Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 12-17-07 Hearing Officer City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Monday, December 17, 2007 The meeting was held at 5:30'PM in'the Caucus Rooms of City Hall, Cant:lel, Indiana on Monday, December 17, 2007. James Hawkins was the Hearing Officer. Department of Community Services Staffin attendance was Christine Barton-Holmes and Rachel Boone. John Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present D. Public Hearing: 1,-2d. Coombes Residence The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 07110004 V Section 25.01.01.B.3.a.i. Accessory structure located in front of primary structure Docket No. 07110005 V Section 25.01.01.B.l Height of accessory structure exceeds 18 feet. The site 1S located at 1815 East 109111 Streetand is zoned S2!Residential. Filed by Engineered Alternatives for Todd and Dawn Coombs, owners. Present for the. Petitioner: Todd Coombs, 14508 Jeremy Drive, Carmel. The variances are for a carriage house to be built at 1815 East 109111 Street. The structure will exceed 18 feet in height and will not be set back 25 feet from the primary structure. The structure will be several hundred feet from the road on a 6.2 acre lot surrounded by mature trees which filter the view. The use should not affect the surrounding neighbors in all adverse way. The constmction of this guest house/carriage house will increase the value of the property which will increase the value of the properties around it. If they are not allowed to have this variance, they would not be able to construct a two-story guest house. Eighteen feet would not be enough to construct the two-story garage/guest house. This location is on a nalural ridge that overlooks Carmel Creek. If they were to set the structure back 25 feet from the house, it would be off the edge of the ridge and into the floodplain area. Because they are several hundred feet off the road with trees surrounding the area, it should not cause any problems for the neighborhood. The structure matches the style and overall design of the main house that is being constructed now. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Rei110nstrance: Vicky Lazaga, 1825 East 109111 Street, next door. She felt the ordinances should be [oJlowed and they should do not exceed what has already been put in place. They feel that if one person comes in and has an exception made, then other people might come in and foJlow that exception. They did not see the need for going beyond the limits. Deborah Winterbotham, 1810 East l09th Street, across the street. She wanted to know if it was a carriage house or an apartment. Win it be rented out or used as an office? She asked about the construction that was going on now and the damage it was doing to her property with tmcks, noise, etc. l\1r. Hawkins suggested she contact the Department of Community Services for assistance with the constmction nuisance. Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Minutes December 17,2007 Rebuttal: Mr. Coombs stated the use of the carriage house would be additional garage space, plus it will be providing living quarters for aging in-laws at some time. It is not to create rental income. It would not work for them to put an 18-foot stmcture twenty-five feet from the fi"ont of the primary residence. He did hot know if the concern was because of another stmcture or if it does not fit well with the neighborhood. They are trying to do their best to fit within the neighborhood based upon a 6.2 acre property. They are trying to create a shingle style house that will fit ill the wooded type of environment. They are trying to make it aesthetically pleasing. As far as the road constmction and all the noise, he apologized. He did not know of a way to do it without all the noise. He asked for patience during the constmction. Most of the major road and construction noise is over. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department RepOli. The two variances arise because the Petitioner wishes to build a carriage house instead of the typical accessory stmctute. This carriage house will be 31 feet tall, 35 feet with the cupola on top. The topography and existing vegetation on the site make the other variance necessary. There is about a 24-foot grade change from the ridge on the site down to the creek bed. Because of the heavily wooded perimeter, the creek bed, the floodplain and the topography, the Petitioner is limited as to where they can construct the house and ally accessory dwellings. The accessory building is set at an angle in front of the house so it will not appear to be directly in front of the house. Because of the distance it is set back from 109th Street, it should not be too visible from the road. The Department recomin.ended positive consideration of both variances. My. Hawkins asked how far it would be from the residence to the north. My. Coombs checked the map and said it would be approximately 200 feet. Mr. Hawkins knew there were concems. He would be looking at three criteria: the approval ofthe variance will not be iiljUriOUS to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, and the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. of the property will result ill practical difficulties in the use of the property. That is what the Petitioner needs to convey to the BZA. The BZA is not precedent-setting, so simply because one or two are approved, does not mean that in the future any other petitions of a similar nature will be approved. Each case is heard case by case. He has not heard any thing at this meeting that would suggest any adverse impact or any thing that would be construed as negative for the community. It sounds as though there are practical difficulties with the site. Mr. Hawkins APPROVED Docket Nos. 07110004 V and 07110005 V, Coombes Residence. Mr. Molitor added for the benefit of those who participated in the Hearing that this decision stands unless it is appealed to the full Board of Zoning Appeals. That appeal would need to be filed within fourteen days ofthis decision, which would be December 31, 2007 by close of business . 3d. Jay Residence The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07110021 V Section 25.02.02. Fence in excess of 6 feet in height The site is located at 302 Pintail Court and IS zoned S2/Single-family residential. Page 2 of 8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearil1g Officer Minutes Decerriber 17, 2007 Filed by John Jay, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Jonathan Jay, 302 Pintail Comt. The fence has already been installed. The fence itself is less than six feet, but there is also a retaining wall. Added together, the two are over six feet in height. The house was purchased by the City of Carmel as part of the Illinois Street project. They needed a strip onand offthe back side; The house was sold at auction, but no one bid on the house at that time. He talked with Steve Engelking and SOlle of the Cityofficials. He was told he could still bid on the house, so he was able to purchase it. They were told Illinois Street would come close to the house, but they could have some input with the landscaping to have an idea what to expect. They moved into the house and went through the period of constmction. They were pleased to see a wall put up as part ofthe construction. He was in touch with Mike McBride, the City Engineer, and told bim about the gap at the end ofthe wall before a berm north ofthe bouse. At that time he talked with Mike McBride about wrapping the wall around to enclose that area a little or to tie the beml into the wall. Mike McBride said that the City bad spent all they could on the wall. After the wall was finished, because of the berm and different elevations, they were left with quite a swale. Pictures were sho\'v'n of the before and after. He hired a landscape architect to help put together the best idea to improve the value. The safety concern for him and his fanlily was being open to Ulinois Street. There is a Sidewalk and access point. Mike McBtide said that the City would not be willing to take part in the retaining wall, but they could use the adjoining lot that is owned by the City as a staging area during constmction. They made sure to do proper drainage along the area. The end result they felt would improve the value of their home. Something he had been talking to his immediate neighbor about after he sent the notices was that the neighbor liked and understood what they had done. The neighbor's choice of fence was not the same as they had chosen to use, but he understood the need tor the privacy fence along the back side. He will m.aintain the fence. He did not realize the height ofthe fence and retaining. wall had to be less than six feet. They had kept it under the height of the Illinois Street wall. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Remonstrance: TimK1eiil, 313 Mallard Court. Asked if they were supposed to have approval for the fence ahead of construction time. Mr. Hawkins said they typically ask for approval before installing the fence. Mr. Klein asked ifthe sign for the hearing was to be on the Petitioner's property. Mr. Hawkins believed it was. to be on the property at the nearest thoroughfare. Mr. Molitor checked the rules. Mr. Klein had gotten varying answers. When he talked with the lady at the Zoning Commission, she said the sign was supposed to be on the property. But the sign was outside of the property on the other side of the wall next to Illinois Street where the people within the neighborhood would not see it. He thought that was odd. Mr. Hawkins read from the Board of Zoning Appeals Public Notice sign procedures. "Petitioner shall incur the cost of purchasing, placing and removing the sign. The sign must be placed in a highly visible and legible location from the road on the property that is involved with the Public Heating... the sign Page 3 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Otlicer Minutes December 17,2007 must be removed within 72 hours ofthe Public Hearing, must be placed on the subject property no less than 25 days prior to the Public Hearing. Mr. Klein asked if the road would be the cul-de-sac, not the road on the other side because it is not in question. Mr. Hawkins stated he would have to let Legal Counsel answer that. Mr. Klein asked about the height ofthe fence. In one place it says six feet, it says for frontage 42 inches (25-02-01 residential lots less than 2 acres). So the front should be lower than the sides. Is there a regulation for fencing? Should the cross beams being showing out toward the neighbor's parcel? Mr. Hawkins asked if there were horizontal boards going across the outside ofthe fence. Mr. Klein confirmed that with pictures. Mr. Molitor had reviewed the rule ,and discussed it with Staff. The rule requires placement per the approval of the Administrator, which is the Department. As he understood from the Department, they did suggest the sign be placed at the Illinois Street location so that more members of the public could view the sign. Notice requirements are two-fold; one is notice by mail which he is assuming this person did have. Mr. Klein did not receive notice because he does not live adjacent. He had asked Mr. Hollibaugh ifhe would contact him if anything came to pass. He had emailed twice and calledMr. Hollibaugh once. It just happened that he was walking the dogs and saw the sign. It said rneeting on November 26. He called the Zoning Commission and Was told the meeting had been postponed until tonight's meeting. Shouldn't that sign be on the property? The lady he talked to at the Zoning Commission said it was supposed to be on the property and not out there. He did not know why it was on the thoroughfare when the people who drive there are not in the community. That did not make sense to him. He showed pictures ofthe sign's location. Mr. Molitor stated that in his opinion perhaps this person did not have notice by mail but he did get notice whether it was inadvertently while walking the dogs and virtue of his inquiries to the Staff. In his opinion adequate notice waS given pursuant to the Rules, in view of the fact notice was given by mail to adjacent propelty owners and the public was notified by having the sign placed per the Staffs approval. This is a peculiar situatiOll. If the remonstrator is trying to argue that he has not received adequate notice. in order to prepare his remonstrance, then Mr. Hawkins may want to take the objection under consideration. In his opinion, since he has shown up and he has mounted a remonstrance, the notice is not legally defective. Mr. Klein was not objecting. He just thought the way it was done was odd. Yes, he did get it through the Zoning Commission but it would have been way after the fact. He showed pictures ofthe way the fence looked on the olltside. He also gave a little history. When Mr. Jay put in a request to have the fence done, the Architectural Committee that was in place denied it. Then the Board, who has never had anything to do with an appeal and as far as he knows there has never been a process for appeal, over-rode the denial. It was a process the Board decided to set up and Mr. Jay is on the Board. The Board over-rode what the Architectural Committee did and Mr. Jay put up the fence. The Board told the community the appeal had been granted and then the posts were put up that day. It seemed very Page 4 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Minutes December 17, 1'007 peculiar to him that now there is a hearing for the fence and the sign is put out in the middle of nowhere. Can it be approved the way it is or can you make them go by the laws or is there anything else. you can do? Mr. Hawkins said he had a multitude of options, but that is not something that is necessarily discussed in the public hearing in this format. Essentially he can approve it, he cail deny it, he can refer it to the full Board or any decision can be appealed in foorteen days. Those are generally the options. Occasionally petitioners will try to accommodate neighbors if they can with other landscaping, etc. Mr. Klein found it peculiar that Mr; Hollibaugh called hirn at 5:07 pm when he was on his way to this meeting. He said there is also the option of tearing it down. Mr. Hawkins said if the ruling would go negative, that is a possibility. David Walsh, 12183 Teal Lane, in the same subdivision. He did not have anything to present because he likewise did nbt have adequate notice. He found out about this about 10:00 a.m. when a neighbor emailed him. He has driven down the street near the cuI-dc-sac and would have seen a sign had it been put on the property. Apparently the sign was out, but he had not seen it. It was not on the property which he thought was required by the Carmel Zoning Ordinances. He had nothing to add, but found it very strange that type of notice is considered adequate. Secondly, they have a person that is on the Board of Directors and did not bother to notify any of the people iil the subdivision, nor did any of the Board of Directors. He realized they do not have the responsibility to do so. He does not live within the footage required in the notice. He thought the sign was required so that people do have an opportunity to organize ifthey want to come to present why the fence should not he approved. He felt from the standpoint of notice, there was none. Xiaoming, 316 Pintail Court. She saw the sign on Illinois Street. Most of the people in the neighborhood do not travel that way. The fence does not match the neighborhood architectural standards. She hoped they could work together for a compromise. Kathy Stetler, 349 Mallard Court. She is opposed to this variance being granted. A lot of it goes back to the fence in general which does not follow the architectural guidelines of the community which have been published for multiple years. It was denied by the Architectural Control Committee. It was installed the day the Board of Directors, of which the Petitioner is a member, sent out notice that they had over-ruling powers to do basically as they wish in the community. Since that time, the community has tried to hold special meetings of tbe homeowners association to address thi s fact. They had been shut down by their own attorney who in her opinion is working for the Board of Directors. As far as the variance itself, if the fence were in compliance with the association's standards of wrought iron and not wood, she would not be opposed to this variance. This very much affects all of their property values in a negative way. It has also caused the association to have no control over any architectural standards because of this violation. She had written comments from other neighbors also that she handed to Mr. Hawkins. She understood that the notice of the meeting was taken down two hours before the meeting. (Mr. Klein said it was gone after he talked with the Building Committee. Only the frame remained.) Rebuttal: Mr. Jay stated that as far as notification, he tried to follow everything in the letter. This was his first time to request a variance. He did not take down the sign before the meeting. Maybe the wind blew it. Page 5 of8 Carolel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Minutes December 17, 2007 He also had someemails from other neighbors that were positive. He was not trying to upset anyone or do any bad will toward anyone. The neighbors that have an issue with this are not in inunediate view of the fence. He has been talking with the immediate neighbor. He does not live in the house, but rents it out. He also wants to have a peaceful conclusion to this situation. They have tried to follow everything from the City and the County. He has a non-enforceable drainage easement agreement with the County. He has spent so much time and money for something they see as bringing value to their property. The Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Depa.rttnent Report. As stated by the Petitioner, when this house was constructed Illinois Street had not been built. The retaining wall was constructed to help preserve and protect a swale that was created 'with the construction of IJlinois Street. The fence is installed on top of that. This fence is behind the primary building line. Fences in fro1it of the primary building line are required to be 42 inches or less. Since this is behind the primary building line, six feet is pennissible. With the retaining wall, it raises it to approximately eight feet, depending on the location. The retaining wall is necessary to help protect the swale and to keep it from eroding into Illinois Street, the cul-de-sac and adjacent properties. The County Drai11age Board has reviewed the wall and fence. They have issued a Non-Enforcemel'lt Permit November 26. The Department is in support of the request for the fence. Mr. Hawkins asked if the wall along Illinois belonged to the City and then the location of the Petitioner's fence. Mr. Jay confirmed the wall does belong to the City. He showed where his fence is located. There is a gate in the fourteen-foot section. There is a11 eight-foot berm just north of the wall. He was not able to tie his fence to the wall, because then the builder ofthe wall could not uphold the warranty on the wall. Mr. Hawkins aSked if the fence impacted any neighbor other than the one adjacent neighbor. Mr: Jay stated that Was the only neighbor. But a few people prefer the fence to be wrought iron instead of wood. Mr. Hawkins stated that it appeared to him from the pictures that a wrought iron fence was not going to mitigate traffic and lights. Mr. Jay stated the landscape architect had recommended a wooden fence. Mr. Klein asked ifhe could make a conlment, but Mr. Hawkins informed him the Public Hearing portion was closed. Mr. Molitor felt it was an unfortunate situation because the Staff did direct the Petitioner to put the notice outside of the subdivision where the neighbors may not have seen Has they ordinarily would if it had been in front of the Petitioner's house. But he did not feel the notice was legally defective. The saving grace is that regardless ofthe decision, this case can be appealed to the full Board of Zoning Appeals. If the Petition does go to tbe fuLl Board, the Petitioner may want to place the notice of the re- healing in a different location so that everyone has an adequate opportunity to see it Page 6 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Minutes December 17,2007 Mr. Hawkins asked ifthere were any trees or anything on the outside of the fence. It looked like some pines. Was there anything else from a landscaping point that was mitigating the fence or was that outside the Petitioner's property? Mr. Jay stated that is outside his property and past the wall. The City had a landscape contract to do all the trees along the ridge. Because ofthe dry summer, most of the spruce trees have died and not been replaced. The City was willing to place those in order to help him block out the area. He showed some pictures of the area. He was willing to put in grasses until the trees do mature. He has had a tough time trying to work with everyone, wlless they contact him directly, to try to work things out. He has been talking with the adjacent property owner about adding additional landscaping and different ideas on painting or staining the fence. The fence is only six feet on the side. It is up to eight feet at the comer oftlle drainage swale retaining wall. Since it changes grade, it goes down to six feet. Mr. Hawkins APPROVED Docket No. 07110021 V, Jay Residence subject to some sort of grasses or landscaping that will mitigate the fence until the trees mature. Mr. Hawkins stated he knew there had been remonstrance and neighbors were not happy with the public notice. The remonstrators do have 14 days to appeal this decision to the full Board of Zoning Appeals. As stated by the Board . attorney, he does feel the notice was adequate and met the needs. In terms of the Board of Directors for the subdivision, the BZA does not have control over that and Call1iot help with that. Obviously they could seek outside counsel. The BZA cannot enforce their architectural codes. This variailce is for height and that is what the ruling is based on. Mr. Molitor clarified that should anyone wish to appeal this decision to the full five-member Board of Zoning Appeals, they would have to file the appeal witb the Staff on the third floor of City Hall, Department of COllUnunity Services by close of business on December 31. 4d. Floor Crafters - Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 0711 0022 V Section 25.07.02-11 Sign not facing right-of:'way The site is located at 12345 Old Meridian 81. and is zoned OMIO - Old Meridian Office. Filed by Aaron Wilson, owner. Present for the Petitioner: Aaron Wilson, owner. The request is for a sign on the north side of the building with exposure to Old Meridian. They do not have frontage on Old Meridian. They need the visibility for customers alld delivery drivers. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition; no one appeared. The Public Hearing was closed. Miss Boone gave the Department Report. Floor Crafters is part of John Kirk Business Enterprises off Old Meridian. A new Toundabout was recently installed at Old Meridian and PeIllisylvania. The entrance to this store is at the rear ofthe property. Customers enter by the private access drive off Old Meridian to get to the front door and into the store. Therefore, he has no street frontage. Putting a sign on the back ofthe building does not make much sense. Therefore, they opted to put it on his part ofthe tenant space facing the ptivate drive with exposure to Old Meridian. The sign is 73 square feet in area and 75 square feet is allowed. Based on the frontage space and the distance to the plivate drive, this was the best compromise. Page 7 of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Minutes December 17, 2007 u-. It will be individual channel letters, internally illuminated. It will be red with white accents along the edge. There are no color requirements for this particular building. The Department recommends positive consideration of the variance. Mr. Hawkins APPROVED Docket No. 07110022 V, Floor Crafters - signage. I. Old Business There was no Old Business. J. New Business There was no New Business. ~ Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 PM. ~~~ ~ S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\MinuteslHearing Officer - 2007\20071217 Hearing Officer.rtf Page 80f8