HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
29 October 2008
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
This letter represents more than a dozen residents of Fairgreen Trace subdivision who
oppose tbe approval of a variance for the backyard project at 1604 Quail Glen Court.
Our opposition to this is based on the fact that the above project was in direct violation of
Carmel city code from its inception, and should never have been approved by the Fairgreen
Trace Architectural Committee. Fairgreen Trace Homeowners' Association distributes
Architectural Approval forms to all residents which are to be completed by any resident
undertaking a project of this nature. This form very dearly states, among other
requirements, that no project shall infringe on any right of way or easement area or be in
violation of any City of Carmel ordinance.
The residents of 1604 Quail Glen Court bave been informing other residents that approval
for this project was granted by Carmel prior to their beginning the project. H that is so, we
would like to know how and why a project that was subsequently (and properly) put on hold
by the City of Carmel gained initial approval, and from whom. We are skeptical that this
actually occurred.
In summary, we feel that the project should never have been approved by FGTHOA in the
first place, that proper architectural approval procedures very clearly spelled-out by the
FGTHOA by-laws were not followed, and that the supposed approval by the City of Carmel
never took place. We also feel that granting any variance in tbis case will create an
unneccesary and undesired precedent for Fairgreen Trace which wiJI lead to tbe bypassing
of proper Association procedures in future situations.
Thank you for yOUf consideration...
CordiaJJy,
Residents of Fairgreen Trace
(Names Withheld on Request)
Page lof3
Boone, RachelM.
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Friday, October 24, 20081:16 PM
To: 'jmolitor@prodigy.net'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B
Subject: RE: variance for patio/fence on quail run court - docket no 08090023 V - Fairgreen Trace, phase 2,
lot 53.
I think your analysis about it being a legal, nonconforming lot makes perfect sense! We will proceed with the lot
cover % variance.
Thank you!
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning
1 Civic Square. 3rd Floor
Cify o.f. CarmeT;\Ii\J '46032 .
p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
i:Lc~nn@carmei.in .9..QY:
~. Plea;e CU;~~l(li:i' thl: cr\\,-il:onJnent before printing this e-mail
~;7~'~"7""""'Te'~~~"'J'~~"=.':~n~n~7~'~~~~~~''''''~'~~:~'-t~-""._,~-"._~-,.,.,...,.,..,."._,.",.,..,=-~._,~"~..-.-.__.~~-_~..~~~~,:,:-,:,,,.""'''''':'_C;;.,,";-c_~:,~'''''''~''''.-.~
From: John. Mo!itor [mail.to:jmolitor@prodigy.net]
Sent: Friday~ October 24, 200812:58 PM
To: Conn, Angelina VJ;' B6bne; RacheF'M:-"
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike:p. L'i":'U " " .,,'. .'.': j.
Subject: RE: variance for patio/fence an quail run court - docket no 08090023 V - Fairgreen Trace, phase 2, lot
53,
;. .'.,' I, . ;-.. [ j' ""..'!' " I . : \ I:: ~:
Angie, I'm goingoto back off from my ea'rlier suggestion that we consider requiring a plat amendment here.
Also, I don't think that the "easement plus 3 feet" provision in Chapter 25 af the ordinance (25.01.01.B,3.b.i(b)) is'
applicable to this situation, as the proposed patio is not really an "Accessory Building". It will be "closer than 10
feet to a Principal Building" (the home itself), so it is more like an addition to the home itself.
The situation is muddy because the subdivision was platted under ordinances that are now repealed; it couldn't
be plattE,ld \-.inder our current ordinances without variances. In a sense, then, the whole subdivision is now a legal,
nonconforming use, and every lot a legal, nonconforming lot. In that regard, I think it makes sense for us to go
fOlWard with the BZAhearing on whether to grant a variance from the 35% maximum lot coverage rule - since the
patio will increase the percentage of lot coverage above what is already in place pursuant to the legal,
nonconfor~ing plat.
Ifw€ told the ap'plicant'now that they 'needed a variance from Chapter 25 instead of Chapter 7, it would raise
questions about whether their notice was proper. That would probably delay their hearing for a month and further
canfu's8 everyone involved,
In my opinion, we should recommend that the BZA approve the variance, per the Department Report (which
seems accurate in all respects). Then (assuming BZA approval) we shoul,d,go ahead and permit thepatio to be
built, and nc;>t worry about a plat amendment (primary or secondary). I'm guessing that there are a lot of patios
built in this subdivision (and others) without any building permit or formal reviews, anyway.
I: .
Call me if you want to discuss this further.
John
10/27/2008
Page 2'of3
-----Original Message-----
From: Conn/Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.gov]
Sent: October 24/ 2008 9:30 AM
To: Boone, Rachel M.
Cc: John Molitor; H.ollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: variance for patio/fence on quail run court - docket no 08090023 V - Fairgreen Trace,
phase 2, lot 53.
Maybe we can just stress that the variance is not so much for lolcover percentage, but for encroaching
into the easement, which is spelled out in chapter 25 of the ordinance.,. the whole easement plus 3 teet
thing." IF we choose to interpret it that way, in this particular instance. She has come this far already
with the whole public notice and such. And I think some of the neighbors are riled up about this. Oyl
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
aconn@carmel.in.gov
~ Please consider the. envimlllTJenl befon:' print11lg this e-mail
From: Boone, Rachel M.
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:23 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: RE: variance for patio/fence on quail run court - docket no 08090023 V ~ Fairgreen Trace,
phase 2, lot 53.
So what does this mean? I really don't want to be the one to tell.her she doe:?n:t need a variance. She is
still calling with questions every dayl .
Rache.t-13~
Sign Permit Specialist
317.571.2417
317 571.2426 fax
~ Please consider the envitonment before pri~ting this e-nlail
-:.~_-.""",.,_",:""_,,,'.~~~~w~"",~."~~.~nr""~'D_~~~'~'.~"~'~~,^MW'~"^"'~W___~'''~~~~"_ _~_"'_"'_'_~~_"___'~'_______.__~._~~~w~~~~ ".._"~,..,~..~..,~~~~~..~"~,_
From: John Molitor [mailto:jmolitor@prodigy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 20084:52 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; Boone, Rachel M.; Holmes, Christine B
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: variance for patio/fence on quail run court - docket no 08090023 V - Fairgreen Trace,
phase 2, lot 53.
- -
Well, I think your analysis is mostly correct. The BZA CANNOT ,gr.ant a variance from the subdivision
control ordinance, or from the subdivision's covenants and restrictions (which are private and not public
issues)
However, if the plat as originally approved by the Plan Commission shows 15-toot rear setback, then they
may want to submit a plat amendment if they want to build in that rear yard as platted. We could approve
that as a secondary plat amendment as long as there is no new right-ot-way dedicated and no additional
lots created - but I would be reluctant to let the staff touch it if there is any neighbor opposition to the
permit. If there is, then a primary plat amendment might be in order.
John
10/27 /2008
10/27/2008
Page 3 of3
-----Original Message-----
From: Conn, Angelina V [mailto:Aconn@carmel.in.gov]
Sent: October 22,2008 11:53 AM
To: Boone, Rachel M.; John Molitor; Holmes, Christine B
Cc: Hollibaugh( Mike P
Subject: variance for patio/fence on quail run court - docket no 08090023 V - Fairgreen Trace(
phase 2( lot 53.
Hello-
Mike asked that I "look at this variance further. This lot lies within a subdivision that was platted
under one of the original versions of the open space ordinance ROSa, as a qualifying
subdivision. With that, there is no maximum lot cover percentage. And, there is not maximum rear
yard setback. However, the plat shows that lots in this subdivision require a 15-ft year yard
setback, in addition to the platted 15-ft wide easement along the back of the lot.
Technically, I do not think that a BZA variance approval is needed. Only approval for the
encroachment into the easement by the board of public works. Also. approval might be needed
by the homeowners or by the HOA (if there are covenants stating so) that the petitioner can
encroach into the platted rear yard setback of 15-ft. That is more of a private matter that the City
should not be involved in.
John, let me know where we go from here, if you think ~y analysis is correct.
Thanks,
.'. [or' i. ~
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning
1 Civic Square. 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p,317-571"24.17 f.317-571-2426
<;lC_Ql]n@Q"i).rm"~LiD,QQY
~ Plcaoc cOlloider Ihe eIlvinll1nlent before printing this e-mail'
. -:-.
City of Carmel I Clay Township
Department of Community Services
One Cinc Square; Carmel, IN 46032
Planning & Zoning Off'ia!: ph. (317) 571-2417 Fax (317) 511~2426
Building &. Code Enfon:emeot: Ph. (317) 571-2444 Fax (317) 571~2499
REQUEST FOR. RECORDS PURSUANT TO INDIANA ACCESS TO PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT - (I.e. 5-14-3-1, et seq., As Amended).
I, ~C-t( ~90\.6 . , hereby request Of the aty of
(NAME 'ONAL - please print)
Carmel, Indiana, the right to inspect and/or copy the following records:
(Please be spedflc as to what records you are looking for/requesting, and list the mrrect property /nfonnatfon)
I&:it ~~ct:d ~b C'-r
Date of Request: ~cpLl-.At Signalllre: C\'Yn rdf ~ ~afi\S
7. (OPTIONAl) "1
THE CITY MAY PROVIDE ME WITH ITS RESPONSE:
(J By telephone at:
o By facsimile transmission at:
o By mail at:
.PI( Other:
\ I'{\ 'VI? AfSnv1
OFFICE USE:
Received by: (lfV Y1 n / e'Trtq/ eLl
(Print) -J I
/)- '~1_ /d
Signature~ ~
Sent to Legal Department by:
Received in Legal Department by:
Dept Doe S
Date: /tJ-dtl-O~ Time: /O~/>~
On:
On:
FlUB> WITHOUT NOllFICAllON TO LEGAL DEPT.@ N DAlE fIllED: If} -;< 'I-Or- Staff ~
CO.'-:A__ J "__~.-::..-r~~ II!--
Page 1 of 1
-~
I
Conn, Angelina V
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11 :53 AM
To: Boone, Rachel M.; 'John Molitor'; Holmes, Christine B
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: variance for patio/fence on quail run court - docket no 08090023 V - Fairgreen Trace, phase 2, lot 53.
Hello-
Mike asked that I look al this variance further. This lot lies within a subdivision that was platted under one of the original
versions of the open space ordinance ROSO, as a qualifying subdivision. With that, there is no maximum lot cover
percentage. And, there is not maximum rear yard setback. However, the plat shows that lots in this subdivision require a
15-ft year yard setback, in addition to the platted 15-ft wide easement along the back of the lot.
Technically, I do not think that a BZA variance approval is needed. Only approval for the encroachment into the easement
by the board of public works. Also, approval might be needed by the homeowners or by the HOA (if there are covenants
stating so) that the petitioner can encroach into the platted rear yard setback of 15-ft. That is more of a private matter that
the City should not be involved in.
John, let me know where we go from here, if you think my analysis is correct.
Thanks,
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
Dept. of Community Services - Planning & Zoning
1 Civic Square, 3rd Floor
City of Carmel, IN 46032
p.317-571-2417 f.317-571-2426
ac.onn@carmel.in.gov
~ Please considcr [he cnvironment beforc pnnlillg Ihis c-mail
10/2212008
~ .io,.
Michael Hollibaugh noted Gene Valanzano's input on the Ordinance.
Jim O'Neal moved for the approval of Docket No. 94-99 GA, U.S. 31 Overlay Zone
Ordinance. APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed.
2i. Docket No. 38-00 PP, Primary Plat application for Kosene & Kosene.
The petitioner requests approval to plat 24 lots on 10.65 acres to be known
as Fairgreen Trace Subdivision, Phase H. The site is located northwest
of the intersection of East 116111 S lreet and South Range Line Road. The
site is zoned R -lIRcsidcntial and is being developed as a Qualifying
Subdivision under ROSO. The petitioner also seeks approval of the
following Subdivision Waivers:
39-00 SW sea 6.5.1 to plat lots with less than 50 feet of road frontage
40-00 SW SCO 6.3.6 to plat a residential street with 40 ft. right-of-way
41-00 SW sca 6.3.6 to construct a residential street 24 feet in width
42-00 SW SCO 6.3.15(3) to plat a residential street with radius less than 150'
43-00 SW sea 7.7(D)(7) to clear more than 50% of the scrub woodlands
Filed by Roger C. Ward, Jr. of Roger Ward Engineering for Kosenc & Kosene.
Gary Weaver of RogerW ard Engineering, 50 East 91st Street, Indianapolis appeared
before the Commission requesting the Variances specified above. There was a question
last month regarding approval from the City Engineer's Department on the road
configurati.on. The petitioner has now received a letter from the City Engineer approving
the road configuration shown on the drawing in Phase II. The contingency on the width
of the road would be to construct a road from 24 feet to 26 feet; "no parking" signage
would appear along the road so that parking would be allowed on only one side of the
street.
Al1lots have the same width at the building line. The Variance for a street with 40 feet of
right-of-way has been eliminated; all streets are 50 feet rights-of-way. The request for a
residential street with radius. less than 150 feet occurs on a cut-de-sac to the north and
approved by the City Engineer as to layout. The petitioner is also asking to clear more
than 50% of the scrub woodlands to allow preservation of about 10% more of the mature
woodlands. on site.
Ron Houck reported that there was representation at the Committee level by the City
Engineer's office and there was a misunderstanding as to the radius of the road. This
then led to some further discussion with the Engineer's office; the recommendation from
the Committee was for approval.
Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is rec0111mending favorable consideration of
39-00 SW. The redesign of the right-of-way widths, as stated, obviates the need for 40-
00 SW. The Department recommends favorable consideration of the petition for 41-00
SW for 26 foot wide street widths as amended. The Department recommends favorable
consideration to plat a residential street with a radius of less than 150 feet. The
Department also recommends favorable consideration of 43-00 SW to clear more than
s: \PlanCQ mmissiu ri\M in utes \pc2000apr
11
'"
50% ofthe scrub woodlands. A letter from the Engineering Department states that they
are satisfied and have put their final concerns in writing regarding this subdivision.
Therefore, the Department is recommending favorable consideration of the primary plat.
Nick Kestner commented that one. of the items discussed at committee was access from
the northern cul-de-sac to the inter-urban right-of-way; this does not show on the plans.
Ron Houck agreed and asked if the petitioner had submitted plan to the Department.
Gary Weaver stated that the final drawings will include the plans for the trail.
Nick Kestner moved for the approval of Docket No. 38-00 PP, conditioned upon the
inclusion of the trail/path from the northern cul-de-sac over to the inter-urban on the final
drawings. APPROVED 14 in favor, none opposed.
All Subdivision Waivers, 39-00 SW; 40-00 SW; 41-00 SW; 42-00 SW; and 43-'00 SW
were approved 14 in favor, none opposed.
3i. Docket No. 61-00 DP/ADLS, Development Plan and Architectural
Design, Lighting & Signage applications for REI Investments. The
petitioner requests approval for two hotels totaling 166,000 square feel on
8.070 acres to be known as Residence Inn and Spring Hill Suites. The
site is located nOlthwest of the intersection of East Carmel Drive and
Keystone Way. The site is zoned B-8/Business and is located within the
U.S. 31 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Elizabeth Hobbs of RE1lnvestments, Inc.
Correction: The site is located northwest of the intersection of East 116th Street and
Pennsylvania Street.
NOTE: Due to a conflict of interest, Bob Modisett recused himself froln discussion and
voting on Docket No. 61-00 DP/ADLS, Residence Inn and Spring Hill Suites.
Paill Spranger, Chairman of the Special Study Committee, offered the following report.
TheCbmmittee accepted the Spring Hill Suites Hotel with very little problem. The
Committee did, however, have issues with the Residence Inn which was more residential
appearance in character and deemed not to be in character with the U.S. 31 COlTidor. The
Comni.ittee recommended that' the petitioner go back to the architectural firm and return
to the Committee with a revised plan. The revised plan received a favorable
recommendation from the committee with conditions. The pitch of the roof is now more
commercial in nature rather than residential and appears more in character with the
corridor.
Gene Vahmzano, Land Use Consultant with Baker & Daniels, appeared before the
Commission. The changes on the Residence Tnn are as follows: A change in the roof
line; a reduction in the amount ofEFIS on the fa<;ade; the re-design of the gatehouse;
s: \P lanCommis sian \Min ules \pc2000apr
12
Page 1 of 1
Holmes, Christine B
c ~'oc~~c"~.'~n""'~"""......,T,.,m.'m..<"~"."m~'~"_n..'.",,,'_,.._.,. ..."........,_~...,.....~_.,,_~~~"__.~x~,~.c~~""'~"",~',"^"".~,~~~""'",'..,.."""'~.~~~...,,_. . ..., ..~~m-.-_w~.,'~c"'"'~""""',...NJ,.."~"_...,.''',',,'''',,'~_,.~~o-.~~...,
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 20082:23 PM
To: Holmes, Christine B
Subject: FW: 1604 Quail Glen Court
Here is the email
From: Duncan, Gary R
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:23 PM
To: 'meclifford@indy.rr.com'
Cc: Pickett, Libby J
Subject: 1604 Quail Glen Court
Mrs. Clifford,
This email is in response to your request for a Consent to Encroach Agreement regarding placement of
your patio within a Sanitary Sewer Easement. Aaron Hoover, Utilities Department inspector, initially
visited your property, located at 1604 Quail Glen Court, and determined that a future open-ditch
excavation of the sanitary sewer in your rear yard is unlikely due to the depth of the sewer main and the
proximity of your existing home to the sanitary sewer. The Utilities Department does still need access
to the sanitary manholes in your yard, and any private improvements. that are placed within easements
are subject to removal in the event thatthe City or any other easement holder (cable company, phone
company; etc.) would need to exercise their rights to the easement.
Upon the Engineering Department's inspection of your property and review of your proposed patio
extension, it appears that although the proposed improvements would be installed to the edge of the
existing 15-foot Drainage and Utility Easement, the improvements would not encroach into this
easement. It does not appear that the proposed improvements will have a negative drainage impact on
the adjacent properties or on the conveyance of stormwater rtlnoff across your property; therefore, if
the requested development standard variance is obtained from the Department of Community Services,
this Department will provide a favorable recommendation to the Board of Public Works and Safety for
approval of the Consent-to-Encroach Agreement for the encroachment into the Sanitary Sewer
Easement.
Thank you & please contact me with questions,
Gary
Gary R. Duncan, Jr., PE
Assi sta nt City E ngi nee r
City of Carmel
Department of Engineering
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 571-2441
(317) 571-2439 (fax)
gduncan@carmel.in.gov
10/9/2008
~;:r'
9 October 2008
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
This letter is in opposition to tbe proposed construction at 1604 Quail Glen COll rt,
whicb tbe City of Carmel has placed a stop-order on pending a request for variance
by the owners.
My opposition to this is based on the fact tbat the project is in violation of Carmel City
Coden.thus, under no circumstances should approval for any variance be given.
Whether or not this project was (mistakenly) approved by tbe Fairgreen Trace
Architectural Board is immaterial. No subdivision association or individual project has the
right to override community rules and regulations.
it is possible that the owners will present a list of Fairgreen Trace residents who for
whatever reason may not be opposed to a variance and/or completion of this project.
Allowing this to affect the outcome of a decision regarding this matter would, in my opinion
create a dangerous precedent for Fairgreen Trace and the City of Carmel.
Enclosed is a Fairgreen Trace Architectural Approval Form, which clearly states that
no project should violate Carmel City code and outlines the proper procedures to be
followed in obtaining approval from the City of Carmel and Fairgreen Trace.
Unfortunately, tbeseprocedures were obviously not followed in this case, and approval or
variance should not be granted.
Resident of Fairgreen Trace
---- ----
-~---- --
/e./V7~~C ,~
~. F~'~
~,f{.,yT L~
G+~
I"f)' . .-} 7 -0 S-
v-.-.., ,,--
(f/-
..
~~
Fairgreen Trace Homeowners} Association (3)
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions governing Fairgreen Trace requires the prior
approval of any plans for exterior modifications to residents' homes and other exterior changes to property.
Such modifictions and changes include but are not limited to room additions, patios, fences, landscaping,
exterior house colors, mailbox colors or style and installation of satellite dishes.
This Architectural Request Form must be completed and approved before work begins. If prior
approval is not granteft FGTHOA has the right to stop said work.
Specific requirements can be found in your covenants, conditions and restrictions. The following
are general guidelines:
e Improvement should not violate building setback lines, encroach on any easement or violate
Carmel building code or city ordinances. Exterior additions and other structural changes require
a City of Carmel building permit and are subject to building and code enforcement. Contact the
Department of Planning and Zoning at 571.2417 for proper procedures.
I) Chain link fencing must be vinyl coated...preferably black. Galvanized fencing is not permitted.
Fencing cannot be located any closer to the front line than the rear foundation line of the house.
Wood fencing should be of the "good neighbor" shadow box style unless it faces away from
and adjoins property adjacent to Fairgreen Trace. Check with board for height restrictions!
I) Fences, landscaping or other improvements that do not maintain the harmonious appearance of
Fairgreen Trace or do not project the appropriate image of Fairgreen Trace will not be approved.
I) All exterior building finishes will be brick, stone or wood and must match existing exteriors.
G You must formally request approval even if you feel your improvement meets the guidelines.
o No improvements may be started until written architectural approval is received, and (if applicable)
all proper permission and procedures have been approved and granted by City of Carmel.
., All work must be done in a professional manner consistent with the overall image of Fairgreen Trace,
and it is the responsibility of the homeowner to make sure that all construction materials are
disposed of in an acceptable manner and NOT in FGT common areas.
Please complete this Architectural Request ( see other side) and return to
the appropriate FGTHOA board member.
e Requests will be acted on as promptly as possible, but please try to al:low 30 days.
It Our goal is to be fair and consistent with all Fairgreen Trace homeowners and to render
decisions that are in the best overall interest of FGTHOA.
Request For Architectural Approval
..
PLEASE ALLOW 30 DAYS FOR RESPONSE
Name(s)
Telephone
General description of improvement:
I/we request permission to make improvements upon my/our lot.
Lot # Pond Loti Yes No
Address
E-Mail (optional)
Materials to be used **
Type of fence and material: *
Exterior paint color(s):
Other pertinent information?
Start date:
Fence color/type of wood
Estimated completion date:
* Check with FGTHOA regarding height restrictions
** It is the responsibility of the homeowner to make certain all construction materials arc
disposed of properly (NOT in FGT common areas) !
Include with this form:
o Copy of plans and/or a diagram of the proposed improvement, including details of materials and
finishes (paint samples, product literature, landscaping plans, architectural drawings, etc.) .
o All dimensions related to improvement (height, width, fence dimensions, etc.).
o Copy of plat surveyor plan for your lot with the proposed improvements drawn on the plan exactly
where it is to be located.
o Other literature or information which may be applicable to the project.
o Copy of approved City of Carmel building permit (exterior additions and renovations)
Note: Additional information may be requested if above items are not included.
I/we understand and agree if the request for architectural approval is granted that we (A) may have to apply to
the appropriate governmental agency for any required building permits; (B) we must comply with aU building
codes, requirements, etc., in the construction of our improvrnent; and (C) that construction will not start until an
approved copy of this request is received. We further understand and agree that approval of this request may be
withdrawn if the improvement (A) is not constructed exactly as it has been approved; (E) is not located in the
exact location approved; or (C) is not completely constructed within 60 days of the date of approval.
SIGNED (ALL PROPERTY OWNERS MUST SIGN THIS FORl\1):
Pr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m.ua.umuuu.uvuvuu.u..vuuv.uu.u..u.uv.u....u.........
Printed Name(s)
ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE USE ONLY
Date request form received
PROJECT IS APPROVED
Date request granted/denied
PR.OJECT IS DENIED
Planning and Zoning commission,
I live in Fairgreen Trace Sub Division. This is a sub division of mainly empty nester
homes with small to zero lot lines. We do not bave a lot of room to add large additions
and patios ctc. To do this would really encroach on the lot lines and or easements set up.
We currently have a situation that I, along with many others feel is not in the best interest
of all of us and not keeping in line wi th the towns regulations set forth.
Home owners, Mr. and Mrs Clifford, living at 1604 Quail Glen Ct.have started a large
project. They are building a large patio or whatever on their property and from what we
know did not get the approval of the town. I say this based on the facts that you have
stopped the operation as you fcel they have not done things correctly or are too close to
lot lines and or easements. They did get approval I believe from our architectural
committee but to be honest these are just a group of people who really don't know the
rules and will aRprove anything and this home owner involved is on this committee.
Conflict of interest as well.
They now are going to your committee to try to obtain a variance. A meeting is set up for
Oct 29 I believe. Please do not give them the approval as this will set a bad example and
really what are Easements set up for ifthey can be overridden Please review and do the
right thing
I am not signing this as I do have to live here and hopefully you understand.
A concerned home owner
t~:'f'
I ~. .
?~"'~ l."-
..,c.'. .'
.. ., ~. G
.T.........
..;t
.~, ;
A;..;;'iz, ':Ii'~':' ",~ ':...
'he'ral G~ideli .
. . :....::.~~,:~{ ~~..~.....>~><. .!.~ ,~<..' '.
:' " '0 lniprovem~erifs should>'not violate".building .
j',' .'se.~6f6k.lip.. ~$/I~Qi~:O.r.bat6~bn\. 8., n~~ie~s~m~riis.~r'.~!
." . .' ."~: -,~.""" .,ria. t.- '-li,~-!'l f~' ,~.'t..... , ....~~J 'l:Yd~.. r vn. .i .' ,
" or.viglate.l.C.aJmE?l..bl,.lilQ.i99 code, b(~ity ordi-:,i"~',
. ,.. ..~~. .,1--';;. ("k,.\"""""1 . .ci...;o'j..J ~"1/~l., ,irt. .,~ .... ~.. .'! ",..,..~L
nances.::.Exferior.Jadditions"and strucfural h.:
.~t:''''~, :l.~y~ ~~r!..';,'~, ...~;:~ l'" l..' 1 '( ".-.'.1 .~., .J.... 1.1 r'
chaI1ges'r~qt:iire ~"Carrhel buildiOQ permit'and i
.. ;; arejubl~9(~oi.'cJiy :1:Of ~9. ~i... r~,~!~Uil~i~9. '!a~d. :
code-' enforc'ement. \1. :k\i~ ~ ' ;." t "';' ! ".; ,. 1
It . ~r~!;~b:J~taf~~~tl~~~1e~~~~h~l~::t~~; I.
~~' ~Jp~[rn,itt1. 'd:;,.~<~:pc~~~ k,<ai~n~t':.p'k :)ock, tJd ~ariy' I: :
.p, . 5, f;J., ~. ~~t~ + ):~... ~~.;!1! ~';.. ~', . .,~ .r .- r., ~...'~. :]" ~ ~..~:f -'. I I . . t"
;. ~;:iClos~r tb)he, iront'.Ilrie,;tb~n. !he~r!3arJouQda-; {'.
;jE; ~ ,'" 4.. .,~ 1 '-~~ ::-,s.r {...,., ~,.,. t..d' ~1. ~..ol ~ t..~~;t' r !,.,h..,\ oj , ~. . ~ \'.
. :~ 7:tion":Iine of the~h6use.tyJood fences should f.'
< . _ . -, '" .. ~ ,:~~ _O';~ i: ~ :~ p\-'" i.... ~~!...~ 1 -- ~~ -{ i' ~'~"'-' i~1
. ~ ::'be;'of the~'good neiQhoo~'..shadow box style l:<
. ~',". . ~1' ,~!.~ ;" /,:?"" ';;.-";;= c:&' '!;'l, ,iJ, "'~,-, I ;" r; ;: ~ , I "-! ,
. ':."~~nl,~~s;lt~.tp.9~.9..~9-')tX~y,IJr()nraD::l.~djOi[1~ P.rop:~ ~ :
".' . .:~ :~ertYI?q~a9~'~t f9:E~irgrJ~ltTraq~':.! c~eckiwi/hl .
""..,;;., . ;.'f.:., .....";" ~: W .,"'" '0'" ,." ~'H~.I" ....'... '~.Ir'\' '," P' I'
".' ',.f rl.BQjif;d/61;/tct7gh11i. e~.trii:.!io.n,: ~~.'1 ,;,:\ ~~.I' :;~ i; :1. .
. .J _~;[:-...~.~'.~:.;._"'~-~~ ~...""';!"!.'1";;f}. .~':, i'"I .:~;r[t">'I' tiT, ~.~..t .-.. ,.
::~ :: ~~ F!3n.P~~~"2Iao,d~.cat>ing or 9th~r .il)1pr9vements'1~'"
.~ ......:J-, ~ 1 ~.~ J{.~i!. ,"\,t .. ,'~ f~' t: , .',........." . 'I i.,~l 1 1 I l'
". ~ 'Lnofmaint~ii:lingthe6a'n:noniOus, appearance !~ :
".:" .~_ _.~..........;, . ,""'" .\;,-4 ~__ . ~_;. "-<t.\ _ ..~:6l 11,\: .4'._" )..., i . < . ,: "';
~.;~of p(inonjr91~ctiQg~h:appropriate :image of!. ,
.... \.. "."' _ ~~.~-'_ ~'7",-A,_r.-~' .-"l"': lj~. ',F." -. l. "' ~ :. . -' - . .
". . . 0;-iFqE~WJ,II..Q.9f.be ajJpro~ed,or PWt;nit!ed. i ; ~ .;:; :
~ .;:~~":exrerlar;Jinisb~s 'kJilf'.be~ brick, istbn~"or r' :'
'!L 1. -".;f;~"~'."<:_~.::,",-~Wr !:, ..:,:..1;:: .)~,.. +~ 1~';';-!\-.:1 ~~" 1 ! .~.:y
~.~::;.W()O,O ~Jlq; must llJatch1ti1e,~~:idstIn9 exteriors. ~.' '.
it';-. ~: _~..-r:..I,~' ~,,,,~ ''1'.1' ~'_' . . ...., i-- ~! ,~iT' '.-"
;. ~:. Even ify6ll'fee't:yc;ur':'pro~ecttmeets FGT : :1~'
'. ';<; '~;.J/': .:;,: 'd ,~IJ" .;... ~" C;'~ 0'\.< ".;::.:\ l':::';j Hit ;;' ~':
~'" ,C5 .rg~!l~.~liR_~~';i~o.~'.~Q;u~t '~~f~~9,u~.~t\,~.~p'rc?~a'~ N~ ~:;:
.' '~f ~imR'foVE!inents: m'ay~btf, started~ until written ~>f
" ~" v~ ';"; :;'" ".,:<',;'~~:'$~~ , t: ;,!: .,;;~., .;,;!:, f rl1: . 'i'.; It; ! q?'"
.!~f ;; ,~,':r:~!f5~J!~~~~~k'-~P8roYj.~I~.~ ~,~~~Ir.~~.-;~tli'I ,~ ~'~f.f~:.
.': " ~ .t.l;fop~n)eJr:nissiorj:.ang procedures, mU$t be'~;~ .
_: ;~_ ,...;:-.;~ 1....:..;/t:."". .)!.1f, ~"'~~:'o~"" ~":-:. j- ",-~ "'~", "",i: .'';;;- I.." l .! - .~,. I." \ "'T~t
'. ~'>. .t.u..app,.r.pv.~'...e._,d.iq.r)d...~. gr'a[ll.e.d.Py:.,th~ Qi,ty of... C9-rl1l~I.'{.;~...1
,._ '1;0'" "",.,. _ ~.. _ f.":.,,_..J~-'-P . ~'"?~'f'l ..t''''L..>o,-!f, 1- _'~ ~ ."1J ,.....; "".'" .t").
..fi :E~YV.o:rk.;.,.-rl;i'i.!. stjbe d~one'Tn.~ ci;pfb. f~s. sid,nal.man: ;'~'\
....... =:r"",:!:i:-.~...... i'l',y'. ~~~_~""'I'!...,....'i" __ol ;O"'~~' )-"'l' ~' ,r - f l~ ...., ~. . - ~'''','
.. :~~: .~ ~er ~?~,..~iS~.~~fV!:iJti~n7.;'~~~r.~II~i,~;a~~~ ~! ~~T-~~:q
, . AllconstruQ,/lon.rp, a{~fla!s.f.n,[! ~'. epr/f r'!f!~/ ~et;.'''1
disposed of properly, if? ac.cordaoce wifh:cityr",
_ . _.- -. - .~-y\. i . ~ ,,". 'l~ ''''';c
ordinance,: and {70i In kGT Common Areas. .\' i
_J
~~,
:.;; I! -
~.t~~~~ -,-"",~~,-' , _ ,==--~":...
-~, ,.
~- .
, ,'" .-.
.: ~ ' .. .
'.1
.: -. ". (:. .
".,
;.
lw! '.
. ,t.v. .
.... ~ '.....,
,"t' .;
.....,". .."!
. ','
" ..... .-
:'"
~ ",
~ I \ r ,.,'" ..:,..
'. ',' ~ ~\.N t~ f ~ . ".,' r',..
{)Uv ".' 1/ ~ '1 rJ t S. ION
~~0J"&
f
,.'
1.......
:::"1
" .J
- ~.
10/7/08
CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA
REFERENCE PUBLIC HEARINCJ
C//O RAMONA HANCOCK,SEC.
CARMEL CITY HALL
ONE CIVIC SQ.
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
TIM AND MARYELLEN CLIFFORD
1604 QUAIL GLEN COURT
CARMEL INDIANA 46032
LOT # 53
FAIRGREEN TRACE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 27TH,2008 SCHEDULED MEETING
WE APPOSE ANY JONING VARIANCE THAT MAYBE GRANTED TO THE
ABOVE LISTED PROPERTY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
I. NO PERMENT IN THE BEGINNING OF IHIS PROJECT WAS APPLIED FOR BY
THE RESIDENTS. (WRONG)
2.THEY WERE GRANTED ARHITECTURAL APPROVAL BY FAIRGREEN TRACE
ARCHITECTUAL COMMITTEE, BUT THE HOME OWNER IN QUESTIONS IS ON
THE COMMITTEE. ( CONFLICT OF INTEREST)
3.THEY HAD TO KNOW THIS WAS ON A COMMON GROUND WITH A
CARMEL EASEMENT GOING THR LJ IT.
4.WlTH THE SIZE OF TI-IlS STRUCTURE IT ALTERS THE NATURAL FLOW OF
DRAINAGE ONTO ADJOINING PROPERTY.
5.WE 1-1 A VE A SFI'. SIDE SET BACK AND A I SFI'. REAR SET BACK LINES IN
OUR COMMlJNITY. THE RESIDENT HAD TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
6. ALL 64 LOTS IN FAIRGREEN TRACE .ARE A\\lARE OF THE FACT WE LIVE TN
A 0 LOT LINE COMMUNITY.
7. WITH THIS STRUCTURE THEY HAVE NOW FILLED 85% OF THE BACK
YARD USING COMMON AREA B AND THE CARMEL EASEMENT
8. DUKE ENERGY AND THE CARMEL STREET DEPARTMENT SHOULD ALSO
BE AGAINST THIS PROJECT. BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE IF ANY WORK WAS TO
BE PERFORMED IT WOULD NEED TOBE TORN OUT'. WHY NOT ELiMINATE
THAT KIND OF PROBLEM RIGHT FROM THE START.
9. THEY NEW FROM THE BEGINNNG THAT THEY ARE IN DIRECT VIOLATION
OF CITY ORDINACES AND THAT II-lEY WERE ON THE CARMEL EASEMENT
10, IF FOR SOME REASON IN THE FUTURE THIS STRUCTURE IF GRANTED A
."
VARIANCE'vVOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED, IT WOULD EFFECT A MINIMUM
OF FIVE PROPERTIES AND A LARGE PORTION OF OUR COMMON AREA B.
!~~
WE NEED TO BE PRO-ACTIVE TO ENSURE THAT COMMUNITY
DEVELOMENT AND GROWTH COMPLIES WITH THE RULES SET FORTI-I IN
THE CARMEL CLA Y ZONING ORDIANCES.
WE MOVED IN'fO FAIRGREEN TRACE AS EMPTY NESTERS KNOWING ALL
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, OUR PROPERTIES DO NOT LEND THEM
SELVES TO THIS TYPE OF MASSIVE STRUCTURE ON SUCH SMALL LOTS.
PLUS THE FACT IT WAS APPROVED AND CONSTRICTION STARTED WITI-J
OUT REGUARDS FOR THE crry OF CARMEL AND ALL OF ITS GOVERNING
RULES AND REGULATIONS.
SINCE I'M A RESIDENT OF FAIRGREEN TRACE I PREFER TO NOT SIGN THIS
DOCUMENT. CONCERNED FOR TI-IE PRESIDENCE THIS SETS FOR FUTURE
PROJECTS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
THANKS FOR YOUR CONCERN TO NOT APPROVE THIS VARIANCE.
SIGNED: FAIRGREEN TRACE RESIDENT FOR 6 YEARS
CARMEL INDIANA 46032
AT&T Al
10/9/2008 4:50 PM PAGE
1/001
Fax
FROM: AT&T Long Distance Cable Protection Center GFI
This is to notify you about status of received tickets. Thi~ does not mean
that another utility other than AT&T Long Distance is clear OR that future
and/or
different activities at the same location would be clear. This message does not
include any AT&T cable formerly known as SBC, Bell South or TCG.
If you have any questions about this message or if you believe
you have received this notification in error, and that AT&T cable is actually
in the vicinity of your excavation activity, please call 1-800-252-1133.
=================~~~~~~~================================;========~===~=======
Locate requested by CITY OF CARMEL
to the Indiana One Call Center
One-Call Ticket Message Number: 0810092398
Closed with status: AT&T is clear. Ticket was processed by GFI AutoScreener
AT&T Reference Number: 24235729
Work Date & Time: Oct 14 2008 4:30PM
.Work Location: QUAIL GLEN CT, CARMEL IN
Near intersection: FAIRGREEN DR
L/hri~17ru - . I
(flf,Jlh is, j (j1) t
/ ~YriJf (If 17J
tvv ftY1 t tv-
y '/1 /1/1 Al 0 fJf?
vc(A;1 ()./ t/ v l/'- {;f 7
(yJ OJ' ( ()(U/lf7 VI 'r)
rzafAlvl/-