Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 05-07-13 Special Hearing Officer 1/ T . i ''''''141:,,, City of Carmel vi, ,NDIA,„ MINUTES Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Special Meeting Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:30 PM Caucus Rooms, Carmel City Hall Present: Earlene Plavchak, Hearing Officer Connie Tingley, Recording Secretary Staff Members: Alexia Donahue-Wold, Planning Administrator Mike Hollibaugh, Director, Department of Community Services Legal Counsel: John Molitor Order of Public Hearing was changed: I2-3. (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 front 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 Docket No. 13040022 V ZO CH: 8.04.03.D.1 20 ft Min Rear Yard setback, 15 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,Old Town Design Group ® Last month presented two variances o Front yard setback o Increased maximum lot coverage • Due to pool area • Property unique location on Main Street at roundabout o Monon Trail two blocks east o Townhomes across street o Transitional site east of single family ranch homes in Johnson Addition ® Several remonstrators last month o Felt several of them did not have clear stake in project • Not adjacent property owners o Some one-third to one-half mile away o Seems to be concern with what is happening with growth in area o Mr. James Duncan,adjacent property owner at 421 W. Main Street • Concerned about sight lines to east • Tabled last month to hear Mr. Duncan's concerns and try to address concerns WWW.CARMEL.IN.GOV Page 1 of 8 (317)571-2417 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting May 7,2013 o Carol Schleif made favorable comments about floor plans and architecture • Thought they should consider rear yard setback to accommodate pushing house back o Revised site plan after speaking with Mr. Duncan • Previously two-story portion of structure closer to right-of-way • Moved two-story portion behind existing 35-foot setback • Only single-story covered porch and two little bump-outs set on front; not in Mr. Duncan's sight line o Mr. Duncan seemed pleased and sent letter to Staff showing support • Because of that adjustment,needed to move structure back further on lot • Need reduction in rear yard setback of five feet • Sent notice for variance • Had conversation with rear yard neighbors • o Tried to mitigate concerns o Pro for moving structure back: • Single-story gabled structure on south; not two-story mass • Will not create anything dominating to neighbors on south/rear o Because of remonstrance from Johnson Addition neighbors for front yard setback; he made diagram of front yard setbacks along Main Street and Johnson Addition • Original structure had 14-foot side yard setback and 41-foot front yard setback • Averaged front yard setbacks for 52 parcels in Johnson Addition and along Main Street • Three very large parcels along Main Street included in average • Average front yard setback of 52 parcels was 32.46 feet • No one in rest of neighborhood, except three parcels on Main Street, has 35-foot front yard setback o Without the three Main Street parcels, the average is 29.18 feet o There are varying setbacks throughout neighborhood o Moving west from the Monon along Main Street, setbacks are 29, 21, 27. 16, 15, 41,three large lots are bigger, and then it drops down to 27 feet on smaller lots o Across the street,running from the Monon, setbacks are 4, 6, 8,9 8, 26 feet o There is not a normal setback along Main Street all the way to Carmel High School • Feels setback reduction accommodates Mr. Duncan's concerns • o Appropriate single-family transitional structure for intersection on Main Street Remonstrance: • Charles Demler,Emerson Road • Indicated his parcel on map • • Concerned with setbacks o Disagreed 29 feet was average setback • He stated Carol Schleif was concerned they stay with average of 35 feet for setback, per Ordinance o She could not attend but sent him an email • Email stated most of City Council would like to keep it in same 35-foot area • North side of Main Street entirely different, not Johnson Addition • Counted two houses in Johnson Addition that are two stories, all others single story and within required setback • Concerned view would be obstructed coming around southwest corner • Concerned with overall drainage o Talked with Carmel City Water and water is draining west off Emerson Road o During last heavy rain he had 22 inches on road in front of his house Page 2 of 8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting May 7,2013 • Carmel is still trying to resolve problem • Read Carol Schleif's email and forwarded copy to Alexia Donahue-Wold : "I can't make the meeting tonight. At a minimum, I would like to see the front yard setback denied and the home pushed back accordingly. Most council members are concerned that the front yard setback match its surroundings which means 35 yard setback. Main Street setback is critical for Carmel. The north side of Main Street is multi-family and is totally different. It is unrelated to the single family dwellings on the south side of Main Street. The other two issues are also concerns, especially lot coverage with drainage." (email from Carol to Mary Eckard forwarded to Mr. Demler) Discussion: (Mrs. Plavchak with Mr.Moffett) • Original Docket No. requested 15 and 25-foot setbacks o Changes with pushing back the structure? • The 25-foot setback was specific to 4th Avenue (side yard) • The 15-foot setback was specific to front (Main Street) • With house pushed back, requesting 25-foot front and 25-foot side • Awkward lot on corner; setbacks not measured from corner • Original house set.about 9 feet from awkward.corner • Requesting new house to set about 15 from corner radius • Previously asked for 50% lot coverage; revised is 45% • Added additional variance for 15-foot rear yard setback • Front yard setback now will be 25 feet(drawing shown) • Willing to commit to 25 feet to covered porch with mass of structure beyond that • Bulk of structure beyond 35-foot line Remonstrance continued: Discussion with Kelly Basket, rear yard neighbor, Emerson Road • Diagram of most recent filing shown o No changes to architectural plans at this point o Variance process will determine what they can build o Committed to pull house back for sight line for neighbor • Necessitated reduction in rear yard • Greenspace and lawn • Previously 23 feet off property line • Minimum requirement 20 feet • Requested 15 feet • Single-story structure in rear • Moving structure back does not change sight lines along 4th • Whole house moved back 8 feet • She would like three-car garage (36 feet) reduced to two or two and one-half o Smaller garage would be less massive next to their property o Less building coming their way o 36 feet is larger than side of her house Discussion with Robert Johnson, Emerson Road • Does house fit structures that go along Main Street? o Size, height and architecture • Structure looks somewhat modern Page 3 of 8 • Carmel Board.of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting May 7,2013 • Proposed brick foundation with Hardy plank concrete construction; siding with some shake siding II Will not have as much urban industrial look as the townhomes • Goal was to keep roof lines down • Mr. Moffett did not know theme of architecture along Main Street • 1960's apartments, new three-story townhomes, small section of 80-90 year.old single-family homes, 1960's brick ranches • Transitional area with no underlying homeowners association or covenants and restrictions on architecture • He felt design of new structure fit client's taste and fit in with neighborhood • Carol Schleif commented positively last month about architectural plan • Did not presume to please all the neighbors, but not feel it would be out of place • Height will fit within guidelines Charles Demler, Emerson Road • No homeowners association,but in the process to become a Conservative Historical District o Any homes built in area need to match existing design o Has not been finalized or presented to City Council, but have backing of four Councilors o Do not feel new structure is in exact design of neighborhood No further Remonstrance Public Hearing closed Rebuttal: Justin Moffett • Felt people confused visual distance with actual setbacks o There is platted right-of-way outside edge of curb on almost all of these lots o Setbacks are not from edge of curb o Setbacks are from edge of right-of-way o Property line along Main Street for this parcel sets 10 to 12 feet off edge of pavement o Average visual setback is probably more than 29 feet o Properties in this neighborhood have platted 10-foot right-of-way outside edge of curb, so setback appears to be 39 • Probably 35 feet for this parcel, if you consider to edge of curb o Any variance is to edge of right-of-way, not edge of curb • With email and council members, he felt it was out-of-bounds to speak for other people • Mr. Moffett is a member of the Historical Preservation Commission o Conservation Preservation District has been discussed, but did not know if it would go anywhere o There are no current covenants and restrictions o In this case, he is acting as a builder whose client has specific plans for a home to build • Client selected this lot in Old Town area • He felt their request conformed to eclectic nature of area • No firm setback; varies for whole neighborhood • No architectural standards • Not many two-story homes in Johnson Addition • This is not a platted lot in Johnson Addition • Parcel is on Main Street and he is addressing Main Street Page4of8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting May 7,2013 o Mrs. Basket has been a nice neighbor to work with and he appreciates the good conversations o Architecturally they probably have differences of opinions o His client prefers a three-car garage;be can't adjust that at this meeting o Encouraged everyone to look at the variances individually • Felt they had sound logic and Department Report agreed with that logic Public Hearing closed after last Remonstrator, before Petitioner's rebuttal Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold o In response to concern over front yard setback, Petitioner has pushed house further back o That necessitated need for 5-foot rear yard variance o House will be set back 25 feet from front property line to porch o Bulk of house will be set back about 32 feet o Feel it is good compromise to reduce impact on neighbor directly west o House is not part of subdivision o Sets on corner parcel along Main Street; an Urban Collector Road o Not in middle of suburban neighborhood or along a residential street but on the edge of Old Town and the downtown area • More dense and urban area with many commercial and mixed-use buildings; some with no front yard setbacks o House will remain single family use o Provides good transition from some of the more commercial areas along Main Street and Old Town o Should not have any negative affect on surrounding properties Department recommended positive consideration of all variances Discussion: • Access to garage is on 4`h Avenue o . There is not an alley Action: Mrs. Plavchak APPROVED Docket Nos. 13040007 V; 13040008 V and 13040022 V, Bibeau Residence,for 25 feet front yard setbacks for both streets (35 feet allowed); 45% maximum lot coverage (35% allowed); and 15 feet rear yard setback (20 feet allowed). Note: Mr. Molitor noted for the people in attendance that the decision of the Hearing Officer is subject to appeal before the full Board, if submitted within 5 business days to the staff. 1. (V)McDonald's Rebuild R.O.W.Dedication,750 E Carmel Drive IThe applicant seeks the following development standards variance approval for reduced right-of-way dedication: Docket No. 13040017 V ZO CH: 2.09 Compliance with the Transportation Plan,reduced ROW requested The site is located at 750 E Cannel Drive and is zoned B-8/Business within the Keystone Parkway Overlay Zone. Filed by Blair Carmosino with The Carmosino Group on behalf of McDonald's Corporation. Page 5 of 8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting May 7,2013 Present for Petitioner: Blair Carmosino,The Carmosino Group, Tim Ochs,Attorney with Ice Miller, and Hank Helms, McDonald's Area Construction Manager • Gained Letters of Grant for ADLS (dated 11-28-12) and BZA (dated 9-25-12) for firming up the site and rebuild requirements • McDonald's proceeded with full construction drawing and scheduled project • In late hours of final approval,it was brought to their attention that a letter of August 30, that did not make their records, noted a requirement of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way be dedicated as part of the approval o Letter of Grant solidified site setbacks without 10-foot dedication o Worked through alternatives and various needs • Only substantial reason for granting of right-of-way was because it was in the Code • Afforded no justification for need of right-of-way • Improvements well within existing 40-foot right-of-way a Fifteen additional feet to take,additional improvements for future widening of road • Before arbitrarily giving land up,challenged Staff and Engineering Departments to justify how it would ever be used • Variance asks for relief from requirement of Code for additional 10-foot right-of-way o They believe it is not warranted or can be justified with any sketches to be compliant with 20-Year Thoroughfare Plan o Believe site plan as approved by the BZA and ADLS process works sufficiently, creates no additional harm nor causes any additional problems o Project is a rebuild • Only new feature is dual drive-through which was sufficiently reviewed and approved • Have not changed any characteristics,use, or enjoyment of property • Modernizing building • Site plan shown with existing 40-foot right-of-way recently used for all improvements on Carmel Drive o Existing curb and right-of-way(approximately 15 feet)indicated • If additional lane warranted, it would fit in the 15 feet of right-of-way all the way to Keystone • Additional requested 10 feet indicated • Would come to back of proposed curb for parking lot o When Keystone'improvements were done,McDonald's suffered loss of full ingress/egress on Carmel Drive o Now being ask to lose another ten feet of the property for an undetermined use at an undetermined time in the future Public Hearing closed Department Report: Alexia Donahue-Wold • Current Transportation Plan calls for 50-foot half right-of-way for Carmel Drive o This was mentioned in original preliminary comments to Petitioner when they were going through ADLS process to comply with the Transportation Plan o Also mentioned in Engineering Department report (all copies in file) o Seemed to have been addressed at one point by Petitioner when he responded saying there was no need for these improvements • No one pursued it further until more recently o Department of Engineering has indicated need for this 50-foot right-of-way • Future potential need to improve street and traffic going through roundabout • They have not engineered the traffic plan at this time, but the Comprehensive Plan does not require that before it is in the Transportation Plan Page 6 of 8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting May 7-,2013 • Transportation Plan with right-of-ways for all the streets was approved at a public hearing o Department believes the ten feet can be accommodated on the site with adjustments on the site o They could compromise and allow the existing landscaping to encroach in right-of-way, which should be only thing affected when road is improved o Department does not feel there is a practical difficulty in complying with the Zoning Ordinance • Every new project is ask to comply Transportation Plan and dedicate right-of-way Department recommended negative consideration Discussion: • How does granting additional 10 feet of right-of-way affect parking? o Does not affect parking if adjustments for proposed landscaping in that spot.is required to push everything back o Willing to ask for landscaping to encroach into additional 10 feet of right-of-way • That would not impact driveways or parking spaces o Issue is if ten feet were granted would any additional variances be necessary? • Additional variances might be necessary for the encroachment of the landscaping and sign • Since no design for an actual project,could compromise for future • Owner could execute a commitment that would require the dedication of 10 feet of right- of-way at no cost to Carmel within 30 days of satisfaction of three criteria: 1. Needed for actual funded project 2. Proper encroachment permit be provided for sign and landscaping • Or sign could be relocated out of right-of-way • Sign serves McDonald's and adjacent office building 3. Letter from Zoning Administrator indicating that no additional variances would be necessary • No hardship for McDonald's if these conditions are met and gives the 10 feet to Carmel when improvements are necessary • If McDonald's had not applied to renovate,the opportunity for this right-of-way would not be there • Compromise seems like a happy median when a corporate client wants to upgrade Discussion between John Molitor and Tim Ochs: • Was Petitioner offering to withdraw variance in return for City's acquiescence to permitting the commitment? o Technically variance would need to be approved because the standard requirement would be they actually dedicate the 10 feet of right-of-way now o Approval of variance would allow no dedication of right-of-way now, but commitment would allow them to grant it when the time comes. o Variance would not be effective because when and if the City does want the ground, it would be dedicated as if they did not have the variance o Petitioner seeking approval of this variance with the commitment that when the City needs the 10 feet of right-of way,McDonald's will give it to them with the condition the sign and landscaping encroachment will not need further variances I Mike Hollibaugh: • Not sure the Department can say there will never be additional variances o In the past,the City has applied for the variances on behalf of the property owner, so they do not have the additional expense Page 7 of 8 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Officer Meeting May 7,2013 o Petitioner could agree with that caveat as long as dedication did not occur until after the variances sought by the City were approved John Molitor: O Did not see any obstacle to Hearing Officer approving this variance subject to Mr. Molitor's review of the draft of the commitments Mr. Ochs: O He could talk to Mr. Molitor about a perpetuity issue for timeline for commitment Mr. Helms questions: O Timeline for permits o Permits available immediately upon approval O If they sell the property: the commitment would be placed in record and subsequent owner would be obligated Mr. Molitor: m Approval granted is subject to appeal within five days; he did not see anyone who might appeal Action: Mrs. Plavchak APPROVED Docket No. 13040017 V,McDonald's Rebuild, for compliance with the Transportation Plan, reduced Right-of-Way requested with Commitment as drafted by the City's attorney that McDonald's will commit to give up the 10-foot right-of-way to the City when and if needed and at that time, if necessary, no additional variances will be requested of McDonald's for encroachment of the sign or landscaping. Adjournment The Hearing Officer adjourned the meeting at 6:22 PM.fib( Approved this 7,6 day of 20 L�. 1 Hearing Officer—Earlene Plavchak Secretary—Co Ti ; ley File: 5.7.2013 special hearing officer meeting.doc Page 8 of 8