Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket 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 we are finishing out a residential duplex neighborhood with a detached home. The variances we are requesting will greatly improve the ability to build a marketable home on the property. We are planning to build with the long -term in mind, making the home ADA compliant so that we can age -in -place and using 1CF to make the home more energy efficient. 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 intent is to build a home that will be similar to the neighbors built in such a way that available space can be maximized. The 5' side yard variance request on the north end of the property should not affect the neighbor to the north, as that side of the property is adjacent to apartment carports, a maintenance facility, and a pool, and these are on a different grade than 239 Legacy. We are also applying for a side yard variance so that we can center the house on the 29.67' wide lot. In discussing an ICF build, we were informed that the builder would need 2' per side to waterproof a basement. Moving the build to the center of the lot would allow for that to be done. It would also benefit the neighbor to the south, 235 Legacy Lane. As it stands now, there is only a 1' easement in place on the southern edge of the property. If we are able to center the house, it will give us at least an additional 1' of leeway on the south end, which would be beneficial both to us and to the neighbors at 235 Legacy. 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 the property does not currently meet Zoning requirements. When Lot 6 was split in two, the 29.67' width property was in violation of the applicable 1993 R -4 Zoning Ordinance requiring 50' lot width. Current R -4 Zoning requires 60' lot width. Current regulations, especially the 15' side yard aggregate, would leave 14.67' buildable width. if we were to ignore the aggregate, the 5' side yard standard would leave 23' buildable on the lot this is not enough to include a two -car garage (which is standard for the neighborhood) and a front door on the west end of the property facing the road. The 5' side yard in its current location to the north of the lot is also not adding benefit to the neighborhood. as can be seen by the mirror property to the west on Heritage Lane. The 5' side yard on that property is difficult to see from the road. and forces the in elevation; also, access to the "front" door would be unable to be seen from the road. This would be unsafe, especially for young children. This is why we would like to have 25' buildable on the lot, so that the front door can he placed next to the garage door on the west side of the property, making the door accessible, visible, and safe. The request for the front yard variance is so that there is the ability to construct a full basement without damaging 235 Legacy. In speaking with Crane Builders, which deals exclusively with ICF builds, the owner suggested not digging a basement any closer than 5 -8 feet from slab flooring any neighbors may have, such as in a garage. Pushing forward on Lot 6A will allow builders to steer well clear of the slab -floor garage of 235 Legacy while still allowing us.to meet local covenants requiring 700 sq. ft. of living space on the first floor, in addition to a neighborhood- standard 2 car garage. It would also maximize space in the back yard, which would be beneficial to the value of the home. This brings us to the last variance request, which is regarding 35% lot coverage. It is almost impossible to meet the 35% lot coverage requirement. The plat lists the square footage of the lot at 4808 sq. ft. 35% lot coverage would be 1682 sq. ft. By adding up the current requirements, you can see the difficulty. 700 sq. ft. min. first floor living space +400 sq. ft. 2 car garage equals 1100 sq. ft. total house coverage +228 sq. ft. sidewalk requirement (76' frontage, 3' wide sidewalk) equals 1328 sq. ft. house plus required sidewalk coverage. This leaves 354 sq. ft. remaining lot coverage available, which is a 20 ft. wide by 17 ft. long driveway not long enough to reach the street from the garage. Application questions: 7. State explanation of requested Development Standards Variance: (State what you want to do and cite the section number(s) of the Carmel /Clay Zoning Ordinance that applies and /or creates the need for this request). I would like to build a residence on this property. Current Zoning regulations for an R -4 Residence District make this extremely difficult due to the extremely small size of the lot. The lot is already in violation of the R -4 Minimum Lot Width requirement (10.04.03 E) of 60 feet by being only 29.67' wide. This requires filing to request variances for the following regulations: 10.04.03 Minimum Lot Standards A. Minimum Front Yard: 30 feet B. Minimum Side Yard: 5 feet C. Minimum Aggregate Side Yard: 15 feet F. Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% of lot 8. State reasons supporting the Development Standards Variance: (Additionally, complete the attached question sheet entitled: "Findings of Fact Development Standards Variance'). Lot 6A was originally part of a larger lot Lot 6. As with the rest of the neighborhood, the intention was to build two duplex homes on Lot 6, utilizing the 1993 R -4 regulations for two- family dwellings. From what I am able to piece together, the builder built the south duplex on Lot 6, and went out of business before building the north duplex on Lot 6. It was then split into two properties, Lot 6A and Lot 6B. The approval of this split in 2005 caused Lot 6A to be in violation of the then active 1993 R -4 regulations requiring a 50' lot width. In the intervening years, there has not been a property built on this lot due to the difficulties in meeting the R -4 Zoning requirements. That is the reason for the requested variances.