Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 09-24-07 CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT Septem ber 24, 2007 4h. Westwood Estates Buffer Yard The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 07080010 V Section 26.04.04 Buffer yard in regulated drain easement The sites are located at 2165 Renegade Court-209S Renegade Court and are zoned S liS ingle-family residential Filed by Paul Reis of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP for Justus Home Builders, Inc. General Info: The variance requested would, if approved, permit planting the required bufTeryard plantings in a regulated drain easement that is controlled by the County. Landscaping is typically not permitted in regulated drain easements, to maintain access necessary for planting. Analysis: The petitioner is proposing to plant the number ofplantings required by the current bufferyard ordinance, which was only a written guideline at the time of platting, in the regulated drain easement to provide screening for adjacent property owners. The regulated drain easement is both a SWede and a closed drain with "beehives", or raised drain covers, at the cast and west ends of the swale, and provides drainage from properties to the north. The request is being made to request relief from the prohibition against planting in a regulated drain easement, because the dwellings in question were constructed at the edge of the casement boundary. The rear yards of the dwellings are approximately thirty feet deep, however, there is a steep slope from the back of the house to the bottom of the swale, and the propclty to the south is lower in elevation than the dwellings. The entire rear yard is within the drainage easement. The landscape plan submitted with the variance request, which is a revision of the previously-approved landscape plan, would place the majority ofplantings within the northem section of the easement. The species indicated, including Norway Spruce, can grow quite large. If the landscape plan were implemented as proposed, the growth of the trees in the easement would not only make maintenance of the easement potentially dimcult, it would also limit daylight exposure on the southem facades of the dwellings, and limit the use of the rear yards. A more etfective screening measure might be to provide a mix of toundation plantings, hedges, and shade trees, dispersed along the sides and rears of the dwellings, and possibly supplemented by some shade trees planted along the south property line.. This would provide better access to the regulated drain; help screen the dwellings; and provide additional sun exposure. Because of the change in elevation between the subject site and the site to the south, truly effective screening would be difficult, there tore, a mix of shade trees and hedges or shrubbery would help soften the appearance of the houses. However, some form of screening and butTering is necessary, and required by Section 26.04.04 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. Discussion between the County Surveyor's Office, the City of Carmel Engineer's Omce, the Urban Forester, and involved property owners should continue, to find a solution that will be as equitable and effective as possible for all involved. Findings of Fact: Building fa~ade breaks 4. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because: landscaping may be provided in a manner that both screens the dwellings and provides access to the reguLated drain. 5. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: landscaping may be provided in a maImer that both screens the dwellings and provides access to the regulated drain. 6. The strict application of tbe terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: there is not adequate room on the subj ect properties to provide screening. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends continuing this request until the October 22ml hearing, to allow for further discussion between all involved pm1ies.