HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 03-25-13CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
MARCH 25, 2013
I. Old Business
1. (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- ]/Residence. Filed by Joe Garcia on behalf of
the owners, Andrew and Laurel Schneider.
General Info:
The Petitioner requests Variance approval to
construct a new home and attached garage that
will be closer than 20 feet to the rear property
line. The garage is proposed to be 1 foot from
the rear property line and the house will be
about 12.5 feet from the rear property line. The
site is located on Main Street, west of
Springmill Rd. and is about 2.7 acres.
Surrounding the site is single family residential
with an existing subdivision to the south and
east. Please see the petitioner's information
packet for more details.
Analysis:
This petition was heard at the February BZA
meeting and continued to the March meeting to
give time for the petitioners and the neighbors
to agree on a compromise. While discussions
have been taking place, the department is not
aware of any final compromise or proposed
changes to the site plan.
The proposed garage is attached to the house and considered a part of the principal building; therefore it is required to
meet the minimum 20 feet setback. However. detached garages, which are 10 feet from the principal building, are
permitted to be only 5 feet from a side or rear property line. The closest point on the actual house will be about 12 feet
from the rear property line. According to the demo plan that was submitted for this property when the original house was
torn down, the previous home was setback 24 feet from the rear property line.
This parcel is about 2.7 acres; however the petitioner is working within existing physical constraints to the site. There are
numerous mature trees on site that restrict the location of the new home because the petitioner would like to preserve
these trees. There is also existing infrastructure on site; including an existing driveway that served the previous home, as
well as sewer, water, and utility lines. Due to these constraints, the petitioner would like to locate the new house in
approximately the same location as the old house.
The new house will be larger than the old house, however, it will have a similar style of architecture and will only be two
stories as was the previous home. It will not change the character of the site and should only increase property values as
the new owners are making many improvements. An existing vegetative buffer exists south of this property in an existing
drainage and utility easement and will help screen the new home and garage. Privacy should not be affected by the new
house and garage as the garage has no windows facing the neighbors to the south and the part of the home that is closest
to the rear property line does not have any windows facing south either. Also, the existing houses to the south are setback
over 125 feet from the adjoining northern property line.
9
The Department understands the neighboring property owners are not in favor of this variance. Some adjustments the
petitioner might consider are: reducing the size of the house a bit to better meet the setback and adjusting the garage so
that it would be at least 3 feet from the property line to help protect the existing easement.
The new home, while larger, is proposed in approximately the same location as the previous home which existed before
the subdivision and houses to the south were built. The new home will have a similar style of architecture, existing trees
will be preserved, an existing buffer is in place, and the new home should improve the lot, therefore this variance should
not have a negative effect on surrounding properties or the community. DOCS is supportive of the Variance as there are
unique circumstances that exist with this lot. See the Petitioner's findings of fact below.
Petitioner's Findings of Fact:
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
the community because:
• Leverages existing infrastructure of prior residence.
• The new garage is set back further from the property line of the original garage that had been there 60 years.
• Nothing about the location of the garage creates a public safety concern.
• This location protects the existing, dense landscape buffer between the garage and the neighbors to the south.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variances will not be affected in a
substantially adverse manner because:
• Prior home was a vacant, run down home. We are working hard to improve the property and increase its
value. Prior home was vacant and dilapidated.
• There is no significant impact to the neighbors. The buildings are basically in the same location as before.
• Leverages prior home footprint and location — The encroachment into the rear setback will be undetected by
the homes closest to the garage due to the dense landscaping.
• The character of the property is important to its value.
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:
• There are many features of the site like the tree allee, the circular drive, the fountain, and all the other trees on
the property that give character and add value to the property.
• Strict adherence to the zoning ordinance would require us to shift the new garage and house north into the tree
allee, circular driveway and fountain.
• Doing so also places the new buildings close to other mature trees greatly increasing their risk of being
damaged during the construction process.
• This harms the character and value of the property and is a high price to pay compared to keeping the
buildings where they have been for the past 60+ years.
Recommendation:
After all comments and concerns have been addressed, the Dept. of Community Services recommends positive
consideration of Docket No. 13010008 V.
10