HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 04-27-09Development Standards Variances for Single Family,
Detached Residential Community
Docket Nos. 09030007 V through Docket No. 09030010 V
City of Carmel
BZA Hearing 6:OOpm-April 27, 2009
Applicant: Justin Moffett, 317-966-2023 or justinmoffett@aol.com
ttv"~ .c~9
>=
o..
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Explanation
2. Aerial photograph of general area in "old town Carmel" with site outline,
closer aerial photograph of real estate including the existing plat lines, and
area parcel map showing the location and size of existing parcels
3. Proposed color site plan
4. Map of Carmel ZO Ch. 23D Old Town Fig. 1 Subarea and map of Carmel ZO
Ch. 23D Old Town Fig. 3 Contributing
• 5. Proposed minimum architectural standards
6. Concept building elevations
7. Proposed Findings of Fact for Development Standards Variance Requests
•
• Explanation of Development Standards Variance Requests
Justin Moffett, the project developer, is the contract purchaser of five parcels of land that
comprise approximately 2.7 acres in size. The Real Estate is located north of the corner where
3rd Ave NE and 3rd Street NE meet in old town Carmel. Included behind lab 2 of this brochure
are aerial photographs and a parcel plat map depicting the size and location of the lots in
question.
The developer would like to extend 3r0 Ave NE and develop the vacant land into individual
parcels for single family homes as depicted in the proposed site plan behind Tab 3. The
proposed homes will comply with the architectural standards defined in Ch. 23D Old Town
District Overlay Zone. A copy of the Ch. 23 Character Subarea standards are provided behind
Tab S of the brochure and the developer will commit to these standards as architectural
minimums for the development. Several conceptual elevations have been included behind Tab
6. The sale price of the homes to be constructed is anticipated to be between $350,000 and
$400,000. The developer will be required to go through a plat amendment and secondary
platting process with the Carmel Plan Commission.
The subject property is adjacent to other properties that have been included in the Old Town
Character Sub-area district as evidenced in the map behind Tab 4 outlining the boundaries of
the area. When the overlay zone was created the land in question was not included in the
• overlay map so R-2 development standards apply to this ground. It is the developer's belief
that th? pr9nPrty was mistakenly left rnit of thg Character Suh-are@, This is further gyidgnrg~1
by the contributing buildings map behind Tab 4. This contributing buildings map hi-lights
buildings of character that are thought to be worthy of preservation. Therefore the new
construction standards in the Overlay Zone reflect the architectural styles of the contributing
buildings. On the map of contributing buildings you will see a home that has been circled that
is listed as contributing. However, if you turn back to the character sub-area map you will see
that this home has been left out of the Character Sub-area boundaries. The mapping for the
overlay process was not consistent with the locations of the contributing buildings. It is our
overall objective to develop this property in the same way other similar, adjacent properties
would be developed per the Overlay standards, bringing a consistency to the neighborhood
that R-2 standards do not provide.
The developer proposes to preserve a green space on the property that is referenced as
Blackwell Park on the proposed site plan behind Tab 3. Preserving this area is not compulsory
for platting lots through the Carmel Plan Commission since this will be developed as a minor
subdivision. The park area is offered as a gesture by the developer in hopes of making better
use of the remaining site through decreased lot size requirements from what is found in the R-2
classification.
•
• In order to appropriately develop this site to match the lots sizes and construction standards of
adjacent properties, and to preserve green space for the health and welfare of the residents of
this subdivisicn, the fol!cwing Develcpment Standards Variances are requested:
Section 8.04.02.D Minimum Lot Area: Applicant seeks to change the minimum lot size from ten
thousand (10,000) square feet per single family dwelling unit to sixty-five hundred (6500)
square feet per single-family dwelling unit.
Section 8.04.03.A Minimum Front Yard: Applicant seeks to change the minimum front yard
from thirty-five (35) feet to twenty (20) feet. (Reference Overlay Section 23D.03.C.3.b.i -
setbacks)
Section 8.04.03.E Minimum Lot Width: Applicant seeks to change the minimum lot width from
eighty (80) feet to fifty (50) feet. (Reference Overlay Section 23D.03.C.3.c.ii.a.)
Section 8.04.03.E Maximum !ot Coverage: Applicant seeks to change the maximum lot
coverage for from thirty-five percent (35%) to forty-five percent (45%). (Reference Overlay
Section 23D.03.C.3.c.iii.a.)
As mentioned previously, this project is also required to appear before the Plan Commission for
full review of the plat amendment and for secondary platting to confirm compliance with the
• subdivision control ordinance. The developer is confident that the variances requested will
allow for the continuation of the charm and cadence of old town without appearing as a
substantially different neighborhood, which would be the result if this land were platted
according to R-2 standards. Once built we are confident that it will be considered to be one of
the most charming sections of our beloved neighborhood.
We look forward to presenting this matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals at its April 27, 2009
hearing.
\J
• • •
n
GM.ST
Q
~~~T
B-1
Area Map for Five (5) Parcels Included in Proposed
BZA Developmental Standards Variances
B-5
Five Lots Below
Comprise Location of
Proposed Variances.
R-3
=1
R-2
~ ~ --i J 107' x 322.5'
96' x 322.5'
96' x 322.5'
66' x 145'
2
2
66' x 147.91'
R-3
R2
R-2
~J
• •
322.5'
* Possible detention area; exact park design subject to civil plans
I ~ d-~ oa° ~,~ \ ~d ~' - - ~ ~ o tea'=dv ~ ~ `0 g ~
I 0 ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ,_ 1 ~. d c
\\ ~ N
L
~ O I - i ~ a
o I v a
i'i . a.._ ~ ~°-_ i ~ II_~1 ~ .~~ ~ ~_o ~I •~ __q ~ ~~~ cOQ O~ '~~ d ~C5 °a D ~ ~
n i t __ _ q.., I ~ ~ `V
\V' ° I ~_ ~~ ~ I I Qo ~ I __I-~ ~o_ a_QI ~__ L~Q L~_ 0_0~~-_ ~y~( ~ 4n5_ III ~~tJl~q_ i~Q („)
~,'~ ~ •~t} ~ ~~~~'~I i ~ ~ ~^n o ~l QI ~~° Q ~ I ~ V Lo.lf_ -d ~ I i ~\ Q '.
~, ~ ~~~~o„Q p~o~a,cr~o ,~d°o~_~I-~~ L~J_ I~~~~ _ o'a,~r ~ ~o-' ~~ ~ I-Q- l 0 po,~1, Q) ~-a.
oPa o L1~_ ! o ~ i a '~ d 1 j lod op ~~
-,^.r,~~r,,y~,r1 I Gr~pp[-[~~a o o a Tr . - 1-d 1 _
i.~~.' ~ -' - ;
l71 ~ W ~I C2tJ UOod~ ^ CC?0 Q b ~ ~ I~J ~ I~
a ~ I ~ YI :C. -~ o ~La i ~ ° ~ I ~7 i o~ - d 1:~ ICJ I ~ ~l t'~
I I I I
! noIdd0. ~ d7. °~°n0~io Ialp~,~ dp Q ~ o ° a p ~! °_° - O i~p IP09i[3 1'~!,a Io
ELI I ~a _4_~'I ,a ~ li I '~ °a i I ~ to a, ~~ Q. Q C] ;._lao, o ~o~ o I Ei
~JO U~ °~I I 10 Q Q U I ~ I I I I l! JU' ~f~ Q!60` Q
~~~i _ ~I`i7 ° _ I _ _ .fl ---
r, ~ ~ bra I~ n ~ ~7 ~ t L I ~ -
~jd ~~,~ ~{~,~~~O~~IP;I~ ~~~ ~_~I ~1 ~ ~I~~~h '~I~ I~ ~~0 1- ~ ~ a ~~ Ili I ~_~ pl~ll ~~i~ _~ °
Q ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ r
0
~,
I
,. Ioi ha { + I Igo ~ ° ~ ' 0, _~- 'o r ~ J° ~~o ~
d i _!_J~~LQa_ as o ~ ifla ~ ~ ,~~ ~ - ~-~ a o i o ~~__ ~:_ ~_ _ , I ---,~-- L
T r f~ ~. ,.~o - a ,.. ...._ _
p °IQI 9 o" a q ° J °(° d0: ~~'~~ 'o ^~ a~'p~olQ~ ~I~- ~ IO~---Q ° _ •~'
h . oo ~ -- ~~. I J ! a o , o ~ ^ ° I So ~ a ~ I ~o a 14~~_ _~ I~ o Q ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ (' T c 1 - - ~-
~ ° v
0.. ~° ~~~
,~ i a
s ~-- (~~~o~ 1 4 I- ! e
'~ -
I ~ 01 ~~„~oF~~ ~~fl ~~~ ~ I
_ __I~ r_\ ---o - -__ I
- - a o00 0 ~ I ~ r -;- ( -
-/- ~ ~ ~^ q_-~I I, ,-~ ~ iiV ll~~~lp_ 0 ~i~ol~l ~~ ~ 4' a~a ~I_~ °` .0 ~ a
. I e
I ~
Q~-
1a I d oDo o Q~ ~Q ill °- _ ~ L _ ,-ne,.~' -0 I ~ ~ ~
L- - ___ _ ° o Q ~ r (~ ~I~~ I it ~e ~ ^ L7 ~ ~V ~ a_~ ..T~ Q
u IIILLLJJIIII ~ f r __ _ _
n ~\ ,
I Ldl _~ _. ~DOO ~~ ~ I ~~ Io ~ i -^ p_ ~ I~-!C~lOi ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
_ ~ °
n~J ~~ / 0,-n. O ~,°- ~r0-III'}`}} ~ Qlolold q/ p _ a ~ 3
it I O ~\ ,~`/,Ou Yr~n ~.l I ~ ~.I [ ~ fl ~ _ ~^; O° ~ I~° i 0 ~ i ~ ~ I~•;
~o, ~ ~ n
~ ~ ^~ t ~
rt ~ ° Q~6~° a o0o d4Q~~ "a ~
d ]~ Oo d a ~ o O c o oC] a ° g °~oQ Q ~ ~ OQJ ~ _~
o
d / o
a ~ ~ U Ll LJo ~o: ~,...o o€= ~ ~it;,8 ^~ ^ ~ t a~ /~ ~;~~°n'~ ^~aao ~ t ®d r C
4: m q ~:a FIr_^~ - q
~ (]0~ ~~ o ~ i.l1~f^ i1i~~ to ~,a~ a~~/~'i~~~ie~s^
~ °a~ JJ~''~~a ~~ Q ~ •aH~; ya o0 0 ~1,~^,.Ki ~.,~~- ~ i ~h, ^, ~a~ ~~ e~!
`'' a474 i ~ tai 1 ~~...!J'Jl°°~ ^ 1 / ° ~ ~ ~~~~~ ii ~} Qd ~ ~ G'~po^ d`~ Poo
~., ~ ~ . ~ o ^ °lo
0 0 ° ! 0~ ^ O ^ 8 ^ °
oQ ~' ~7 a s~ Q ^ ~
^ ® bpdd 0 ~ a ~~ ` ~ ,~r~: LI a,~ p o'p* 1l~a:~i d~1~~ d
Z ~
° ..
° (~
s ~ Q ~ ~ ~ d .~ ~ oo °d
m ~ o
~ N ~ ~ 4~
n
~J
Proposed Minimum Architectural Standards for Blackwell Park
(Builder/Developer agrees to commit to these standards)
CARMEL CITY CODE
CHAPTER 10: ZONING & SUBDIVISIONS
ARTICLE 1: ZONING CODE
CARMEL ZONING ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 23D: OLD TOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE
23D.03 Guidelines.
A. Historic Range Line Road Sub-Area.
B. Main Street District Sub-Area.
C. Character Sub-Area.
• C. Character Sub-Area.
Chazacter Sub-Areas consist of the bulk of the residential areas in the Old Town district both east and west of Range
Line Road, and both residential and commercial properties facing Range Line Road in the north end of [he District.
There are many different styles of architecture in this area; however, the consistency and character of the
neighborhood is worth protecting. The intent of these guidelines is to preserve the character of [he neighborhood by
preserving certain building and siting characteristics, without requiring that specific buildings or building elements
be preserved.
3. New Construction.
The following guidelines apply to all new buildings built within the boundaries of the Character Sub-Area.
a. Building Mass.
i. Buildings are to be oriented parallel and perpendicular to the street.
ii. Buildings will generally be longer than they are wide, with the nartow dimension facing the street.
Building widths may not exceed forty-five (45) feet, except where the lot is greater than eighty (g0) feet in
width, in which case the building may be up to fifty-five (55) feet wide.
6. Setbacks.
i. New buildings must follow the dominant or average front yard Setback dimension of existing buildings
on [he same block and on the same side of the street, with a variation oC up to three (3) fee[ allowed (See
Figure 2a).
ii. Additions, except for open-air porches, may no[ be added to the front of the building except where the
building is set back more than twenty (20) feet from [he Setback line of its nearest two neighbors (See
Figure 2b).
iii. A Comer Lot f'or a residential use is presumed [o have a Front Yazd Setback on both streets [hat it faces.
For anon-residential use, [he Front Yazd shall be Range Line Road (if [he property is located on Range
Line Road) or the street with the greatest traffic.
iv. Side and Rear Yazd Setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) fee[ from the property line.
c. Lot Dimensions and Covemee.
i. Existing lot dimensions as originally platted shall be acceptable.
ii. Minimum lot width.
(a) Single-family Residential: Fifty (50) feet.
(b) All Other Uses: Sixty (60) feet.
iii. Maximum Lot Covemee.
(a) Single-family Residential: Forty-five (45%) of the area of the Lot
(b) All Other Uses: Seventy percent (70%) of [he area of [he Lot.
iv. No lot may be created by Subdivision or by joining which results in a width of greater than ninety (90)
fee[.
d. Gamees.
i. All new garages must be either:
(a) Detached buildings [hat are sited at least five (5) feet behind the Principal Building or
(b) Attached to the Principal Building so that the front face of the garage is a[ least fifteen (15) feet
further from the Front Lot Line than the primary front line of the Principal Building. New attached
garages on Comer Lots should be oriented to the side street, rather than to Range Line Road.
ii. New detached or attached garages and other Accessory Buildings should use exterior materials similar to
• the Principal Building.
iii. Coveted walkways attaching the garage to the Principal Building aze allowed.
e. Landscape and Liehtina.
i. A paved walkway fiom the porch or front door [o the front sidewalk is required.
ii. The remaining Front Yard of all buildings will be maintained with a groomed Sandscape of low shmbs,
ground cover, trees, flowers and/or grass.
iii. Exterior lighting is restricted to lamps mounted on the building seven-foot (T) maximum-height pole-
mounted decorative lights, and low-wattage landscape lighting.
iv. Fences greater than thirty-six (36) inches tall are not allowed forward of the Front Line of the Principal
Building.
v. Vinyl covered chain-link material is allowed in the Front Yard except on those properties which front on
Range Line Road. For properties fronting on Range Line Road, chain-link material is prohibited forward of
the Front Line of the Principal Building.
vi. Dumpsters and trash receptacle must be screened from view.
f. Parkine and Drivewavs.
i. Parking is no[ allowed in [he Front Yazd of any property, except on a driveway leading [o the garage.
ii. Driveways leading to the garage may no[ be wider than twelve (I2) feet, except within thirty (30) feet of
the front of the garage, where [he driveway may be up [o twenty-four (24) feet wide.
•
• iii. Parking spaces required to be provided under the Zoning Ordinance may be reduced by up to fifty
percent (50%) in order to accommodate difficult site conditions such as limited access, small lots and/or
existing ma[tue trees.
iv. New club cuts on Range Line Road will not be permitted unless there is no alternative access from a
side street.
g. Materials.
i. All sides of the Principal and Accessory Buildings must be clad in wood, brick, stone, concrete plank or
high-quality vinyl siding. The same material must be used on all sides of the building.
ii. New garages and other Accessory Buildings shall use exterior materials similaz to the Principal Building.
iii. Windows and trim must be framed in wood or vinyl-clad wood.
iv. Visible aluminum storm windows or doors aze not allowed.
v. Chimneys aze to be brick.
vi. Exterior guardrails, handrails and other stair details may be wood or wrought iron.
vii. Roofs aze to be asphalt, wood or slate shingles.
vui. Foundations must besplit-face block, stone veneer or poured-in-place concrete.
h. Windows. Doors.
i. Vertical, rectangular double-hung or casement windows are required. These may be used in multiple sets
to create larger expanses of window azea.
• ii. Plate-glass picture windows, strip windows and arched windows are not allowed on the front facade.
iii. Special windows are allowed (ovals, hexagon, etc.) as accents.
i. Roof.
i. The roof of the Principal Building and Accessory Buildings shall be gabled, multi-gabled, or hipped, with
a minimum pitch of eight to twelve (R:12).
ii. A roof over a porch or bay window may be flat or pitched.
j. Porches.
i. Covered porches facing the street on [he first or upper floor of the stmcture are strongly encouraged but
not required.
ii. Uncovered decks are not allowed in the front yard.
k. Buildin He eight.
i. Minimum: Thirteen (13) fee[ to the midpoint of the cornice and the ridgeline.
ii. Maximum: Thirty (30) feet to the midpoint of the cornice and the ridgeline, except as provided in 7(c).
u
n
LJ
• •
Blackwell Park -Concept Elevation
Blackwell Park -Concept Elevation
• •
Blackwell Park -Concept Elevation
~-
t
4
~~~ ~~~,,~~
4Y9~ r ,~~ ~ ~6s
~ ~
t ~
~ ~ Lx a
-~ Pa~~~~_~"°' ~ : Via..
C7
U
• CARMEL/CLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CARMEL, INDIANA
Docket No.: 09030007 V Section 8.04.02.0 Reduction of minimum lot area
Petitioner: Justin Moffett
FINDINGS OF FACT • DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community because:
The proposed plan is an obvious continuation of existing development in Old Town
Carmel. The developer has agreed to preserve adequate green space and comply with
new construction architectural guidelines found in ZO Ch. 23 Old Town District Overlay
Zone.
2. 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:
The value of the proposed homes will be substantially higher than surrounding homes.
However, the home styles and lot sizes will be similar.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because:
• Following the R-2 zoning standards will result in new platted lots that do not conform to
surrounding homes and lot sizes. Also, the developer will have less ability to preserve
green space using the R-2 standards.
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Development
Standards Variance Docket No. 09030007 V is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of
this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Adopted this 27th day of April, 2009.
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Conditions of the Board are listed on the back. (Petitioner or his representative to sign).
C J
CARMEL/CLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CARMEL, INDIANA
Docket No.: 09030008 V Section 8.04.03.A Reduction in minimum front yard setback
Petitioner: Justin Moffett
FINDINGS OF FACT -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community because:
The proposed plan is an obvious continuation of existing development in Old Town
Carmel. The developer has agreed to preserve adequate green space and comply with
new construction architecture{ guidelines found in ZO Ch. 23 Old Town District Overlay
Zone.
2. 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:
The value of the proposed homes will be substantially higher than surrounding homes.
However, the home styles and lot sizes will be similar.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because:
• Following the R-2 zoning standards will result in new platted lots that do not conform to
surrounding homes and lot sizes. Also, the developer will have less ability to preserve
green space using the R-2 standards.
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Development
Standards Variance Docket No. 09030008 V is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of
this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Adopted this 27th day of April, 2009.
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Conditions of the Board are listed on the back. (Petitioner or his representative to sign).
•
• CARMEL/CLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CARMEL, INDIANA
Docket No.: 09030009 V Section 8.04.03.E Reduction in minimum lot width
Petitioner: Justin Moffett
FINDINGS OF FACT -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community because:
The proposed plan is an obvious continuation of existing development in Old Town
Carmel. The developer has agreed to preserve adequate green space and comply with
new construction architectural guidelines found in ZO Ch. 23 Old Town District Overlay
Zone.
2. The use and value of the area atljacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner because:
The value of the proposed homes will be substantially higher than surrounding homes
However, the home styles and lot sizes will be similar.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because:
Following the R-2 zoning standards will result in new platted lots that do not conform to
surrounding homes and lot sizes. Also, the developer will have less ability to preserve
green space using the R-2 standards.
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Development
Standards Variance Dockef No. 09030009 V is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of
this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Adopted this 27th day of April, 2009.
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Conditions of the Board are listed on the back. (Petitioner or his representative to sign).
• CARMELICLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CARMEL, INDIANA
Docket No.: 09090010 V Section 8.04.03.E Increase in maximum lot coverage
Petitioner: Justin Moffett
FINDINGS OF FACT -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community because:
The proposed plan is an obvious continuation of existing development in Old Town
Carmel. The developer has agreed to preserve adequate green space and comply with
new construction architectural guidelines found in ZO Ch. 23 Old Town District Overlay
Zone.
2. 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:
The value of the proposed homes will be substantially higher than surrounding homes.
However, the home styles and lot sizes will be similar.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because:
• Following the R-2 zoning standards will result in new platted lots that do not conform to
surrounding homes and lot sizes. Also, the developer will have less ability to preserve
green space using the R-2 standards.
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Development
Standards Variance Docket No. 09090010 V is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of
this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Adopted this 27th day of April, 2009.
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Conditions of the Board are listed on the back. (Petitioner or his representative to sign).
•