HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact PZ-2022-00082 UV � w
FINDINGS OF FACT
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: PZ-2022-00082 UV
Petitioners: PST Land Holdings,LLC and Pure Development Capital, Inc
This matter came for hearing before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board")
on July 25, 2022 on the petition filed by Brian Tuohy of Tuohy Bailey & Moore, LLP on behalf
of PST Land Holdings, LLC and Pure Development Capital, Inc (collectively "Petitioner") to
request a Variance of Use to allow a commercial office use in a R-2 district(the"Variance"). The
property subject to the Variance request is a part of a mixed-use development proposed at the
former AT&T site located at 210 3rd Ave SW and 449 and 451 Emerson Rd. in Carmel Indiana.
The Property subject to the request is approximately located at 449 and 451 Emerson Rd. in
Carmel, Indiana, and is a part of a mixed-use development proposed at and around the former
AT&T site located at 210 3`d Ave SW, Carmel, Indiana.
The Petitioner was represented by Brian Tuohy. Multiple remonstrators appeared at the
hearing to oppose the Variance.
The Board now finds and concludes as follows:
1. Petitioner requested a use variance for a commercial office use from Carmel Unified
Development Ordinance("UDO") Section 2.09 that lists the permitted uses and special uses in the
R2 zoning district. Office use is not allowed under UDO Section 2.09.
2. The Property is approximately located at 449 and 451 Emerson Rd., Cannel, Indiana
(the "Property") and is a part of the Johnson Addition subdivision. The Property is identified as
Parcels C and D in the Petitioner's Packet.
3. The Property is a part of a proposed mixed-use project that would include 244
apartments, 10 flanking townhomes, an 80,000 sq. ft. Merchants Bank corporate headquarters
expansion, a 2-building 34,000 sq. ft. boutique headquarters—including for Pure Development
and a Family Office Building,two single-family homes that would replace two existing homes at
the Property, and a 443-space public parking garage (the "Project"). Petitioner omitted a Family
Office Building from its plans at the hearing. The two existing homes on Parcels E and F are
proposed to be demolished. Petitioner applied for the lots to be re-platted to become smaller in
size, and two new 2-story tall single-family homes are planned to be built on each lot. See
Petitioner's Packet for a detailed map of the Project.
4. Single family detached dwellings zoned R2 are located to the north of the Project site,
The Railyard Apartments building and Merchants Bank building,zoned C2,are located to the east
in the Midtown Cannel area, and industrial/business uses, zoned C2, are located to the west and
south.To the southeast of the Project site is proposed to be The Concourse,a mixed-use apartments
development zoned C2. Further northeast of the Project site is the Old Town Overlay District
Character Subarea.
1
w
5. In making its determination,the Board considered the following evidence:
(a) Petitioner's application and supporting documents, including notices, receipts,
attachments, statement of reasons, exhibits, site plans and diagrams;
(b) DOCS Department Report;
(c) Relevant portions of the City of Carmel Unified Development Ordinance;
(d) Testimony and exhibits of Petitioner;
(e) Packet,testimonies, exhibits, and letters of remonstrators.
6. Petitioner has paid the required fee, filed the necessary documents, and demonstrated
compliance with all public notice requirements in this matter for consideration by the Board.
7. UDO Section 9.15(B) states that variances of use from the terms of the UDO, in
accordance with Ind. Code § 36-7-4-914.8,may be approved only upon a determination in writing
that:
a) the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the community;
b) the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not
be affected in a substantially adverse manner;
c) the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved;
d) the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary
hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought; and
e) the approval does not interfere substantially with the Comprehensive Plan.
8. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to establish whether the granting of this
commercial use will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
community. Remonstrators who appeared at the hearing testified that the enjoyment of their
properties would be negatively affected if the Variance were to be granted because Johnson
Addition is an established neighborhood with no commercial uses within it. Also, Remonstrators
pointed out that the size of proposed commercial use would increase traffic and noise, as well as
negatively affect privacy due to the Project's proximity to single family dwellings and insufficient
buffering between the proposed office and single family residences.
9. No sufficient evidence was presented whether the granting of this use variance would
affect the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance in a
substantially adverse manner. Remonstrators presented their concerns regarding the Project's
negative effect on their property values, and Petitioner pointed out that property values in and
around Johnson Addition and Mid Town generally have substantially increased over the years
despite large commercial developments around residential areas. Neither Petitioner nor
Remonstrators presented professional assessments to support their respective concerns and
statements.
10. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that the need for the variance arose from
some condition peculiar to the property involved. The Property is suited for its current use, has
irregular but not uncommon shape, does not have any topographical irregularities or any other
2
peculiar conditions.
11. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the strict application of the terms of the
UDO would constitute an unusual and unnecessary hardship if applied to the Property for which
the variance is sought, and therefore did not satisfy this criteria.
12. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that the approval would not interfere
substantially with the Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), because several Objectives of the Plan
would be in direct conflict with the proposed use if the Variance were to be granted. Specifically,
Objectives 1.4, 4.1 and 6.1 are aimed at preserving stable single family residential neighborhoods
in Central Carmel, call for applying traditional neighborhood design principles and, where
appropriate, call for reinforcement of established character.
13. Any Findings of Fact that can be considered Conclusions of Law are deemed
Conclusions of Law, and any Conclusions of Law that can be considered Findings of Fact are
deemed Findings of Fact.
DECISION
Based on the facts stated above, application for a use variance is hereby DENIED.Ad th. th day of August, 2022.
CHAI ERS , Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
SEC TARY, Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals
3