HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact PZ-2022-00084 V; 00087 V FINDINGS OF FACT
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, Carmel, Indiana
Docket No.: PZ-2022-00084 V and PZ-2022-00087 V
Petitioners: PST Land Holdings, LLC and Pure Development Capital, Inc
This matter came for a public 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 Development Standards Variances from Carmel Unified Development
Ordinance("UDO")Section 2.10 Minimum 20 ft R2 residential rear yard setback and Section 5.19
Bufferyard Width- Minimum 30 ft rear(collectively the"Variances"). The property subject to the
request is a part of a mixed-use development proposed at the former AT&T site approximately
located at 210 3rd Ave SW and two residential parcels located at 449 and 451 Emerson Rd. in
Carmel, Indiana.
The Petitioner was represented by Brian Tuohy. Multiple remonstrators appeared at the
hearing to oppose the Variances.
The Board now finds and concludes as follows:
VARIANCE REQUEST PZ-2022-00084 V
1. Petitioner requested a developmental standards variance from UDO Section 2.10 that
requires a minimum of 20-ft rear yard setback in R2 residential districts. Petitioner requests 5.7-ft
setback.
2. The subject Property is approximately located at 449 and 451 Emerson Rd, Carmel,
Indiana (the "Property") and is zoned R2. The Property is a part of the Johnson Addition
subdivision.
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.
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 Carmel 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
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(C) states that developmental standards variances from the terms of
the UDO, and in accordance with Ind. Code § 36-7-4-918.5, 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 strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property.
8. There was evidence presented that granting of the variance would not be injurious to the
public health,safety,morals and general welfare of the community,because the rear property lines
of the Property will have a tall masonry wall which will provide privacy and a buffer. The Project
will allow a residential presence to remain along Emerson Road, continuing the single family
detached home pattern of homes fronting that street.
9. There was evidence presented that granting of this variance would affect the use the area
adjacent to the Property in a substantially adverse manner. Several remonstrators testified that due
to the Project's size and its proximity to the Johnson Addition subdivision and smaller proposed
setbacks, their privacy would diminish, and the noise level and traffic would increase. There was
not sufficient evidence to establish that the value of the adjacent area would be affected in a
substantially adverse manner. Remonstrators presented their concerns regarding the negative
effects of the Project and a proposed commercial use 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 the
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 strict application of the terms of
the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The Property is suited for its
current use, has irregular but not uncommon shape, and the need for the variance arises out of the
design considerations for the proposed use rather than practical difficulties in the use of the
Property.
2
11. 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.
VARIANCE REQUEST PZ-2022-00087 V
12. Petitioner requested a developmental standards variance from UDO Section 5.19 that
requires a minimum of 30-ft rear bufferyard setback for commercial properties. Petitioner requests
15-ft setback for its proposed office use. See Docket No. PZ-2022-00082 UV.
13. The subject Property consists of two Parcels that Petitioner identifies as Parcels C and
D, and is approximately located at 449 and 451 Emerson Rd, Carmel, Indiana and 210 3`d Ave
SW,Carmel, Indiana(the"Property"). Parcel D is zoned R2 and Parcel C is zoned R2 and C2. See
Petitioner's Packet for Project's detailed map.
14. 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 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. Petitioner
omitted a Family Office Building from its plans at the hearing. The rear property lines of the
residential properties located just to the west of Parcels C and D would have a masonry wall
supplementing the landscape buffer.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
3
18. UDO Section 9.15(C) states that developmental standards variances from the terms of
the UDO, in accordance with Ind. Code § 36-7-4-918.5, 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 strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property.
19. There was evidence presented that granting of the variance would not be injurious to
the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, because the rear property
lines of the Property will have a tall masonry wall which will provide privacy and supplement the
landscape buffer. Most of the landscaping buffer will be invisible to the Johnson Addition
residents.
20. There was evidence presented that granting of this Variance would affect the use of the
area adjacent to the Property in a substantially adverse manner. Several remonstrators testified that
due to the Project's size and its proximity to the Johnson Addition subdivision,their privacy would
diminish, and the noise level as well as traffic would increase. Moreover, if the Variance were to
be granted, there would not be an adequate buffer between the proposed commercial offices and
single-family dwellings proposed for Parcels E and F. There was not sufficient evidence to
establish that the value of the adjacent area will be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
Remonstrators presented their concerns regarding the negative effects of the Project and a
proposed commercial use 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.
21. Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that the strict application of the terms of
the UDO would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. The Property is suited for
its current use, has irregular but not uncommon shape, and the need for the variance arises out of
the design considerations rather than practical difficulties in the use of the Property. Omission of
Family Office from Parcel D demonstrated that that portion of the Property could still be used as
a single-family dwelling without presenting a practical difficulty in the use of the Property.
Likewise, Parcel C configuration that includes two different zoning districts,was to accommodate
a courtyard and a recreational facility, which is a design feature of the proposed office building
rather than a result of a practical difficulty in the use of the Property, and as such is self-created.
22. 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.
4
DECISION
Based on the facts stated above,application for developmental standards variances PZ-2022-00084
V and PZ-2022-00087 V are hereby DENIED.
Adop <o` s day of August, 2022.
1-62--2,
CHAI' RSO Ca'r el Board of Zoning Appeals
r ;Lig
SEC'7 ARY, Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
5