots.It meets all setbacks and easement restrictions that are underlined in the S-1 zoning guidelines. • We believe it is appropriate to amend the commitment to provide for an individual sale of lots 8 and 9 due to the fact the Sprungers are no longer constructing improvements over the shared property line Alan: Explained the Rules of Procedure for a public hearing. Public Comments: David Shelton,DeFur Voran LLC: I represent the remonstrators,the Browns and Delias,who live directly behind the subject property and are directly impacted by these commitments. Originally we remonstrated against the initial variance petition last year.Our concern was how the applicant would leave lot 9.The commitments originally indicated the two lots would be treated as a single buildable lot and no structures would be built on lot 9.The findings of fact for the variance stated the petitioner's desire was to build their house centrally located within lot 8 and 9. Their driveway is entirely contained on lot 9. We want some certainty to what is going to happen. Rex Brown,2167 Finchley Road: I live behind lot 8.I am a custom home builder, so I've been watching the development of this subdivision. One of the reasons we want this petition to be tabled,because today we submitted a four page letter that explained our opposition and I don't know if the Board have seen this letter. Their changes have resulted in lowering the property values.The applicant have taken advantage of building their house on two lots.Their pool should not matter at all.The build line for lot 9 is much further back.The house is setback farther,and is closer to us and is also out of line from the other houses on Steffee Drive. It does not seem fair the petitioner is allowed to do this. Carrie Delia,2151 Finchley Road: I live directly behind lot 9.Read the Findings of Fact from the original petition- Docket No. 18110001 V. I don't think any home should be built on lot 9 because of the awkward shape. A house being built here will impact all the houses that surround it. I think it's ridiculous that they are going to recant their commitments to us.Our homes will decrease in value.This is really unjust. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Rick Lawrence: • We were aware of the remonstrance letters from the neighbors to the north of the subject property • The site plan was developed to show what Staff wanted to see and for us to have something to show the public Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 2 • We want to go back to what it was before,as two separate lots. Department Report: Angie Conn: I • This has always been two platted lots.This neighborhood was platted in early 2007. • The variance was for the swimming pool that was going to encroach 20' onto lot 9. With the swimming pool going away,that frees up 20' of area on lot 9. • The updated site plan that we receive tonight does show that a house can be placed on the lot and meet all the requirements.The one issue that needs to be addressed is the shared driveway. A shared easement and maintenance agreement would be needed for the shared driveway. • Parking requirements for a single family home is two spaces per dwelling,which excludes the private garage. We need to make sure lot 8 can accommodate parking on their driveway.One option is a replat.The shared property line would be shifted to the east. • Staff does recommends positive consideration after these items are addressed Board Comments: James: On 12/28/18,approval was given for the 10' side yard setback with the condition that these two lots could not be sold separately. Is that accurate? Rick Lawrence: Yes. James: What didn't work out for the Sprungers? Rick Lawrence: As they were developing the house with the builder,the vision they had didn't come out the way they wanted. The pool lines at their location are not feasible.The pool was the major point of combining the lots and now they are removing the pool from their plans.James: What exactly happened with the sight lines for the pool? Rick Lawrence: They envisioned a layout of the first floor that would allow them to look out their first floor windows to see their kids playing in the pool.As the house was being built,those sight lines weren't there.Putting the pool in that location didn't work. James: Has lot 9 been available for development since 2007? Rick Lawrence: I don't know the answer to that. James: I assume the building lines have not changed at all. Rick Lawrence:Nothing has changed. Brad: Did the rear building ie etback line change with the Sprungers variance approval?Rick Lawrence:Nothing has changed with that. There's a 20' tback building line. Brad: Would your client be willing to commit to an expansion of the rear building line? Rick awrence: consulted with Jason Sprunger. There is a tree preservation area and the Sprungers are willing to expand this area by 10' further south as a buffer. It's more heavily wooded on lot 9 than lot 8.Brad: There's not buildable lots to the east or south? Rick Lawrence: Correct,it is a common area and Coxhall Gardens. Leo: Is there anything preventing an access agreement easement for the shared driveway? Angie: That's one option,and they would need to have them recorded. Leo: Are there any setback issues? Angie: A variance was granted for the sideyard setback for lot 8. Jon Dobosiewicz: Staff indicated there would be an administrated replat of the two lots to accommodate the required parking outside of the garage on lot 8.The administrated replat of the lot would modify sideyard property line and the separate driveways would be on their respected lots. James: In order to replot,this commitment amendment has to be approved?Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes.The commitment doesn't allow the two lots to be developed independently. The provided concept site plan does not require any variances and it brings back the two lots to the status quo which existed prior to the adoption of the variance.James: So Lot 9 was always been able to be develop as is depicted in your concept plan? Jon Dobosiewicz: The house could have been moved further north within 20' as allowed in ordinance. The concept plan depicts the house setback from the rear(north)line is 48.8'.Mr.Grabow ask for consideration of additional tree preservation area and that can be extended 10' further to the south. James: Are you willing to commit to extend the tree buffers and execute the replat? Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes James: I don't agree with approving the CA without some of the accommodations. Kent: How big the tree preservation area now? Jon Dobosiewicz: Today it is 20' in depth from the rear property line. Kent: So it would be 30'? Jon Dobosiewicz: Correct. IA Motion made by Leo and seconded by Brad to approve Docket No. 19070011 CA with the commitment for a 30' tree preservation area on the north property line Approved 4-1;Hawkins Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals 10-28-19 3