Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 04-22-13 Hearing Officer iv EEJq ( "�a � City of ar e �NDIANP MINUTES Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Monday, April 22, 2013 Meeting 5:30 p.m. Caucus Rooms, Carmel City Hall Present: Earlene Plavchak,Hearing Officer Connie Tingley, Recording Secretary Staff Members: Alexia Donahue-Wold, Planning Administrator Rachel Boone, Planning Administrator • Legal Counsel: John Molitor Public Hearing: I1. (V) Pete—Knight Pool, part of lots 17 &18 in Echo Crest Subdivision, Section 2. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval for a new pool: Docket No. 13030020 V ZO CH: 25.01.01B.3.a.ii Pool front yard setback on a corner lot. The site is located at 11107 Echo Crest Drive W. The site is zoned R-1/Residence. Filed by Marge Mikels with Pools of Fun, on behalf of the owners. Present for Petitioner: Randy Pete, owner and Marge Mikels,Pools of Fun • In-ground pool on south side of their home on a corner lot o Front of home faces Echo Crest • 16 by 32 pool is near house with landscaping o Plantings to block view from 111`" Street Public Hearing closed. Discussion: • Will not have fence • Will have automatic pool cover • Fence-for dog area only IDepartment Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold • Accessory uses are required to be setback 25 feet from the front o This will be in front of the 25 feet setback WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV Page 1 of 7 (317)571-2417 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting April 22,2013 o It will be 83 feet from 111h1 Street o Significant vegetation around the pool o Should not affect neighbors Department recommended positive consideration Action: Mrs. Plavchak APPROVED Docket No. 13030020 V,Pete-Knight Pool, for pool front yard setback on a corner lot. 2-3. (V) Bibeau Residence, 411 W Main St. The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals for a new home: Docket No. 13040007 V ZO CH: 8.04.03.A 35 ft Min font yard setback, 15 ft and 25 ft requested (corner lot) Docket No. 13040008 V ZO CH: 8.04.03.F 35% Max lot coverage, 50% requested The site is located at 411 W. Main Street and is zoned R-2/Residence. Filed by Justin Moffett with The Old Town Design Group. Present for Petitioner: Justin Moffett • New home on vacant lot o Client purchased lot last Fall • Existing gutted structure was demolished • Front yard setback was discussed for this intersection o Adjacent to Old Town Carmel • More traditional, family homes west of site • On compact roundabout • Townhomes across street with zero front yard setback • Single family residences to east, toward Monon, with shallow front yard setbacks • Twelve to twenty feet setbacks for residences to east o Discussion with Staff determined 15 feet front yard setback from edge of right-of-way • Based on layout of site, structure will probably set back a little further than 15 feet • Lot line is measured back of the sidewalk • Still additional space between the curb and the unit • Structure will be setback further than any of the other properties at the intersection • Setbacks relate to front yard and side yard along 4th Avenue SW • Maximum lot coverage will include structure and pool (43.5% lot coverage) o R-2 standard in underlying zoning is 35 % coverage o Pool makes up a majority of that overage o Notch taken out of corner of right-of-way for City's roundabout • If lot squared off, would be closer to 35% coverage for other than pool o Still drafting overall architectural concept • Have floor plan client likes • Working with Planning Staff on final elevations • Will continue to seek Staff's input on architecture o Need variances to move forward with site plan, floor plan and final elevations Page 2 of 7 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting April 22, 2013 IRemonstrance: James Duncan, owner of home west of parcel • Unique lot • Houses to west set back further from road • Worried about line of sight being blocked o Houses in next block are in same plane, closer to street o Feels his view will be blocked by two or three story building • Elevation changes along the area • Not worried about amount of lot coverage Mary Eckard, around corner • Neighborhood group is watching what is going on in the neighborhood o Feel front yard will be too far forward ® Needs to align with average setbacks of front yards ® House could be moved back because it would be next to a garage and not impede view o Tremendous flooding in neighborhood • Would like them to hold off on building pool until drainage is solved ® Flooding went almost from corner of 4th Street around onto Emerson for two to three blocks • Had never seen two feet of water there before ® r Some houses drain into other areas ® City has 18-inch pipe under street • Water came from street and creek • North side yard setback was reduced from 27 to 10.7 feet o That is too close and nor norm for area Charles Demler • Compact roundabout • Property already taken is gone and should not be taken into consideration for lot size • Flood was 22 inches deep o Spoken with Mayor, Council members and'Dave Huffman, Street Dept. o Was addressed two years ago, but it did not solve problem • Precedent has already been set; he could not do this o Tried to expand his house in 1990 o Told he could not infringe on his neighbor's property line o Had to cut size of structure o Precedent set for neighborhood and should stay set • Very compact lot o With house too close, traffic will not be able to see around house Chuck Ford • • Neighborhood has met regarding becoming part of conservation district I o Voted to move forward with that plan ® As part of conservation district, they could gain control of some of the perimeter ® Most of the homes in Johnson Addition are one-story homes with large yards ® Nice quiet neighborhood with comfortable yards to raise children • This house appears to be a lot of house for a small lot(He had not seen design) Page 3 of 7 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting April 22,2013 • Felt they should be sensitive to neighborhood architecture and design • 4th Street makes distinction between the new town development and Johnson and Wilson subdivisions • Desire as conservation district to preserve nature of neighborhood • Walked neighborhood o House across streets sets almost on roundabout • Unseemly, does not complement existing area Carol Schleif,member City Council for Southwest District, former Plan Commission member, Chair of Preservation Commission • Liked the project o Two stories to the front; one story to rear adjacent to one story neighborhood o Likes design; loves floor plan • Concerned with front yard setback o Looked at front yard setbacks on GIS map for immediate area • Average line for couple blocks each direction • Lot next door is 53 feet setback • East side with historic homes is 30 feet± • Exception is house on roundabout o Front is not historic and was added later o Original house does line up with rest of neighborhood • Another councilor also felt they need to keep the integrity of Main Street • Precedent in historic area • These areas are considered historic if 50 years old • As an architect, she took the drawings and tried to figure out how to get more room o Move the house back on lot o Maybe not front yard setback variance, but back yard and side yard setback variances • Parcel to the rear has very small shed and garage • Spacing would be more in keeping with neighborhood • Issue of flooding is why there is 35% lot coverage o Maybe hold off on pool and 8 feet concrete walk around • Could get by with less than 8 feet for walk around and pool chairs Rebuttal: Justin Moffett: • Appreciated public input o Carol's plan has been helpful • Would like to build as soon as possible o Structure will be on Main Street for a long time o Take time for more conversations regarding setbacks • Sight line looking east from Mr. Duncan's property o This property sets substantially lower (6 feet) than Mr. Duncan's o A fallen down retaining wall between parcels o Goal in roofline design was to not do a steep gable to keep the roofline down o Traditional two-story might have 35 feet roof or 32 feet total peak • Goal for hip roof to keep ridge line down; mitigating two-story structure • Paid attention to his one-story height Page 4 of 7 • Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting April 22, 2013 • Department of Engineering looks at flooding ongoing o Every neighborhood in downtown Carmel had areas of flooding o Does not feel an 8% differential in coverage will make in difference in flooding o Department of Engineering will have opportunity to comment when applications are submitted • Had no negative comments about the proposal • Recently lot coverage was more defined in the City Zoning Ordinance o Previous to change in Ordinance description, structures, garages, porches, and home were considered areas of coverage o Now the definition has been clarified to include anything impervious; sidewalks, driveways o A lot of structures built in the 1960's through 1980's counted structures only o Ordinance adjusted because of the lack of clarity o R-2 Zoning was put in place many years ago o Each parcel is looked at on a case by case basis • Planning Staff supports this request because it is not out of line with what has been done in the area • Old Town has 50-100 percent coverage on some lots • Not suggesting that is appropriate • But a pool or driveway in the older neighborhoods was never counted in the maximum lot coverage • Different rules from the past; each new property/development is looked at with a new set of eyes • This property sets topographically lower than any properties around it o It sets at street level o Properties moving south and west all set up higher o Pool would not cause this property to flood out onto other properties; it would be other way o All storm water flows to the streets; not the properties • Mrs. Eckard mentioned north side setback o He thought she meant east side setback which is 10.7 feet o Zoning Ordinance calls for 5 feet minimum setback • Mr. Ford stated they have a very distinct neighborhood west of this parcel o This parcel is unique being on Main Street and busy roundabout o Architecture will probably be a hybrid between the two areas o Transitional piece of property o More appropriate to look right on Main Street, than ranch style homes in neighborhood ® Will be a landmark on Main Street ▪ As area develops, more appropriate to fit Main Street • Appreciates Carol's comments o Structure on southeast corner of roundabout is really on the roundabout ® It is not a good comparison; it is 2 feet off property line o This parcel will have 15 to 20 feet between the property line and corner of house • Property line is not edge of curb; there is grass outside of that o Setback on 4`" Street will be 25 feet between structure and edge of right-of-way • Edge of right-of-way is not the curb • Significant buffer from roundabout • Is there a middle ground between requested front yard setback and setbacks of properties to the west? Page 5 of 7 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting April 22,2013 Discussion: • Open to house being pushed back from Main Street o Need to look at R-2 standards for rear yard setback • Might need variance for rear yard setback o Had met with both neighbors to south • Did not know if they were for or against these variances • Seemed to appreciate plans, no negative comments • Liked two-story structure at front and transition to one-story in back • Did not know if they would have a concern if house pushed to back o Tree line along south is not very healthy • Neighbor might have less resistance to reduced rear yard setback if vegetation added • Petitioner would like to table the variances o Get more precise measurements on adjacent properties o More conversations with neighbors • First time to hear concerns Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold Department in favor of project • Had not heard any comments until this meeting • Some areas of Main Street have zero setbacks • Property is staying residential • Setback is less than required by Ordinance; giving urban character • Pushing it back would require separate variance o Do not know if neighbors to rear would be opposed Discussion: • Porch is eight feet deep with offsets in front elevation o Majority of roofline starts at 30 feet; 28 off edge of right-of-way o Structure is shown as 17 feet off front right-of-way line • Eight of it is single story porch o It is 25 feet off right-of-way • Two-story structure is not jammed into 1.5 feet front yard setback • May need hybrid between front and rear yard setbacks • Maybe 25 feet for front and move rear back • This item can continue at Hearing Officer meeting; regular or special meeting to resolve o Staff can determine date o For continuity, Mrs. Plavchak will be Hearing Officer o Not required to send another public notice for these two variances o A new variance filing would require another notice Action: TABLED Docket Nos. 13040007 V and 13040008 V, Bibeau Residence to a date to be determined. 4. (V) Ed Martin Buick GMC —Signage The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval: Docket No. 13040012 V ZO Ch.25.07.02-03 B 1.—Sign not facing public right-of-way: north (1 proposed,0 allowed) Page 6 of 7 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting April 22, 2013 . The site is located at 9896 N. Michigan Rd. and is zoned I-1/Industrial within the US 421 Overlay Zone. Filed by George Small, AIA of Design Point, Inc. on behalf of Ed Martin. Present for Petitioner: . George.Small, Design Point, Inc. and Dan Chapel, Construction &Facilities for Ed Martin O Sign on north for "Service" since 2007 O GMC rebranding program mandates signs o Requiring "Certified Service" o Making this sign compliant with GMC requirements Public Hearing closed. Department Report: Rachel Boone: O Variances received in 2006 for other signs (Ed Martin, Pontiac, Buick, GMC) o Proposed and withdrew variance for this north-facing sign Installed anyway o This variance will make it a legal sign O Thirty-three square feet meets size requirement O Does not exceed number of signs O Variance needed because sign not facing right-of-way O New signs approved last year with arch considered one sign (Buick & GMC) o Four sign variances from 2006 will take into account this extra sign on north Department recommended positive consideration Action: Mrs. Plavchak APPROVED Docket No. 13040012 V, Ed Martin Buick GMS—signage for sign not facing public right-of-way: north (1 proposed, 0 allowed). Adjournment The Hearing Officer adjourned the meeting at 6:14 p.m. Approved this o2 ,' day of C :,4 20 I--3. �' /i � art / , / / Cam, v Hearing Officer—Earlene Plavchak Secretary—Cobit /gley File: 4.22.2013 hearing officer.doc Page 7 of 7