Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings of Fact CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No.: Petitioner: 07070044UV - Use Variance Uptown Partners. LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - USE VARIANCE 1. The grant of this variance will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the existence of special conditions(s) such that enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because: The subiect site is currently zoned 87 and does not permit sinqle-family. detached residential development. In fact. the current 87 standards would permit, without any rezones or variances. hiqher-intensity commercial/retail uses or multi- family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinQ sinqle-familY detached residential development that is currently east of and adiacent to and north of and adiacent to the subject site. Enforcement of the current zonina classification of 87 results in an unnecessary hardship because the Petitioner would be prevented from developinQ a sin\:lle-familY, detached residential community that would not have the neqative impact to the surroundinQ homes that would result with the various B7 permitted uses that could be developed on the subiect site. As a result of the foreqoinq, the qrant of this variance would not be contrary to the public interest. but instead would actually promote the public interest. 2. The grant of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: In addition the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above. the qrantinQ of the requested Use Variance will allow for a sinQIe-famBy. detached residential use that should be much less obiectionable to the surroundinq neiQhbors and more conqruent and compatible with surroundinq uses than the more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses that are permitted under the current 87 zoninQ. As a result of the fore\:loinq, the qrant of the requested Use Variance will not be injurious to the publiC health, safety. morals and qeneral welfare of the community and instead, the qrantinq of the requested Use Variance should promote in a positive manner the public health, safety, morals and Qeneral welfare of the community. 3, The use or value of the area adjacent to the subject property will not be substantially affected in any adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above, the auality and anticipated market value of the homesto be constructed within the contemplated sinQle-family. detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adiacent to the subiect property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surroundinQ uses or values. However, if the subject site were developed pursuantto the existinQ 87 zonina. which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adiacentto the subject property would most likely be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed sinQIe-familv. detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the eXlstinq 87 zoninQ. 4. The need for the variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the subject property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1), Two (2) and Three (3) above. the need for this variance does arise from a natural condition peculiar to the subject property because the current zoninQ of 87 simply does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a sinqle-family, detached residential community offers to the surroundinq neiqhbors and uses. 5. The granting of this variance does not substantially interfere with the Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan because: In addition to the same rationale seUorth in Responses Numbered One (1), Two (2), Three (3) and Four (4) above. the proposed sinqle-familv. detached residential community is a relativelv small infill development, it is consistent with surroundinq uses, it is compatible with the principles and Quidelines contained in the Comprehensive Plan applicable to the particular area of the City of Carmel and does not substantially interfere with the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the Petitioner believes that if the site were developed accordinq to its current B7 zonina, such development would actually have a sianificant and adverse impact on the surroundinq neiqhbors and uses and would substantially interfere with the qeneral principles and quidelines of the Comprehensive Plan that encouraqe responsible development. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Use Variance Docket No. 07070044UV is granted, subject to any conditions in the minutes of this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.. L _ I ~ #ITi day f ~2007. SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals Condition of the Board are listed on the back. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Use Variance Docket No. 07070044UV is granted, subject to any conditions in the minutes of this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. . ' L. ~Olf~ Adopted this 4 day of . 2007. CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals SECRETARY, CarmelfClay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Use Variance Docket No. 07070044UV is granted, subject to any conditions in the minutes of this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a parthereOft~/J ~ Adopted this ~h day of ,2007. CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Use Variance Docket No. 07070044UV is granted, subject to any conditions in the minutes of this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of Auqust. 2007. ~tWf~ CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals Condition of the Board are listed on the back. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the CarmelfClay Board of Zoning Appeals that Use Variance Docket No. 07070044UV is granted, subject to any conditions in the minutes of this Board, which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 27'h day of Auqust, 2007. c/~" " CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals Condition of the Board are listed on the back. CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070045V - Variance Re~ardinl! Minimum Front Yard from 40 feet to 15 feet Petitioner: Uptown Partners. LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The subject site is currentlv zoned 87 and does not permit sinole-family, detached residential development. In fact, the current B7 standards would permit, without any rezones or variances, hiqher-intensity commercial/retail uses or multi-family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinq sinQle-family detached residential development that is currently east of and adjacent to and north of and adjacent to the subiect site. In fact, the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate sinqle-family, detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundinQ neiqhbors and uses. Consequently, the qrantinq of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develop a more preferable use on the subiect parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the 87 zoninq. As a result of the foreqoinq, the approval of this variance will not be iniurious to the public health, safety, morals and Qeneral welfare of the community and instead, the qrantinQ of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health, safety, morals and Qeneral welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above, the quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinqle-familv, detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adjacent to the subiect property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surroundinq uses or values. However, if the subiect site were developed pursuant to the existinq 87 zoninq, which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-familv uses, the use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property would most likelv be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed sinqle-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the existinq B7 zoninQ. Furthermore, absent the qrantinq of the requested variance. the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinqle-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above, the strict applicaton of the terms of the Zoninq Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the need for this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zoninq of B7 simply does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a sinole-family, detached residential community offers to the surroundinq neiQhbors and uses. Further, the development standards contained within the 87 zoninq were not desiQned for sinqle-family, detached residential uses, but instead were desiqned for more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses. Absent the requested developmental standards variance request, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the single-familY, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. I I ~ DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070045V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. 1-'1.'fl^. ~m Adopted this j;:fJ" day of~, 2007. BZ BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070045V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board wruch are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. ~Jth $'~1M- Adopted this -a- day of A , 2007. (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070045V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorpo~d herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this ~~ day of +M2007. BZA President, ZLaY ;~r~ Appeals BZA Member, ~t",..- Jf-.. ~ (nam:? ' SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070045V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 27th day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~~Pf2&v# DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070045V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, CarmeL/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRET ARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals %--' CARMEL/CLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070046V - Variance Ree:ardinl! Minimum Side Yard from 10 feet to 3 feet Petitioner: Uptown Partners, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT ST ANDARDS VARIANCE ]. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The subiect site is currentlv zoned 87 and does not permit sinqle-familv, detached residential development. In fact, the current 87 standards would permit, without any rezones or variances, hioher-intensity commercial/retail uses or multi-family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinq sinqle-familv detached residential development that is currently east of and adiacent to and north of and adjacent to the subject site. In fact, the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate sinole-family, detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundinQ neiQhbors and uses. Consequently. the qrantino of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develop a more preferable use on the subiect parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the 87 zonina. As a result of the fore~oino, the approval of this variance will not be iniurious to the public health, safety. morals and aener<31 welfare of the community and instead, the Qrantinq of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health, safety. morals and qeneral welfare of the community_ 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above, the Quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinqle-family, detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adiacent to the subiect property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surroundino uses or values. However, if the subiect site were developed pursuant to the existino 87 zoninq, which permits more intense commerciallretail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adiacent to the sublect property would most likely be affected in a substantially adverse manner_ The proposed sinqle-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the existinQ 87 zoninq. Furthermore. absent the qrantinq of the requested variance, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinqle-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above, the strict applicaton of the terms of the Zonin!:! Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the need for this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zonin!:) of 87 simplv does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a sinale-family. detached residential community offers to the surroundinq neiohbors and uses. Further, the development standards contained within the 87 zoninq were not desiqned for sinqle-family. detached residential uses. but instead were desiqned for more intense commercial/retail and multicfamily uses. Absent the requested developmental standards variance request. the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinale-family. detached residential community in the contemplated manner. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070046V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. ~ St'.f1l Adopted this ~ day of st 007. /~ President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRET AR Y, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070046V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. ~~ Adopted this ~ day of _~, 2007. (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS TIIEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070046V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board w bich are incorporated hcrcil~nce and made a port hereof. eYI4 Adopted this ~ day of , 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals EZA Mem~ t!;- ~ (name) SECRET ARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070046V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 27th day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070046V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ CARMEL/CLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070047V - Variance Re2ardin2 Minimum A[!l!rc[!atc Side Yard from 25 feet to 10 feet Petitioner: Uptown Partners, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE I. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The subiect site is currently zoned 67 and does not permit sinqle-family, detached residential development. In fact. the current 87 standards would permit, without any rezones or variances, hiqher-intensity commerciallretail uses or multi-family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinq sinqle-family detached residential development that is currently east of and adiacent to and north of and adjacent to the subiectsite. In fact. the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate sinQle-family, detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundinQ neighbors and uses. Consequently, the qrantin!:! of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develoP a more preferable use on the subject parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the 67 zonin!:!. As a result of the foreGoinq, the approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and Qeneral welfare of the community and instead, the QrantinQ of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health, safety, morals and Cjeneral welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above, the quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinQle-family. detached residential community should have a positive impact. on the use and value of the area adiacent to the subject property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surrounding uses or values. However, if the subiect site were developed pursuant to the existinq 67 zonin!:!, which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adiacenl to the subiect property would mast likely be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed sinGle-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the existinq 87 zoninG. Furthermore. absent the QranlinQ of the requested variance, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinqle-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use oftheproperty because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above. the strict applicaton of the terms of the Zoninq Ordinance to the properly will result in practical difficulties in the use of the properlv because the need far this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zoninq of 87 simply does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a sinqle-familv. detached residential community offers to the surroundinq neiQhbors and uses. Further. the development standards contained within the 87 zoninQ were not desiqned for sinqle-family, detached residential uses, but instead were desiqned for more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses_ Absent the requested developmental standards variance request, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the single-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070047V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. 17~ ~,Y}; Adopted this L day of ~ 2007. ;t~ B President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals I I ! I ~ i DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Valiance Docket No. 07070047V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. h ~~ Adopted this -it- day of, .. , 2007. , I I I I (name) B SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals J I I DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070047V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. '4.,lo4- ~ Adopted this 1Jfh day of ~t, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Mell~-1~~1Cb (name) SECRET AR Y, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS TI-IEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070047V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~1J-zJ2wJ-- DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070047V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmd/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ CARMEL/CLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070048V - Variance Reeardine Minimum Rear Yard from 30 feet to 18 feet Petitioner: Uptown Partncl's, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT ST ANDARDS VARIANCE 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The subiect site is currently zoned 87 and does not permit sinqle-family, detached residential development. In fact, the current 87 standards would permit. without any rezones or variances. hiqher-intensitv commercial/retail uses or multi-familv uses, which would be in contrast to the existinQ single-familv detached residential development that is currentlv east of and adjacent to and north of and adjacent to the subiect site. In fact, the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate sinqle-family, detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundinq neiqhbors and uses. Consequently, the qrantinq of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develop a more preferable use on the subiect parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the 87 zoninq. As a result of the foreqoing, the approval of this variance will not be iniurious to the public health. safety, morals and qeneral welfare of the community and instead, the qrantinq of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health. safety, morals and qeneral welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above, the Quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinole-familv, detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property and should not substantiallv affect in any adverse manner the surrounding uses or values. However, if the subject site were developed pursuant to the existino 87 zoninq, which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property would most likely be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed sinqle-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential tvpes of uses that could be developed pursuant to the existinq 87 zoninq. Furthermore. absent the orantinq of the requested variance, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the single-familY, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use ofthe property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above, the strict applicaton of the terms of the Zoninq Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the propertv because the need for this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zonina of 87 simply does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a single-familY, detached residential community offers to the surroundinQ neiQhbors and uses. Further, the development standards contained within the 87 zoninQ were not desiqned for sinQle-familv, detached residential uses, but instead were desiqned for more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses_ Absent the requested developmental standards variance request, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinQle-family. detached residential community in the contemplated manner. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070048V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are inco~ herein by reference and made a part hereof. ~ ~ Adopted thjs ~ day of , 2007. 7 B President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals l BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Cannel/Clay Board of Zorling Appeals I ~ ~ DECISION r ) I , ~ J I IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070048V is granted, b1J'anted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of tlus Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this -it- day of ~kd2och. (name) ( I ~ ~ SECRETARY, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals '! I I I ; ] I ( ( I ~ DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070048V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. r'f.C L,4..Lf/ Adopted this ..dith day of ~t, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZAMe~ ~ ~4- (name) SECRET ARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070048V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, CanneUClay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070048V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ CARMEUCLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070049V - Variance Rel!ardinl! Minimum Lot Width from 100 feet to 40 feet Petitioner: Uptown Partners. LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because: The subiect site is currently zoned 87 and does not permit sinqle-family, detached residential development. In facl. the current 87 standards would permit, without any rezones or variances, hioher-intensity commercial/retail uses or multi-family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinq sinqle-familv detached residential development that is currently east of and adiacent to and north of and adjacent to the subject site. In facl. the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate single-family, detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundin!:) neiqhbors and uses. Consequently, the Qrantinq of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develop a more preferable use on the subject parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the 87 zonino. As a result of the foreQoino, the approval of this variance will not be iniurious to the public health, safety, morals and Qeneral welfare of the community and instead, the qrantinq of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health, safety. morals and oeneral welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above, the Quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinqle-family. detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adjacent to the subject property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surroundino uses or values. However, if the subiect site were developed pursuantto the existino 87 zoninQ, which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adJacent to the subiect property would mast likely be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed single-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the existinQ 87 zoninq. Furthermore, absent the qrantinq of the requested variance. the Petitioner will not be able to develop the single-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above, the strict applicaton of the terms of the Zonino Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the need for this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zoninq of 87 simply does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a single-familY, detached residential community offers to the surroundino neiqhbors and uses. Further, the development standards contained within the 87 zonino were not desiQoed for sinqle-familv, detached residential uses, but instead were desiqned for more intense commerciallretail and multi-family uses. Absent the requested developmental standards variance request, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sfnqle~family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Camlel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070049V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorp~ora ed herein by reference and made a part hereof. 1- ~ 5t.or.. Adopted this ....:--.- day of ~ 2007. i' A President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zonjng Appeals ~ 1 ( , I r DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070049V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. I Wk1tJb......- Adopted this -te- day of ~, 2007. I ~ i ent, armd/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals I ~ (name) SECRET AR Y, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ J I J I I 1 ( 1 r ~ , ~ I " ~ ~ ~ DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070049V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. "'(/1. ~~ Adopted this t::th day of ~t, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA M.mh.~~ k. (name) SECRETAR Y, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070049V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of tbis Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070049V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals /~ CARMEL/CLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070050V - Variance RCl!ardinl! Minimum Lot Size from 5000 square feet to 3350 square feet Petitioner: Uptown Partners, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE 1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, marais and general welfare of the community because: The subject site is currently zoned 87 and does not permit sinqle-family, detached residential development. In fact. the current 87 standards would permit. without any rezones or variances, hiqher-intensity commercial/retail uses or multi-family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinq sinqle-family detached residential development that is currently east of and adiacent to and north of and adjacent to the subject site. In fact. the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate sinqle~family, detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundinq neiQhbors and uses. Consequently. the qrantinq of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develop a more preferable use on the subject parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the B7 zoninq. As a result of the foreqoinq, the approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and qeneral welfare of the community and instead, the qrantinq of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health, safety. morals and qeneral welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above, the quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinqle-family. detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adiacent to the subject property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surroundinQ uses or values. However, if the subiect site were developed pursuant to the existinq B7 zoninq, which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adiacent to the subject property would most likely be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed sinqle-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the exjstinq 87 zoninq. Furthermore, absent the qrantinq of the requested variance. the Petitioner will notbe able to develop the sinqle-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will resuit in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above. the strict applicaton of the terms of the ZoninQ Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the need for this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zoninQ of 87 simply does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a sinqle-family, detached residential community offers to the surroundinQ neiQhbors and uses. Further, the development standards contained within the 87 zoninQ were not desiqned for sinqle-family, detached residential uses, but instead were desiQned for more intense commerclallretail and multi-family uses. Absent the requested developmental standards variance request, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinqle~family. detached residential community in the contemplated manner. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070050V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. ~ ~--bf. Adopted this ~ day of~, 007. 1'1/ _ (c~ B 1\ President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals rl ~ , ~ , , ~ , ~ ~ I ~ 1 J I ,J j ~ I I ~ I ) r J I , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070050V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. ~'~ Adopted this ~ day Of~, 2007. le Clay Board of Zoning Appeals L :OWJA (name) i SECRETARY, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals I J I DECISION IT IS TI-ffiREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Valiance Docket No. 07070050V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are i.ncorpo:r;9~herei* reilence and made a part hereof. t 'fc '.ilL ...... Adopted this ~ day of -.b:~t, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals M-II-- ~ BZA Member, ...I:"~ JI'.. ~~ (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070050V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals rzf!1cu~ i DECISION I IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070050V is granted, brranted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals /~ CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070051 V - Maximum Lot Covera~e from 40% to 50% Petitioner: Uptown Partners. LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS V ARlANCE L The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare ufthe community because: The subiect site is currently zoned B7 and does not permit sinqle-family, detached residential development. In fact, the current B7 standards would permit, without any rezones or variances, hiqher-intensity commerciallretail uses or multi-family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinq sinqle-family detached residential development that is currentlv east of and adiacent to and north of and adjacent to the subject site. In fact, the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate sinqle-famify, detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundinq neiqhbors and uses. Consequently, the qrantinq of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develop a more preferable use on the subiect parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the B7 zoninq. As a result of the foreQoinQ, the approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health. safety. morals and aeneral welfare of the community and instead, the qrantina of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health, safety. morals and aeneral welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse malliler because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above. the quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinale-family, detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adjacent to the subiect property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surroundinq uses or values. However. if the subiect site were developed pursuant to the existinQ 87 zoninQ, which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adjacent to the subiect property would most likelv be affected in a substantiallv adverse manner. The proposed sinale-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the existinQ 87 zoninQ. Furthermore, absent the QrantinQ of the requested variance, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinqle-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above, the strict applicaton of the terms of the Zonina Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the need for this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zonina of B7 simply does not permit the mare preferable and beneficial use that a sinqle-familv, detached residential community offers to the surroundinq neiqhbors and uses. Further, the development standards contained within the B7 zonina were not designed for sinqle-family, detached residential uses, but instead were desiqned for more intense commercial/retail and multi-familv uses. Absent the requested developmental standards variance request, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinqle-family, detached residential community in the contemplated manner. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070051 V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are inco~~ here~ jeference and made a part hereof. Adopted this ~ day of ~ 2007. ,." 'I/r. resident, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070051 V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. . "Uth s't"~kD11--. Adopted this 24- day of Prd. ffi,1., 2007. e1!Clay Board of Zoning Appeals (name) SECRET AR Y, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that V 8.liance Docket No. 07070051 V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a patt hereof. t 1(14.. ~.Pl ~ Adopted this ~ day of ~st, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals bh-~ BZA Member, ~/~~. P;.1,;~;tfg (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070051 V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which arc incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ib. day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~~. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the CarmeIJClay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070051V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals /~ CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No. Docket No. 07070052V - Buffervard Areas to be landscaped from 30 feet to ] 0 feet Petitioner: Uptown Partners, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE I. The approval of this variance will not be inj urious to the public health, safely, morals and general welfare of the community because: The subject site is currently zoned B7 and does not permit sinqle-family, detached residential development. In fact, the current 87 standards would permit, without any rezones or variances, hiqher-intensity commercialfretail uses or mufti-family uses, which would be in contrast to the existinQ sinQle-familv detached residential development that is currently east of and adjacent to and north of and adjacent to the subiect site. In fact, the development standards applicable to the site do not even contemplate sinQle-family. detached residential development which is more consistent, compatible and beneficial to the surroundinq neiqhbors and uses. Consequently. the qrantinQ of the requested developmental standards variance permits the Petitioner to develop a more preferable use on the subiect parcel than what is currently permitted pursuant to the 87 zoninq. As a result of the foreQoinQ, the approval of this variance will not be iniurious to the public health, safety. morals and l:)eneral welfare of the community and instead, the Qrantinq of the variance will promote in a positive manner the public health, safety, morals and qeneral welfare of the community. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: In addition to the same rationale set forth in Response Numbered One (1) above. the quality and anticipated market value of the homes to be constructed within the contemplated sinqle-familv, detached residential community should have a positive impact on the use and value of the area adiacent to the subiect property and should not substantially affect in any adverse manner the surroundinQ uses or values. However, if the subiect site were developed pursuant to the existinq 87 zoninq. which permits more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses, the use and value of the area adiacent to the subiect property would most likely be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The proposed sinQle-family, detached residential community is more preferable to the potential types of uses that could be developed pursuant to the existinq B7 zoninq. Furthermore, absent the Qrantinq of the requested variance, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinQle-family. detached residential community in the contemplated manner. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: In addition to the same rational set forth in Responses Numbered One (1) and Two (2) above, the strict applicaton of fhe terms of the Zoninq Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because the need for this variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the site because the current zoninQ of 87 simply does not permit the more preferable and beneficial use that a sinQle-family, detached residential community offers to the surroundinq neiQhbors and uses. Further, the development standards contained within the 87 zoninQ were not desiqned for sinQle-family, detached residential uses. but instead were desiqned for more intense commercial/retail and multi-family uses. Absent the requested developmental standards variance request, the Petitioner will not be able to develop the sinqle-familv. detached residential community in the contemplated manner. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070052V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorpora,~d herein by reference and made a part hereof. 'P1~ c:u f - Adopted this d day of . l 007. / A President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ..- DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070052V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof 'l~h ~ Adopted this -b- day of 2007. e , a el/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070052V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are inco~oy,td herein,.bY reference and made a part hereof. o;f"th ~A.4.. Adopted this ~ day of _~t, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DZAMemb"f? ~ ~ (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070052V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of tIns Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of August, 2007. BZA President, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRET AR Y, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Variance Docket No. 07070052V is granted, granted subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board which are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Adopted this 2ih day of _August, 2007. BZA President, Cannel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals BZA Member, (name) SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~