HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional Information One and one half -story house A one -story house having a loft space between the ceiling
of the first floor and the roof directly above; windows in the gable -end walls and/or dormers
provide light and ventilation in this loft space, providing the additional half story.
To define a 1 -1/2 story, you really need to pay attention to the roofline and upstairs
windows. If the home has dormers, or gable ends that include windows, than by definition it
is a 1 -1/2 story. In other words, there is a loft area, or living space between the ceiling of the
first story and the roofline.
Most one and a half story house plans have the master bedroom on the main floor with the
children's or guest bedrooms on the second floor. Usually, the main floor contains the
living/family room, kitchen, dining area, and powder room. The upper level would
accommodate the "sleeping quarters
In a traditional 2 story home, you will have full foot or taller walls throughout
the entire floor. Ceilings may still contain details such as trey, vault or cathedral, but will
not be lower at any point than .8 feet. This is not typical of the story and a half plan. Here
you can expect to see sloped ceilings, many times reaching a height of four feet, or
lower. The benefits to this plan can be extensive, but will typically include many areas of
potential storage. Often times these areas will be accessible without stairs.
One area to consider in placing value to these types of plans is square footage. Although
rather easy to calculate on a 2 story home, it is quite different on a 1 -1/2 story plan.
A popular use of the half story's in the 1 -1/2 story Cape Cod. The full, lower floor has the
main living space rooms of the house, and a bedroom and bathroom. The upper level isn't a
complete story. In essence, the half story's a livable attic that's finished into one or more
bed and bath rooms, or left unfinished as storage space. It tends to have less floor space,
and lower ceilings. In fact, the ceiling -floor height changes. Built under the roof and
therefore like the roof, it slopes downward to the walls. So adults may not even be
able to stand up straight in places.
c6\ l-ed Pa k Mc
main level square footage that might attract an older buyer, which they thought would be
desirable.
The only adjustment that would be made to our development standards variance petition
would be that the minimum lot width request would change from the previously proposed fifty
feet (50') to the agreed upon fifty -eight (58').
Finally, regarding the low, wet spot on the site, we've attached a few pages that explain this
further. Alt Wittig confirmed the presence of hydric soil and plants which indicate a wetland
area. This is outlined in the map and letter provided by Alt Witzig. They explain that because it
would be considered an isolated`wetland and that it is less than .25 acre in size (.144 acres as
shown) it would not be regulated by the local, state, or federal government and would be
usable for development.
!hope that this information will answer the remaining questions that you have and twill look
forward to addressing further questions at the next hearing.
The Variances Requested:
0 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 Sec tion 230.03.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 -eight (58) feet. (Reference Overlay Section 23D.03.C.3.c.ii.a.)
Section 8.04.03.E Maximum Lot Coverage: Applicant seeks to change the maximum lot
0 overage for from thirty five percent (35 to forty five percent (45%). (Reference Overlay
S ection 23D.03.C.3.c.iii.a.)
We look forward to presenting this matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals at its May 18, 2009
hearing.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Moffett
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2009
o Some discussion for mediation
o Could lead to mediation without BZA involvement
o No objection from Mr. Lewis for tabling
o Recommend tabling until something to report on behalf of Plan Commission
Leo Dierckman and. Madeleine Totres recused for this matter in any BZA Hearing
Motion:
On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Kent Broach:
Docket No. 09020014 V, 646 Johnson Drive Appeal, would be tabled to the June 22, 2009
meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
(3 -0 Dierckman Torres abstained)
Action:
Mr. Molitor recommended re-ordering agenda to hear Item 2 -5h, Blackwell Park at the beginning of
the Agenda for the large amount of public in attendance
Motion:
On a motion made by Leo Dierckman and seconded by Madeleine Torres
The agenda to be re- ordered with Item 2 -5h, Docket Nos. 0903007, Blackwell Park heard
first.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Public Hearing Old Business:
2 -5h. Blackwell Park
The applicant seeks the following development standards variances for eight parcels:
Docket 09030007 V Section 8.04.02.D Reduction of minimum lot area
.4. Docket 09030008 V Section 8.04.03.A Reduction in minimum front yard setback
Docket 09030009 V Section 8.04.03.E Reduction in minimum lot width
Docket 09030010 V Section 8.04.03.F Increase in maximum lot coverage
The sites are located at 3` Street NE and are zoned R2. They are not in the Old Town Overlay District.
Filed by Justin Moffett.
Present for the Petitioner:
Justin Moffett, behalf of himself and Jeff Langston, Heartwood Custom Homes
o Recap
o 2.7 acres
o Strict application of R -2 not allow grid like development in harmony with neighboring
properties
o Commit to abide by Town Overlay for architecture (Chapter 23)
o Old Town Overlay does not permit front -load garages
o Additional information requested at last meeting
o One: low spot wetland characteristics
Alt Witzig Engineering letter and map included in packets
o Plant and soil indicators that dictate wetland area
Size determines how a wetland is controlled
o Area is 6300 square feet or .144 acres
o Wetland is not regulated by State or Federal government under
quarter acre (.25)
Page 2 of 14
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2009
o Considered isolated wetland; not attached to existing body of
water
o Therefore, exempted and developable area
o Poor drainage from past development creates the situation
o Two: better communication with neighborhood group
a Key challenge was figuring out how to communicate with each other
a Met one week ago to talk through issues
a Sought feedback from presentations to group
Revised site plan
Homes with varying architectural styles
o No front loading garages
o Lot width
o Larger lot size for variation
a More main level square footage
Lowered rooflines
9 Worked with City to be contact sensitive
Q Lots 5 and 6 and existing platted southeast corner lot
o Full two -story would not be appropriate with neighboring houses
10 Make common area smaller and move proposed lot from west side to east side
of 3` Avenue
Enable 60 -foot or greater Tots on the east side of road
o Enable 58 -foot or greater lots on the west side of road
0 10 -foot buffer on north side of parcel
Storm water wouldtake .2 acres
o Half would be dry basin or vegetated basin
a Naturalistic and heavily planted
Will work with Engineering Department
Tonight's plan addresses changes
o Lot width from 50 to 58
f Positive meeting with neighborhood
o Not everyone fans, but would not remonstrate tonight
Favorable:
Laura Corry, 340 2 Avenue NE, neutral as spokesperson, Friends of Old Town
B Communication
o Letter from her in file
o Communicated with Justin Moffett several occasions
2 neighborhood meetings,
1 small group meeting
a Several individual meetings
Lot size study
o Study area: 3rd Street N, 1 Avenue E, Sylvan Lane West with 90 homes
65% have 70 -foot lots or greater
a 35% less than 70 -foot
o Revised site plan from meeting Monday, May 11 with Mr. Moffett
a Would not reduce number of homes from a budget standpoint
a Neighbors would like eclectic architectural mix of quality homes with various
prices and sizes
Page 3of14
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2009
a Drainage, traffic and buffers are major issues
a Mr. Moffett has not submitted new plans covering these issues
O How do Friends of Old Town hold Mr. Moffett accountable'?
Revised plans emailed to neighbors for feedback
o Revised plan agreeable to several who attended meeting
o Some do not believe he has met his hardship for variances
o Some want fewer homes
o Some do not feel compromise has been reached after dialogue
o Some concerned about loss of animal habitat
a Deer, fox, woodpeckers, owls
Linda Westerfeld, 441 2 Avenue NE
Several meetings before Justin invited
o Caused contention within group
o Two meetings, Justin has listened and tried to do the most he can
o For price of land, there was nothing he could do
a Would try to make homes amicable to the neighborhood
Remonstrance:
Brian Borlik, 145 Audubon. Drive
Caused perception of lack of communication
o Unable to attend meetings with Justin
Double whammy; smaller lot with more home on lot
Not in keeping with neighborhood
Transition area between R -2 and R -3
o 10 -foot buffer would not allow for preservation of mature trees
o 50 to 58 -foot lots is progress
o Just take one home out of the woods
a Less apprehension from neighbors
Price of property not a proven hardship
Bill Greenwood, 311 5 th St reet NE
Less houses would be better
Impact on animal life and surrounding houses
Great change to way of life
Brent Westerfeld, 241 tad Avenue NE, south of property
Agrees with previous speakers
e People buy houses in areas assuming zoning and development standards will not be varied
e Not extreme circumstances for variances; he wants to make a profit
Properties already platted
Concerned about existing mature trees; clear cut would make extreme change
Currently platted as transition to Old Town
Public Hearing closed.
Page4oft4
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2009
Rebuttal:
Justin Moffett
Appreciated Laura Corry's and other's time spent, and concern for neighborhood
o Old Town area does not include Sylvan Lane
o Large lots that change statistics
o Lot sizes in Old Town would reduce the statistics
o Sylvan Lane and Audubon Drive are meets and bounds areas; not gird areas like Old
Town
o Committed to eclectic group of homes; work with Planning Staff
o Change roof lines
o Varied elevations
Not a density bonus
O Consistent with R -2 density standards
o Drawing submitted of traditional R -2 subdivision platting requirements
o 80 -foot lot width
o Over 10,000 square feet
o Detention would be within the platted lots
o No common area
o Possible to develop with same number of lots
o Require front -load garages
o Not many trees preserved
o Cul -de -sac created
Felt compromised to better fit R -2 standards and Old Town Overlay
o Grid system with alley in back
Department Report
Christine Barton- Holmes
o Believes overall plan fits Old Town in general
o Variances meet Old Town Overlay standards
o Urge Petitioner to work with Urban Forester to preserve buffer around site and
individual large trees
o Commit to Old Town process and SDR process for variety
Department recommended positive consideration
Discussion:
Cul-de-sac plan not need variances
o Mr. Greenwood thought it might be okay
Except at back of properties close to his property line
Ground is low with drainage problems
Selling price forced 10 lots and division among neighbors
o Wetland of .144 acres is exempt
o Not difficult to build on
o Engineering study for green area/wetland
o Only platted with approved drainage plan
o Civil engineer will do final plans for drainage after approval process
o Low spot common in development; caused by grading in previous development
o Not best soil, but not unbuildable or unusable
Page 5 of 14
Carmel Board. of Zoning Appeals
May 18, 2009
e Common area would have naturalistic features instead of large swale pond
o Storage area shrunk within common area by oversized piper
o Larger pipe about same expense
e Northern lots 5 and 6 and existing southeast lot would have lower scale homes
e Statutory requirements for granting variance:
o Strict application creates hardship
o Ability to build without variances
o Neighbors concerned and affected by variances
o Not more or less expensive
e Hardships:
o Neighbors will not get look they want
Architecture not fit Old Town
Traditional R -2 will require front loading garages
e Lots lower in rear to handle detention
Three new homes neighbors do not like meet R -2 guidelines
o Front -load garages
Scale of houses
Development on 1 Avenue NW meets R -2 guidelines, but does not fit character
of Old Town
3 No common. area
Detention within easements on each lot
e Front -load garages
Vinyl -sided homes
Caused development of Old Town guidelines
Neighbors and City Planning Staff do not want homes that go with R -2
development
o Development with R -2 guidelines_
o Rear -load garages with drive, along side of house
o Detention in rear with swales
o Different grading plan
Proposal looks environmentally friendly
o Larger buffer from existing neighbors
o Open green area
o Aesthetically more pleasing
o Better fit for area
John Molitor clarified Development Standards hardship
o Confusion over hardship justifying a variance
According to City Ordinance and State law
o Strict application would result in practical difficulties in use'of the property
Not quite as high of a standard as proving a hardship
Practical difficulties may or may not be a hardship in some people's minds
Page 6 of 14