The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes BZA 09-27-21 G ,RTNE 4F( P } y'A • - T ' City of -D % Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Minutes Monday,September 27,2021 Location: Carmel City Hall Council Chambers,2nd Flr., 1 Civic Sq., Carmel, IN 46032 Members Present: Alan Potasnik—President James Hawkins—Vice President Leo Dierckman Kent Broach Brad Grabow DOCS Staff Present: Angie Conn—Planning Administrator,Joe Shestak-BZA Secretary, Mike Hollibaugh—Director of DOCS Legal Counsel: Sergey Grechukhin Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM Approval of Meeting Minutes of the previous BZA Meeting: A Motion made by Dierckman and seconded by Broach to approve the June 28,2021 BZA meeting minutes.Approved 5-0. Reports,Announcements,Legal Counsel Report,and Department Concerns: Angie Conn: 1. Lack of prosecution, Jacobs Fence Height Variance(Hearing Officer Docket No. PZ-2021-00123 V). A Motion by Grabow and seconded by Dierckman to withdraw Docket No. PZ-2021-00123 V from future BZA Hearing Officer agendas due to lack of prosecution from the petition. Approved 5-0. 2. Request to suspend BZA Rules of Procedure for Hearing Officer Docket No. PZ-2021-00144 SUA; Our Lady of Mt. Cannel Addition. A Motion by Grabow and seconded by Dierkman to suspend the Rules of Procedure in regards for Public Notice for Docket No. PZ-2021-00144 SUA. Approved 5-0. 3. BZA Rules of Procedure proposed amendment: Sergey Grechukhin: Mr. Reis circulated a memo of this proposed amendment. Let me know if you have any questions. A Motion by Hawkins and seconded by Grabow to adopt this proposed amendment. Approved 5-0. Public Hearings: (V) Thrift Residence Variances. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals for a new home: 1. Docket No.PZ-2021-00154 V UDO Section 3.64.C.3 Lot Cover-Maximum 45% lot cover required,53% requested. 2. Docket No. PZ-2021-00155 V UDO Section 3.64.C.4 Garage Setback-The front face of the garage must be at least 15-ft further from the front lot line than the primary front line of the principal building,0-ft further requested. 3. Docket No.PZ-2021-00156 V UDO Section 3.64.C.4 Garage Door Orientation-3 car garages shall only be permitted where the overhead doors are oriented away from a front yard or facing an alley, facing the street requested. 4. Docket No.PZ-2021-00157 V UDO Section 3.64.C.6 Driveway Width-In the front yard driveway widths cannot exceed 18-ft, >22-ft width requested. 5. Docket No.PZ-2021-00158 V UDO Section 5.78.J Window Wells cannot project more than 24" into a required yard,42" requested. BZA Meeting Minutes 9-27-21 1 6. Docket No.PZ-2021-00159 V UDO Section 3.64.C.11 Maximum 30' building height allowed,31' 9- 3/8" requested. The site is located at 141 1st Ave NW(Henry Roberts Addition Lot 3). It is zoned R4/Residence and Old Town Overlay Character Subarea.Filed by John Hefton of the Old Town Design Group,on behalf of Paul M Thrift Trustee Angie H Thrift Rev Trust. Petitioner:Justin Moffett,Old Town Design Group: • With me tonight,is John Hefton of Old Town Design Group if you have any questions,I can't answer • Three of our variance requests are common variance requests for homes being built in the Old Town overlay area • Our other variance requests are newer to us since the language revision in the UDO.All impervious surfaces are now counted as lot coverage in the UDO.The driveway alone encompasses 8%of the overall lot coverage. • We are required and have agreed to pay$6k into the City Engineering drainage fund since we are over the 45% lot coverage allotment • Along this section of Main Street to 8th Street,and 1st Ave NW to Rangeline Road to,there are so many utilities in this corridor.This causes multiple easement issues and prevents us a way to pave an alley way for this home, so we are requesting the variance for the garage door orientation. • It creates a challenge for us to gain access for a garage in the existing alley section • There are existing parking lots, sidewalks,and multi-family townhomes within this city block. • There are two front yards since the home sits on a corner lot.In reality,the garages is located on the side elevation • If we were doing a 2-car garage,we would not be requesting the variance for a garage facing the street • We are proposing a decorated driveway with 2.5' landscape strip • Presented previous variance requests for 3-car garages facing the street in this area of Carmel • There's true practical hardship since we can't pave an alley to have our garage accessed from • We believe the variance for the window wells is not needed • The building height is difficult to measure since there's different wording for the rules of building height. It's difficult to measure the adjacent character homes. We don't believe we need this variance,but we are applying for it just because the heights can vary. Public Comments: None Department Report: Angie Conn: • The Old Town overlay district regulations are in place to preserve the character of the neighborhood by preserving certain buildings and siting characteristics • The homes in Old Town have a certain scale and massing. They aren't really tall or big. • Staff is not in support of their variance requests and recommend negative consideration of the variances.With all their variances, it's just too much house and might not be appropriate for this neighborhood. Board Comments: Jim: What's the actual sq. ft. of the garage.Justin Moffett: 1129 sq. ft.Jim: What's your typical size for a 3-car garage. Justin Moffett: 33x30, 825 sq.ft. is typical.We are proposing additional storage.Jim: Why do you need all this room? Justin Moffett: For storage. It's not a typical garage,the client proposed an additional storage space in the back of the garage.It does not impact the streetscape. Leo: Can you explain Staffs negative recommendation. Justin Moffett: I understand the City is taking a high standard for this area of Cannel. This is a very specific situation. With no ally access, it makes it very challenging. We shared everything with the adjacent neighbors,and everyone showed support.No one showed up tonight that does support it. I feel it's a fair request. Kent: If this had a paved alley,you would orientate the garage towards the alley and you wouldn't need this variance, correct?Justin Moffett Nods yes. Kent: The utility company's plan is to put in larger utility poles,and this would limit the access to an ally.Justin Moffett: We don't have the luxury in being able to predict when it's going to happen and what the final plan is. They have sought to put in utility poles,but most of this area is private property. Jim: To clarify, when you are saying you are granting an easement,that's a temporary easement for a temporary utility pole and they have the right to put these poles anywhere in the easement. Justin Moffett: Correct, it's a blanket utility corridor that we have zero control over. BZA Meeting Minutes 9-27-21 2 Brad: Since they all share a common wall, it looks like there's an opportunity to shift back(to the south, away from the street)the garage, screened veranda&patio within the rear yard setback. Justin Moffett: We've had these conversations, but there's not an opportunity to shift south, and we would have to eliminate patio room. This was the choice of the homeowner. Brad: Is there an opportunity to add pervious materials to the lanes of the driveway? Justin Moffett: Pavers don't reduce the lot coverage. The client wanted this type of driveway. Alan: Can you explain Staffs comment that this home is a"McMansion house"?Justin Moffett: This is not my style, but it's the client's taste and I don't think it's offensive to the adjacent neighbors. I agree that the home is large. Angie Conn: It's about massing and scale. They do comply with the architectural standards. This home has very tall ceilings creates a massive and towering home, and they need a variance for the height. It creates a very tall presence on this corner of the street. Jim: If you reduce the garage size,you can break-up the monotony of the 3-car garage and reduce the lot coverage. Justin Moffett: The client requested approval for a 3-car garage. If went for a standard 3-car garage it would be taking the wall and extending it to the right and eliminating the 17-7 storage area. We are exaggerating the problem.Jim: My point is moving the garage back to where the storage area would be, and this would remove some of the lot coverage. Leo: I understand the set of circumstances of this situation. This is one of the most unusual cases we have seen. A Motion by Dierckman and seconded by Broach to approve Docket Nos.PZ-2021-00154 V through PZ-2021- 00159 V and with the adoption of the findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. PZ-2021-00154 V,Approved 4-1,Hawkins. PZ-2021-00155 V,Approved 3-2,Hawkins,Grabow. PZ-2021-00156,PZ-2021-00157,PZ-2021-00158,&PZ-2021-00159 V,Approved 5-0. Meeting n at 6:44 p.m. Alan Pota ik—President J Shestak—Recording Secretary I BZA Meeting Minutes 9-27-21 3