HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 02-25-13 •
9zd f�P�n�* City of
,,t_N.,A,
MINUTES
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Monday, February 25, 2013
6:00 PM
Council Chambers, Carmel City Hall
Present: James Hawkins, President
Leo Dierckman
Alan Potasnik
Ephraim Wilfong
Earlene Plavchak(Absent)
Connie Tingley, Recording Secretary
Staff members in attendance: Alexia Donahue Wold,Planning Administrator
Mike Hollibaugh, Director,Department of Community Services
Legal Counsel: John Molitor
Previous Minutes:
On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Leo Dierckman:
The Minutes for the meeting dated January 29,2013 were approved as circulated.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Department Report: Alexia Donahue Wold
• Update Tom Wood Use Variance
o Still in process of recording Commitments
® Working on Maintenance Agreement for Day Drive with neighbors
- • Reminder to RSVP to annual workshop on March 9`h
Legal Report:John Molitor
• Still do not have ruling from Judge in pending litigation involving Bowen property
o Will discuss with other attorneys involved to see if there is anything that can be done to move the
Judge along
• Conversation with couple members of the Board
o Hearing tonight involves public interest
o Under State Law, members of the public are not allowed to have contact with the Board
members in advance of the hearing
® No phone calls or letters directly to the members
® All input should be submitted to the Staff to be forwarded to the Board
• Sent to Board with packets or late material submitted at Board meeting
WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV Page 1 of 11 (317)571-2417
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2013
• This insures fair and equitable hearing for all sides
• All members receive same material
o With only four members present, a 2-2 vote would be carried over to next month
Public Hearing
1-2. TABLED INDEFINITELY: (V) Greyhound Commons—Signage.
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 12070014 V PUD Z-344,Section 11.3 (C) (1): Number of signs (2 additional proposed, 1
existing allowed)
Docket No. 12070015 V PUD Z-344,Section 11.3 (C) (3): Ground sign height(20+1-proposed, 10'
allowed).
The site is located at 14480 Lowes Way. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development. Filed by Joy Skidmore of
Kite Realty Group.
3. (V) 1631 W Main St,Rear yard setback
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance for a new home.
Docket No. 13010008 V ZO Ch. 5.04.03 Rear yard setback
The site is located at 1631 W Main Street. It is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Joe Garcia on behalf of the
owners,Andrew and Laurel Schneider.
Present for the Petitioner:
Andrew and Laurel Schneider, owners
e PowerPoint pictures of property shown
• Have enjoyed meeting neighbors and understand they have different position
• Variance for rear setback for property
® Purchased this property because of tree allee leading to beautiful white house
o Lot of thought to placement of 75 year old house and tree plantings
o Character of property lured them
o Unique property with lot of character and value to Carmel
o Picture of house and existing infrastructure shown
• Driveway specifically located for 100+ year old trees and next to allee
• Driveway circles around fountain
• Look through allee of trees from front of house
• Two large spruce trees frame house
• First planned to remodel house and garage
o Three months and three contractors
o Garage placed on property line
o House vacant for three years
▪ Three feet of water in basement
• Pumped out, but flooded again
• Three layers of shingles on front
• Sinking foundation
• All doorways on second floor were crooked
• Remnants of animals
• Mold from flooding
• Decided to tear down the house
Page 2 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2013
• To protect the character of the property, house designed to look like original
o Same architecture
o White colonial with four pillars
• Same location to view tree allee and framed by two spruces
o Salvaging barn beams to be used as exposed ceiling beams
o Original door knocker
o Brass door knobs .
o Goal to look like original 75 year old home
o To protect character of property, buildings need to be placed in same locations
• If house is moved further, it would be in tree allee
• Trees would need to be removed
• Able to use raised driveway
• Plan to refurbish 50+ year old fountain in circle driveway
• Plan to keep garage in original location (before new surrounding homes were constructed)
• New garage will be one foot further north (one foot off property line)
• Landscape buffer; dense vegetation with pine and spruce trees planted for privacy
o Garage is not visible
o Sixteen foot utility easement behind house on neighbor's property provides buffer
o Believe variance will protect character of property and not harm neighbors
• Believe conditions for variance have been met
• Placement of garage is not injurious to public health, safety and welfare
o New garage is set back further from property line than original.75 year old garage
o Location protects existing dense landscape buffer
o Use and value of adjacent properties will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner
• Working hard to improve property that was vacant and neglected three years
o New structure matches previous structure
o Increase property values: landscaping and house
• Practical difficulties from strict application of Zoning Ordinance:
o Current infrastructure and trees limit where they can place house
• Property has grown into the house
• Want to use existing driveway and fountain
• Do not want to shift house into tree allee and garage into existing driveway with fountain
o Improving property good for property values
• Points have been supported by Department Report
• Met with neighbors and gave packet describing project
o At first had two neighbors onboard then rescinded
• Three neighbors behind them oppose project
• Met Friday with neighbors
• Main concern is privacy
o Offered privacy fence
o Offered landscaping to help buffer
IRemonstrance:
Mike Muller, Board member Springmill Streams HOA
• Neighborhood surrounds Schneider property on two sides
Page 3 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2013
• HOA was created to preserve, care and architectural control of residential lots and common areas of
Springmill Streams
• Welcome new neighbors and improvements as long as they meet architectural, legal, zoning and use
requirements.
• Believe request should be denied as there is no undue hardship or practical difficulties
• Believe there is opportunity for negotiations
o Friday's discussion included possible options
o On Sunday the Schneider's offer included a reduced setback
o Neighbors believe should be a "give" from each side
• A fence with building still on property line is not a "give"
• Department report states there is existing infrastructure
o No paved driveway; only gravel and mud (picture shown)
o No existing foundations; all have been removed
o Multiple mature trees
• Tallest tree on property will be removed
• One of nicest trees that serves as buffer
• Maintaining character of site
o Has been in disrepair for twenty years; vacant three years
o Not on historic registry, historic monuments or buildings
o Footprint of new house and garage is much larger
• Garage and patio almost three times the size
• House is now 13 feet from property line
• Garage only one foot from property line
• Almost 80 feet of continuous building across back of site
• Drainage and utility buffer
o Easement on neighbor's property; not Schneider's
o Unaware of any precedent that allows one property owner to leverage the easement of another
property owner to mitigate impact of zoning variance
• Unfair to allow one property owner to obtain variance relying on neighbor to absorb full
impact
• Appears in Department Report that adjustments to plan would not be feasible; house could not be moved
o Beautiful property with many locations for house
o House could be turned 90 degrees
• Still fit in tree allee with garage behind it and meet all zoning requirements
o House no longer exists, so irrelevant as to how house could be moved
• Free-reign and flexibility for house placement to meet requirements
• Schneiders stated they spoke with each of the neighbors in early January
o Copy of letter sent/dropped off
• States house will be 23 feet from property line with stone courtyard behind
• Misrepresents plan submitted to Board of Zoning Appeals
• House is 13 feet from property line
• Garage will be twice size and only foot off property line
o Footings only a foot from property line will probably encroach onto
neighbor's property
o Dispute how much time was spent with each neighbor
• Date on document for meeting is misrepresented as February 26
Page 4 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2013
• Improving property is right thing to do
o Plans are extremely well thought through
o Very good perspective on what they can do to help property and neighborhood
■ Value to Schneiders
• Could damage neighbors' properties
• Easement only 12 to 18 feet, not.50 feet of vegetative border as stated by Schneiders
o New construction will be detected by neighbors
• Trees planted 85 years ago are probably not 150 years old
• Schneiders did offer privacy fence
o Privacy fence may be an option if combined with other options and compromises
o Leaving building one foot from property line is not compromise
• Zoning and setback rules are in place for a reason
o Aerial shown of Springmill Stream
• None of the residences or accessory uses set on property-lines
• All have used their property without violating setback requirements
o Schneiders have over 3 acres to meet and accommodate requirements
o Encroachments reduce value of surrounding properties
• This would set precedent
o In any future case, expansion could be made on prior buildings along neighbors' properties and
be exempt from zoning requirements
• Precedent would not be consistent with expectations of neighbors
• HOA represents 150 homes
o Many expressed interest in this issue
Randy and Amy Woock, 686 Nottingham Ct.
• Their property, as well as the Millers and Telescos, are adjacent to Schneider property line for new
buildings
o Welcome Schneiders
o Not trying to prohibit size or style of home
o Object to placement near property line
• Privacy is diminished for all three families
o When they purchased their home 16 years ago, original house and garage were dilapidated
® Through discussions with previous owner, were unable to get changes made
® Believed at some future date, under new ownership, the buildings would be demolished
® Believed new location would adhere to current codes
• Will indicate errors in Schneider's January 5th packet and Department Report
o Three-acre lot is vacant except of an old fountain and out building on southwest corner on both
property lines
o Lot is 440 feet north to south
® No reason construction needs to extend to final twelve inches of southern property line
o January 5th packet state the proposed construction "puts our new house in existing footprint, prior
• home footprint and upgrading the structure"
• New garage is over two times size of old garage; 38 feet setting within one foot of
property line(18 feet wider)
• New house encompasses old house
• Twenty feet of courtyard within one foot of property line
Page 5 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25,2013
• Definitely not existing footprint
• None of this described in January 5th packet
• Packet states house will be 23 feet from property line
• Master bedroom addition, as well as twenty feet of courtyard, violates setbacks by
14 feet and 19 feet respectively
• Proposed construction will place 58 feet of garage and courtyard within one foot
of property line
• Nineteen feet of house within fourteen feet
• In addition, 24-foot storage building
• Total 101 feet along property line
• Healthy spruce to be removed for master bedroom
o Request'filings and Department Report state privacy for southern neighbors is maintained by a
"mature tree line and existing vegetative buffer"
• Findings of Fact reference dense landscape buffer
• Pictures shown of buffer
• Inadequate privacy provided by southern neighbors (Millers)
• Schneiders are providing no privacy
o Request filings and Department Report state three major building constraints
• "Leveraging existing infrastructure"
• Preserve "existing driveway"
• Preserve mature trees that add character to property
• Building site shown from all sides
• No existing infrastructure of consequence
o No basement, home foundation, or garage foundations
o Easily moveable fountain
o Old storage building
o Driveway is dirt path running part way from Main Street
• No concrete; asphalt, brick or cobblestone,just dirt
• New driveway could be positioned in numerous ways
o Just two trees at north end of building site
• Lot has over 45 mature trees
• Loss of two trees will not affect character of property
• Eighteen mature trees in allee of trees
• Sixteen mature trees will not affect character
• Plenty of room at north end of property for four more trees in allee
• Schneiders want to save two mature trees, but are removing
healthy, mature, older and taller spruce for construction of master
bedroom
• If these two trees were removed, entire proposed layout could
move north and be in compliance with setback
• Save spruce in master bedroom area
• View as 100 year decision which would outlast everyone present as well as two trees to north
Eric Miller, 672 Nottingham Court, directly south of Schneiders
• Their property and family directly affected by request
o Chose their property and house in 2011 because of lot with natural privacy in backyard
Page 6 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25,2013
o Aware of property to north with existing vacant house in an estate
• Expected property would sell and be improved
• Expected new owners would adhere to setbacks and improve privacy
• Original house was 47.5 feet from west to east
• New construction is 93 feet west to east, nearly double
• Accounts for two-thirds of Miller property width from west to east
o Eighty feet near or on property line
o Miller easement does provide some level of coverage in summer months
• Provides little to no coverage in Fall, Winter and early Spring
• By building so close to property line, Schneiders not taking responsibility for providing
privacy or barrier
• By building on or within one foot of property line, they do not have ability to provide
buffer .
• Severe slope into easement/ditch
• With twelve inches from property line, what becomes vulnerable on his property during
construction?
• Is construction possible without coming onto Miller property?
• Can structure be maintained without coming onto Miller property?
o See no undue hardships that this must be done
Rebuttal:
Andrew Schneider
o Appreciates neighbors' concerns
o Elevated gravel driveway base leads from front of property to back
o Concrete entrance from street
o Some concrete has been dug up
o Path paved around trees where driveway would go to coincide with circular fountain
o Tree to be removed for master bedroom is not healthiest tree
o Picture shown
o Half dead
o Even if house moved north; liability to home
o Not in tree all&e
o Understand privacy concern
o All their Springmill Stream properties were purchased with an existing structure on property line
for twenty-five years
o Pine and spruce trees in vegetation/buffer
• Not as much coverage in Winter; very dense in Summer
o Had proposed fence and additional landscaping
o Hardships:
o Not a cornfield with eight different places for house
• House was placed in a position for a reason
a Property has grown into house
® Are not any other locations without severely affecting look of property from Main Street
m Best interest for property value and City to keep house where it has been for 75 years
• Maintain tree allee for view from Main Street
o Department Report mentioned at least three feet from utilities for work in easement
Page 7 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25,2013
o Willing to move structure three feet north
• Allow room for work in easement
Room to plant vegetation for privacy (hedge or fence)
• Offer to landscape on their property and Miller property
Public Hearing closed
Department Report:
Alexia Donahue Wold
• Garage will be one foot from rear property line
• House will be thirteen feet from rear property line
• Petitioner working within existing physical constraints on site
o Numerous mature trees restrict location of new house
o • Existing infrastructure. . . •.•
• Driveway, fountain, utilities (water, sewer)
• New two-story home will have similar style of architecture
o Will not change character of site
o Will increase property values
• Existing vegetative buffer to south does include drainage and utility easement
o Help screen new home and garage
o On Miller property
• Proposed new home in approximately same location as previous home
• Existing trees and buffer will be preserved
• New home should improve lot and should not have negative effect on surrounding properties or
community
Department supportive of variance
Discussion:
Looked at footprint of property provided by neighbors
Joe Garcia, G &G Custom Homes,joined Andrew Schneider for Discussion with Board members
• Did not have exact dimensions of old structure
o Increasing from two-car to three-car garage
• Independent building further west will remain for additional storage
o Upgrade with paint, new roof, garage doors and windows
• Patio did exist on property line; patio will remain
• New house only 13 feet from property line; master bedroom juts back
o Existing house was within twenty-foot setback
o Patios/pavement can be up to property line
o Old house was against old garage
o Could barely fit car in old garage
• Linear structures along south property will double from 45 feet to 90 feet
o Even if it complied with setback, could still have structure that long
• Fountain still exists and will be refurbished
o Water line and pump remain
• Only two structures still exist from the original four (storage building and fountain)
Page 8 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25,2013
o Foundations from original house and garage have been removed
o Do not add to constraints for location of buildings
o If house shifted, fountain and circular driveway will need to be shift
o Driveway is concrete, elevated path from entrance on Main Street
o Elevated drive to circular driveway
o Will be new asphalt on existing elevated base
o Completely new driveway would need new base
® Two mature trees due north of proposed building and mature tree in master bedroom area are in
immediate proximity of new construction
o Sycamore tree near fountain would be affected if construction shifted north
o Mature trees are part of infrastructure causing physical constraints
o If re-using foundations, then new construction would be same as previous buildings
o New construction doubles linear feet of previous buildings ,
o Did not try to use one wall of the garage and call the project a.rem odel that was "grandfathered"
o Garage is one car garage bigger to west
o Moving three feet north will allow them to keep current infrastructure and add buffer
® Sixteen feet vegetation buffer behind them
o Location of sycamore tree near fountain was indicated
o Moving everything twenty feet north pushes house into tree allee
o Two spruce trees would be removed
o Circular driveway could not be used for garage
o Vegetation buffer behind house has been there for twenty-five years
® Willing to move three feet off existing property line
o Put in 6-foot wooden privacy fence
o High hedge will be installed behind patio
o Could also install hedge behind garage
o Neighbors did not state type of fence
▪ Trying to make neighbors happy
® Will comply with Ordinance for fence
o Staff had visited lot with Urban Forester
o Drove into driveway to look at buffer, existing conditions and tree allee
e City tries to bring things into compliance
o House and garage no longer exist
o Driveway is dirt path
o Variance process is for hardships on site
o Could house be built on site by making adjustments?
▪ Staff had not looked at possibility of turning house
▪ Site is heavily planted with trees
▪ Limited to location of house
® Had ask Petitioner to possibly reduce size of house
o Property has not been characterized as unique or important on Comprehensive Plan or History of
Carmel
o Houses in Springmill Streams comply with setbacks of Ordinance
o Foot is probably too close to property line to not damage adjoining property during construction
o Typical over-dig on nine-foot basement foundation is three feet
o Garage on slab foundation and only needs one foot
Page 9 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25,2013
• Three feet off property line will not affect other property
• Board members were struggling with property
o Might be best to talk with neighbors for mutually agreeable plan
o Understand trying to maintain integrity of original layout
o Buildings were torn down before variance process
• Different case for Board members when there is a pre-existing condition
• Could not pull building permits until buildings were demolished
• Not aware of 20-foot setback until permit process
• Structures were already gone
• New garage is detached, but attached by roof
o Detached garage requires 5-foot setback
o At three feet from property line, variance for two feet
o Privacy issue comes in with living space
• Original home was within setback •
• Garage barely deep enough for car
• House was off front of garage
• Original garage was actually one foot over property line
o Fountain in circular driveway would be impacted from moving everything forward/north
• Moving additional three feet would allow them to keep unique property
• Three feet would shift garage and house further north without having to remove two trees
o Remaining building in back is one foot over property line
• It will be remodeled; "grandfathered"
• Buildings were miss-measured by a surveyor
o Trying to repeat original setting
o Five-foot detached garage would not require variance or fence
• Only attached by roof
o Moving everything forward/north by three feet would make house 16 feet from property line
• Only four feet from twenty-foot setback
• Trees and privacy fence would be added
• Variance covers house and garage
• Attached garage is considered part of principle structure
• Possible Commitment for only landscaping and fencing
o Board suggested talking with neighbors and tabling to next month's meeting
• Need three positive votes to pass (only four members present)
• Six months before they could apply for same variance if negative votes
• Two to two vote is not a decision and would require variance carried over to next
• month's meeting
o Budget already included wrought iron fence which would be changed to privacy fence
o Tabling would allow Petitioner to work with neighbors for compromise
Action: Docket No. 13010008 V, 1631 W. Main Street, Rear Yard setback, was Tabled to the March 25, 2013
Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Mr. Molitor stated additional Public Notice would not be given, as the
meeting date and time were announced at this meeting. Public Hearing is closed, although Board would have
the right to re-open it to take additional testimony. Department will send tape to Mrs. Plavchak so she will be
eligible to vote.
Page 10 of 11
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
February 25, 2013
Adjournment
IMotion: On a motion made by James Hawkins and seconded by Ephraim Wilfong:
The Meeting be adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Approved this ?/-3 day of / t'C'i'"1 20 1Z
g '
A.— ■
- /
Pr:�ident-James R. Hawkins Secretary - Co/ie v gley
I
Filename:2.25.2013 regular meeting.doc
Page 11 of 11