HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact
u
u
FINDINGS OF FACT FORM FOR
PRIMARY PLAT CONSIDERATION
Carmel/Clay Plan Commission
Carmel, Indiana
DOCKET NO. 183-02 PP
NAME OF SUBDNISION: Wexlev Chase
PETITIONER: GWZ-2 Development. LLC
-Ii-
Based upon all the evidence presented by the petitioner and upon the representations and
certifications of the staff of the Department of Community Development, I determine that the plat
complies with standards of the Carmel Clay Subdivision Control Ordinance.
I hereby approve of the primary plat as submitted with the following specific conditions as agreed
to by the petitioner.
Condition 1.
Condition 2.
Condition 3.
I hereby disapprove of the primary plat as submitted for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
DATED THIS 18th DAY OF February, 2003.
s:\plancomm\app\pcfmdfact
INDSOI DRW 491878vl
~~ ------
Revised May 1998
u
u
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
Carmel, Indiana
SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
FINDINGS OF FACT
Docket No.: 183-02 PP and 183-02a SW, 183-02b SW, 183-02c SW, 183-02d SW and 183-023 SW
Petitioner: GWZ-2 Development, LLC .
Section Variance: Section 6.3.6 (2 variances), Section 6.3.7, Section 6.3.15 and Section 8.9.1
Brief Description of Variance: To permit the minimum pavement width'around the island that is part of
Kilkenny Circle from 26 feet to 20 feet (6.3.6); to reduce the right-ofway width from 50' (25 foot
each side) to 40' (20 foot each side) for the centerline of the radius of Kilkenny Circle cul-de-sac
area only (Section 6.3.6); to permit a cul-de-sac to be 688 feet. rather than 600 feet, in length, when
measured to the large landscaped center island (Section 6.3.7); to reduce the curvature measUred
along the centerline ofthe radius of Kilkenny Circle from 100 feet to 80 feet (Section 6.3.15); and to
provide for a sidewalk on only one side of the Kilkenny Circle, and not on the open space in the
centedSection 8.9.1). ~
In deciding whether or not the application has presented sufficient proof to permit the granting of a variance,
the Plan Commission should consider the following:
The grant of a variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community.
The use and value of area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner.
The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and such
condition is not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
The strict application ofterms of the ordinance to the property will constitute an unusual and
unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on all of the evidence presented by the petitioner, I approve of the requested
subdivision variance.
I hereby disapprove of the subdivision variance request for the following reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Dated this 18th day of February, 2003.