HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 02-25-13 CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
FEBRUARY 25,2013
3. (V) 1631 W Main St,Rear y 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.
General Info:
,,.te _ „� The Petitioner requests Variance approval to inill
,�, , E , ;* construct a new home and attached garage that
{ ;. will be closer than 20 feet to the rear property
, a, , '+���$ py* � -' „ , N' . _ t line. The garage will be 1 foot from the rear
HN, ,,t �� y, L� s ' property line and the house will be about 12.5
dye, t., e'''114'.4"P-4i..'!",'7% r ,r xx r n C. d 1 '
r ;i ' , ' , -4 i `� *,ri feet from the rear property line. The site is
w fi'�` a :L ', , ' ' ` '' p '- ' located on Main Street,west of Springmill Rd.
rAt
�� v��.'",'`.. ''4 ' �� . , .4 .',; '1`,, , r� " * and is about 2.7 acres. Surrounding the site is
��; �� �� < ,,fir , I a, ' t single family residential with an existing
nd 4 . v�-4 i:,- e, = `,, . subdivision to the south and east. Please see
;11 } ¢r } 1.,�3 G A y the petitioner's information packet for more
��(v,y�4 �r q N � � T' 1� �l �¢+k... Fb$ 's+ t if -✓
y"t t� kZ t . .'! r;Nt ig it � r details
Si'7 If 'k� �a ,apt uy''' ct a. !3 f" i �#F, ?�v� rp
a,A;;.
z
��E�r+.i?"°':.� .�t�:�a[°�tA , wis,, , ''�` . ��'�s����'tvr�r,,;,x.�r�� k x Analyses:
A '` T3.1 9, " ' , "� 4h •V The proposed garage is attached to the house%' x r � a 4 ,, and considered a part of the principal building;
k" *' yyy } '''".47=1,7;`i f ��� therefore it is required to meet the minimum 20
' }. ' A'r�S fl FN ry' : f.3 y -v
V � ' i , t: feet setback. However,detached garages are
� ,1 `''� ''^ ./ ,/ �� permitted to be only 5 feet from a side or rear
„till . Fi.-
4, It _ property line. The closest point on the actual
'.` Z a .�c " " , 'f `¢ ' � ' .' house will be about 12 feet from the rear
1 4 s- $._ ,w` 3 u.. "' ,- ... yr ..,,i-'1,,,=A ,n: 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 the
trees. There is also existing infrastructure on site;including an existing driveway that served the previous home,which
was recently torn down. 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. The Department understands the
neighboring property owners are not in favor of this variance. Some adjustments the petitioner might consider are:
reducing the size 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 is proposed in approximately the same location as the previous home with 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. See the Petitioner's findings of fact below.
2
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.
3