HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrance
28-ApriI-2008
To.: The CarmeVClay Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Residents of S~camore Farm Subdivision
0.2 Mile south of 116t Street and bordering the east side of Gray Road, Cannel, IN,
46033
Re: Docket No.. 08030009 UV
Request for zoning variance for 4611 E 116th Street, Carmel, IN to allew Lisa and
Stewart Lawrence to operate a flower business in a residential district
There are 65 homes in Sycamore Farm subdivision. Seven are for sale, six of which
are presently empty.
Of the 59 occupied homes, we obtained signatures representing 39 addresses, largely
owing to people not being home at the time the canvassing was cenducted. The 39
addresses represent 60% of the total number of homes, or 66% of the occupied
hemes. Of tho.se centacted, one declined to. sign, and the remaining 39 signed to.
protest, or 97.5% of those contacted.
6m~
4824 Pendula Drive
Sycamere Farm
Carmel, IN 46033
To: The CarmeVClay Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Residents of S~camore Farm Subdivision
0.2 Mile soutb of 116 Street and bordering the east side of Gray Road, Carmel, IN, 46033
Re: Docket No. 08030009 UV
Request for zoning variance for 4611 E 116th Street, Carmel, IN to allow Lisa and Stewart
Lawrence to operate a flower business in a residential district
The undersigned residents of Sycamore Farm subdivision are OPPOSED to the request for the
variance in zoning. We respectfully seek your careful consideration of this petition regarding the
zoning variance request.
It is the belief of the undersigned that granting a variance for business in the area so close to our
home,s would:
1) have an adverse effect on the value of our homes in an area currently residential, with the obvious
exception of the golf course, a positive for us;
2) have a negative effect on the appearance of the area, since a commercial establishment with lights,
parking lot, and signage wouldn9t be as attractive as the home at that location;.
"" . 3) open a gateway for other commercial zoning variances in this residential areanvhich could further
adversely atTecfthe value of our homes; and .
4) adversely.affect traffic flow at that intersection, which is heavily traveled during the rush hours.
Name
Address
tff2. f r~M~ (~.
y~ ,;J-. ~JLJ-J~ JJ/ .
L-(YII f?~ Ch.
If-<l).31?e~dulr) /)r/~
lf zb l ~~~~"P~ f~ ~(. ~
lfB'5:L &rz..k..7[:NJPI ftL~ bi'l-.....JE.
uJSY ~ p~
~ .
. -V S-
/11'~ /Dv7etp~. 7R '
I\Lf ~rku- Or
Date
?-( -dr't- -6 g
J6 flprGO-
J-b-#iL, tJgJ
:)In - ~ - e'l.
:lL.- J J}hR - ri i
d-.-' ~ A.,..r-- ~ 0 g-
<{_~.ot
02<e - 'W~ ~q>
zt -l{-yrZ- oR
26 At,. . D~
d.l(~fJ O~
'Z--=r/Jr? ~
~7~g
rj
:.,,.,1
..:/\;::/
~
.~
Address
//L/J1 /? Ij-t'4~~&; [&AA..-
. ,1
Lf8S'--1 reA,duf01 6r
7' rft' 2- !Pt /I )u,/<< _.// /Z~
11381 ~~L'<>( t,-
./i?
I
I
'39
n 4 J i ~ c: Ui~ tJ ti LJ
WI]l ~~ ~
ll<<4 P~f
.J1j (. ~ U&f2NC 1 [I-J
" \ ~ \, C) R -r;C\.""1:: N V\ \...:0
11'-13 2 R-q~(\C~j Ln.
J I '-{ ZJ R.uJ" ( 1) f;1.
I/L/IF.: 'I
_ ~ f~:;PrlL,V
G~,...,,)., i e f fli I b
, , 31 6"
t?...."" b,^"o\.ll)
Date
'i/~ 7
LffOZj
,
,~/L7
'4127
'-l z of{
LI!2l!DB
.
L/I ),-7/ (J cr
t . ;.) f- ug
y- Z'7- -- 0 Cd
Y-2{ - o"-j
LJ121!bY
t-j /2- 7/ uj'
,j /
f ::r) I (J ('/
,~
Pg 3 Name Address
.4rJ &~0zN.~ } / LjLff EJG\-(.1jJ eJ(J5) Dr-
~;i?~ /1r;,1? g'1yj:.x.o,tJflr
~ ~J(f({J. \ \ l\BL- (Sdr\W ccx:.\ \J\:
~4/jjtIB5 ~~OO
W~ !fGDD ~~yCin!
L{ gO () \Ce/y-i ~ Gf--__-
(j:)L] gl..AvL~)>k
a
9:- ~-
-11-+ (., r fi~ 7 U fI': f ~ . Ill! '7 J-. K fl5h~ ('0 LiVI..R
--f, fvvu~ JL~qj f&ti~~ l~e-
j
. "S --J H'6L/ ~d L~
~ ~ It 71.- 6 [jl/ -::;1 o~ '
~~ . ~ l{~7() Bttr!~i{!Pd) Pr
fA.-~ ~ L'j J..-o..... '+8 0 3 IL e y r< ~ (+.
1
Date
'Ifill ~
o ~~/??
1..:1 PI~ r 'l:c5
If 2 0':
4 ~+ 08
~ )l/CJ5{
tf/L7,/v 8
cj /;> 7/6Y
tf1A7/0g
~/ /~ 7/0t
I I f
~ /2-d / prP
1/J-~Oo
'fk~'fOg
\"v
. .
E. DAVIS CooTs"
Apri12,2008
JAMES K. WHEELER.
JAY CURTS
JAMES D. CRUM
JEFFRliYS. ZIP1lS"
ELlZABE:I'H I. VAN TASSEL
MATTHEW L, HINKLE
. Via Certified Mail, .
. Return Receipt Requested.
DANiEL E. CooTs
BRANDI A. GIllSON.
JrLUAN c. KEATING
Sycamorf? Farms HOmeowners Association.
P.O. Box' 3898
Carmel, IN 46082
.CEll.'I1F1ED M1lDlI.T01t
RE: Notice of Public Hearing
OF CoUNSEL:
S'rE1'EN H. HENKE
Dear Sir OT Madam:
The property O\Vfiers at 4611 E. 116th Street, Cannel, Illdiana seek a use . .
. vanance approval to allow the operation' of a flo,wer business from the existing
. building. To consider- this project, the Use Variance Application submitted by the
property owriers will be heard on April 28, 2008, at 6:00 p.m~ by the Carmel Clay
Board of Zoning Appeals, per the enclosed legal notice.
',Please c?ntact me if you have questions or comments.
Very truly yours, .
C?L&(!;;b~P.C.
~D~viS Coots
EDC/jc
Enclosure'
. 255 East Carmel Drive
Carmel, Indiana 46032-2689
317-844-4693
FAX: 317-573-5385
'1>'
L
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - April 28, 2008
Docket # 0830009 UV
Flower Shop at I 16tyh St. & Gray Road
These comments will supplement reasons for opposing this petition submitted in my
April 21 st letter.
A review of the Cannel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan (C3 Plan) draft B dated 8/8/06
provides a number of supporting argwllents for denying this request for use variance.
Copies of the pages referred to are attached.
1. The Preface on page 7 states that East Carmel is "unique compared with the other
three districts because it typifies suburbia with curvilinear streets, dominantly single-
family residential uses, and a small number of employment ot commercial developments"
Aside from the 96th Street, there are only two integrated commercial areas within this
district: Brookshire Village Shoppes and Hazel Dell Comer
2. In Part 2 of the Plan on page 16, City-Wide objectives 1.4 states that one must be
very sensitive to connectivity and transitiions between adjacent areas. Objective 1.5 states
"strongly promote mixed use in areas suitable for commercial development and protect
residential areas from unsuitable commercial development." This single plot is certainly
unsuitable as a single outlying structure.
3. East Carmel Policies & Objectives on page 19 summarizes these policies. In
objective 1.1, it states" protect the integrity of the suburban fonn and land uses. East
Carmel is an area where redevelopment of residential districts is discouraged and where
investment in single-family homes is strongly encouraged."
Objective 1.2 does allow for neighborhood servive nodes in appropriate areas. There are
two nodes now as noted in #2 above and the Hazel Dell is likely to be expanded in the
future. A business like this Flower Shop can easily be located in either of these two
existing nodes.
4. Page 41 of the Plan provides the Plan Map showing clearly the strongly residential
composition of the East Carmel District.
Please help us to keep it that way by denying this variance request.
,// 11
Thank you, , 1.~.)1 J/; .' j-,
t? /;IIU /jh,,;~C
Ken McGinity, resiMnt /
Brookshire Village Horneowrt'ers Association
.
I
.... ........
.....'1.
C!
- .
PREFACE
-- - 'P'. .-
-East Carmel Characteristics
East Carmel is unique compared to the other three two
districts because it typifies suburbia with curvilinear streets,
,
dominantly single-family residential uses, and a small number
ofcmploymentorcommercial developmcnt<;. More
specifically, the district contains a large number of
neighborhoods with custom-built homes and ha<; vel)' little
integrated commercial development. Aside ITom the
commercial corridor along East 96th Street (the south
boundary), there are only two integrated commercial areas
within this district: Brookshire Village Shoppes and Hazel
Dell Corner. Two centers along 146th Streel are just outside
of Carmel, Bridgewater Shoppes and Noble West.
I
I
Planning foriltree-Fouf Unique Districts \
Historically, the City of Carmel and Clay Township was a
homogeneous area consisting of farms, rural residential, \ I
estate homes, small town residential and small town I
downtown commercial development. The construction of I
1-465 (1960's) and S.R. 43 I /Keystone (1960's), and significant
upgrades to U.S. 31 (1970's) in Clay Township allIed to thc~ \~
evolution to many types of development in the City and \ \
Township. Today the City has an urbanizing core, an ~a
employment corridor, significant redevelopment sitcs, many \
styles of residential development and multiple commercial \
dj~tl ;,,1;, areas. The evolution of the City ha<; also resulted in l
distinguishable planning districts. \
To facilitate more effective planning r or th, I"l1rpo3':3 of :\ ~e pr~se~e .of ~~ and aggrega~e m:ing opera~~ons. I
plt.ld'ling, the City of Carmel n rccognizes~ the uniqueness ,: l a on~ t e . ute Iver ~ates a tenfslon tween reS1 entia
of three four districts; East Carmel, North Central Carmel, .~ty ofhfe and matenal needs 0 the quarry.
South Central Carmel and West Carmel (see iIIustnltion " NortbCeatral Carmel ChailiCtiriitics- - ....
below). The district boundaries were determined by NorthCcntralCamlci is clearly unique in comparison to the
evaluating development form, physical boundaries, and other districts, in that it is an urbanizing core. Although
publie input p'r3onal .:llu,,,. thcre arc arcas of suburban development, the district has
Alth h th t h. II b d' d th tilted toward an urban environment with significant mixed-
oug ere ee mea yare oun anes rawn on e map . .
bctwecn planning distriet<;, it is not intended to be a "hard" usc VItality.
division. Rather, the reader should view the divisions as No longer arc thc tallest structures two storics and suburban
conceptual. Therefore, an area on thc edge of one district in character. Numerous four-slory or higher buildings have
would be evaluated independently to determinc which been built or arc in the process of being built in this district.
policies best fit that area. Many new buildings are also being built to the front property
line, further evolving the character of the area.
....
THREE rOUR CITY DlmlCTS
--
\
\
\ ~
I)
I
I
I
l
\ ,
a)
"
East Carmel has a variety of recreational amenities including
ten parks and an evolving river greenway. It also has three
golf courses. Again, the mix of amenilies is very consistent
with suburban development.
W'oI6IIlS.
........" a
i
. .. '111._ ~ I'--
I J J
;1
"'t,t....
w'l'II'SI I
~est j
ga..~!31 &
w...
j
01
J
.!
~
w_.
Draft B
~_!ll
,.-
C.~R~lF.I.('<)"~Ql.Il),"'TPJ) r;(l~U1I\E.IF.,N"I\i". "',,"'," \7
C~
PART 2:-~COMPR-EHEN-SIVE- pLAN -ESSENCE - --~.
.' , .-
I
CITY-WIDE POliCIES nOD OBJECTIVES
Policy 1: Manage Community Form
Introduction: Managing community form is thc art and scicnce
of inft uencing development in a manner that results in an
'II. ;Abk superior quality built and natural cnvironmcnt in
which people reside, work and recreate; and creates the
opportunity for blL..inesses to thrivc. Managing community
form is the culmination of land use planning, transportation
planning, urban design, influencing tnmsitions, and place-
making.
The tools used to manage community form take shape as
developmcnt guidelines, zoning ordinances, subdivision
regulations, building codes, studies, small area plans,
negotiations, commitment.., conditions, covenant..;,
redevelopment initiatives, policies, education and the like.
No single tool can effectively manage community form.
Managing community form is a departure from purely land
use based regulations that encourage segregation and
challenge the community's ability to establish essential
connectivity. This model is more permissive of mixed use
nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between
differing land classifications.
Objective 1.1: Merge form-based regulatory tools into the
traditional zoning and subdivision control ordinances based
on Part 3: Land Classification Plan.
Objective 1.2: Recognize the uniqueness in each planning
district and establish regulations, subarea plans, and/or
pattern books to secure and encourage the desired features.
Objective 1.3: Utilize and follow the intent ofthc C3 Plan by
applying the Plan's c~llt to_dey.eloRment proposals to
r .ls:.cr:~gc:thc:'i.~~imr outc~mc.s and- p~.;;t"dcvia~ions from
. ~he CIty'S poliCIes and obJectives. ~
Objective 1.4: Be very sensitive to connectivity and \
{transitions bctwecn adjaccnt areas. A,oid D;"wwAg' J
unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation,
character, land use, and density. If there exists contrast,
~~ _ _ utilize multiple design principles to soften transition~~~ ..
.......... - ....... --='-.. - -=--=.--:::--- - -=:= .-
r Objective ':S:S-tronglj promote mixed use in areas suitable for "
\ commercial development, and protect residential areas from ~
... ~ ~ "'unsuitabJec9_mmercil!I~~lopment. _- - -- - -. ~
... - --
Objecti;; 1.6: Cond;;ue to build the city p~1t~d trail system
through targeted purchase of remaining undeveloped
parcels.
Draft B
Policy 2: Be a World Class City
Introduction: The expression "world class city" is applied to
communities that have broad name recognition, notable
culture, a positive imagc, divcrsity in housing, corporate
vitality, strong architectural presence and character. sense of
place, public transportation, and most importantly a desirable
quality oflife.
Objective 2.1: Commit to high architectural standards for all
municipal buildings and facilities. The intent is to set a
precedent for quality and to establish character goals.
Developers will take cues from municipal improvements and
be more likely to follow the City's lead. This commitment will
also further build community pride.
Objective 2.2: further enhance the amenities, development
opportunities, office-supporting commerce and technology
necessary to attract additional corporations to Carmel.
Concurrently, enhance quality oflife to provide an \.".;abk
superior quality place for people in an socioeconomic classes
to live by cncourdging high quality public :'l'aces, intcresting
parks, plazas and public gardens. There is significant
evidence that high quality of life is a major attraetor for
corporations, thus making this a primary component ofthis
objectivc.
Objective 2.3: Encourage more diversity in housing types to
appeal to a more diverse clientele of employees working in
Carmel. As Carmel continues to attract regional and national
headquarters ~orld d~j cO'I^'.o.\:t;o..", the housing desired
by people relocating from other parts of the country and
world is not always consistent with Indiana's trdditional
residential form of single-family detached homes. The City
needs to commission a study on hOlL-;ing choices.
Objective 2.4: Support an intrdcity and eommutcr trdnsit
system as described in Part 4: Transportation Plan.
Carmel's City Core is in the proccss of achieving the
necessary commercial intensity and residential density to
support such a system. The City willlikcly cxpcrienee more
peak-time congestion on major roadways as an inconvenient
but positive indicator that a transit system would be
successful. The City will need to ask for patience during the
years leading up to an operable transit system.
Objective 2.5: Enhancc a bicyclc- and pedestrian-connected
community through expanded installation of side paths,
sidewalks, bike lanes, and ofT-street trails. it is well
established that many ofthe moderate-sized world class
cities in our nation are bicycle and pedestrian friendly
communities. Carmel believes that the establishment of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities will further enhance quality
of life and be greatly appreciated by citizens.
(.4R~H~1 (,O~:~l}UP-\l~[) (()1v1lJl~rdlf.,'l~lY!:. ?1..\:"41 ,.
~
. OJ.
.. iiI ..:~ ...
",...... ...
".
r EAST cnnmEl POLICIES nnD ODJECTIYEI- -'I
--:- J" --5
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSEN<::E. .. ...
. . _ .' J. . . ..&_
"l ....
--...-
'IIIIl 1ICl,_
.. -......-. ~ ~
Introduction
The following sections convey the policies and objectives
for the East Carmel District. It is important to note that these
seetions.sharc some-ofthc.same.poliey headings as the City-
~e ~ection, but the content is specific to.tEast CarOle!.:
r Policy 1: Manage Community form
\ Objective 1.1: Protect the integrity of the suburban form and "
land uses. East Carmel is an area where redevelopment of ~,
residential districts is discouraged, and where investment in )
I single-family homes is strongly encouraged The City will
l identity projects, policies, and programs that will maintain the
" existing stability and encourage investment by homeowners. ".
" ....---., - -~~- ~
..- { ObjectiveT2:i\l1owl1eigli6Orliood.serviee~o~in context
appropriate areas. The objective of these noaes is to allow
limited neighborhood-serving commercial, 'l\mixed-use, and
pub!i~e~ties'witfiin -;aiiZing d1'stancl!\;;c~idcnts Ii~ ii-rgin
.' ....surrounding suburban neighborhoods. Lighting, par~~ ,
fl". architecture, landscaping, size of buildings, and bieyelc and j
, pedestrian facilities will be strictly regulated to ensure /,
compatibility with existing residentiallL~e~. ---
. .. -- - . - -. ,- --
Policy 2: Be a WorifClas; City- -- -~- - - --
Objective 2.1: Embrace the White River greenway and off-
street trail to provide another notable linear park and oon-
motorized transportation corridor which connects parks as
well as acting as the foundation for a larger, regional
greenway. More off-street trails are expected to contribute,
especially in the riparian corridor of the White River.
Objective 2.2: Promote a world elass development on the
Earlham College property, achieving the same recognition as
the Village of West Clay. Unique lL<;es or combination of lL'ies
would be welcome if designed into the context of the natural
environment and surrounding suburban development.
Policy 3: laspire Commullity Character
Objective 3.1: Reinforce suburban character including tree-
lined curvilinear streets, sidewalks separated by tree lawns,
and neighborhood parks. Also. maintain the dominant
presence of high quality single-family residential form.
Objective 3.2: Allow density transitions from single-family
residential form along East 96th Street and 146th Street, but
encourage context sensitive buffer development along these
corridors to help soften the visual impact to lower density
residential neighborhoods.
Draft B
I
Objective 3.3: Consider expanding the neighborhood
commercial node at East 131" Street and Hazel Dell Parkway
to the southwest corner by encouraging the church to
develop a portion of the property with mixed use and'a
variety of housing types. The area would act as an ea~1 side
Secondary Cor~, with the potential for a community transit
stop.
Policy 4: Be Environmentally Sensitive
Objective 4.1: Aggressively protect the riparian corridor and
1100dplain along the White River from encroachment.
Objective 4.2: Continually monitor mining practices to ensure
they do not devalue property or negatively affect quality of
life. Also, encourage reclamation planning for quarry sites to
better coordinate public facilities and infrastructure
improvements, and public recreation or residential
opportunities.
Objective 4.3: Expand East Carmel bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure, especially in areas adjacent to institutional
nodes such as schools and churches, and neighborhood-
serving commercial.
Objective 4.4: Establish an East Carmel recycling and
hazardous materials drop-off station in conjunction with the
City's sewage treatment facility.
Objective 4.5: Locate an East Carmel satellite facility for
Carmel Street Maintenance and other public services. This
will help conserve fuel and distribute manpower more equally
over the community.
(-\HtvlRI (;O"~(JLI/l \n:LJ UJ'-IPIlf.H5NSI':E 1'1 At, 119
rJ
~\\~\ ~
, I
1;~~
-
~~ ~ -
~ "t~ '~ ~
~~ . I
,- i
.
.. '
,.,;J
, I
- !
l
I
,..... . I
I I I-
I -t 1
i
I
,..-.
I !
I I I
I I.... I
~-~ !
I
~\J
!; II I
r-+-l
I
.j
N~.IID
~
i
~
. ..
II
,
I
I
j
.i . ]
i~::!~ ~
.!l!.ifa~J
II]
;i .
. ..
J .. .,j(
.!I-;.-..I
.. .. ,I ..,
'1."5""-1-
';"-I."'j
Ii Jl..
_ .... S!Ii
1111
."
i
11 ~
'-I.ij'l'lll
; ..11 . Il
.!~ l(
:: j j" .! :i
.I! .! J . i
IJ.~ _II
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie S
From: MEP1222@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:41 AM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Su bject: Su bject: proposed flower shop at 116th and Gray Road
Please enter this notice to The Appeal Board at the meeting, April 28, 2008 as our strong opposition to the Use Variance
Application to convert the residential property at 116th and Gray Road to a Commercial Use.
Anythange in variance from residential use would cause an increase in trafficto a corner that is already overly congested during
peak periods (the roads are single lane in all directions)f increased parking and reduction of green space to accommodate same,
increased commercial traffic and activity related to same, increased signage, reduced residential property values in the
surrounding area to name a few.
There is a potential of a multi story building(s) eventually replacing this home to accommodate commercial growth if a variance
were to be grantedf thus reducing residential property values even more. We respect the right to invest in a "residential
community" that allows us to live, a secure, peaceful lifestyle and not be surrounded by commercial activity.
Thank you very much for accepting and presenting our opposition to this Use Variance Application in question.
Claude & Mimi Porter
Sycamore Farm
11387 Regency Lane
Carmel IN 46033
317-815-9217
,,~",.'''''AA.~~''~."__~~~.~~~,,~_..,~=.~~~_~~~~~____~
." . "... , ",,,,.,, ",. ,.
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U,S. used car listings at AQlAutQ_s,
4/2812008
Tingley, Connie S
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jamaggard Oamaggard@gmail.com]
Saturday, April 26, 2008 11 :03 PM
Tingley, Connie S
Rezoning of property @ 116th & Gray Rd
For the record, my family strongly opposes the rezoning from residential to commercial of
the home at 116th & Gray Rd. There is plenty of available retail space nearby and no need
to rezone a clearly established residential area. Do not let this happen.
Jim & Sally Maggard
Sent from my iPhone
1
r
~pr-Z5-DS D9:19 Frgm-STARK DONIHGER
i1T6SgSS I S
T-644 P.OI/OI F-489
F\%.n'. Conn'lt unJ~
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIA.NA
Request For Records Pursuant To Indiona Access To Publ1c Records Acf
II.C. 5.14-3-1, et~, as amended)
I, Ctf\~_
Iname optional]
, hereby request of the City of Carmel.
Indiana, the right to inspect and copy the followlng records:
- sta..-t+ R-yJ~Y'+_..pD V .Doc Ut No. D9,D ~ooq t.A. \j
S', l:t ~ Y lD 1I 6"0.. '=>+ II (o1h S+r'f L -+
PLEJ\SS FA-'/.. 111[, !<..EPoRJ ~ S SDOtJ AS
~SS \ BLE l.ltJl-thfn -rU ~DLA r J 'lLpOC;Slb u - +haVll
~l.tl).
II -\-n
Dated this .t!i- day of
~?rd
, 200JL.
The City may provide me with lts response to this request:
By telephone at '317"'v?>'b-aLlOO
By facsimile transmission at 31"1- \.I];~"l,/,p, ,
By mail at
Other
Received by(7--&1I1/~7Y at '1:<1 S ~. m. on 'Y -;1. 5 .2ooL.
Signature: (J~Yn
PrInted Name and CIty Department: DoC!.- s:.
Sent to Legal Deportment for response on:
by
Received by Legal Department on:
by
IS:\roP.MS~,.. fORM !lo,.IIl. K"'l"" MI~ll'~lI
I/)./>~
Ljr;2 ~ ~tJ,f
cr
.-
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317-571-2417
Fax: 317-571-2426
FACSIMILE TELECOPY COVER LETTER
DATE:
April 25, 2008
TO:
Cindy
Stark Don inger
FAX:.~ ~ ??--c;l:;/9
PHONE: 638-2400
FROM: Connie Tingley
317-571-2419
Attached hereto are 3 pages, including this cover letter, for facsimile transmission.
Should you experience any problem in the receipt of these pages, please call 317/571/2419
and ask for Connie.
NOTES:
Attached is the Staff Report for Docket No. 08030009 UV, Happily Ever After Flower
Shop.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The materials enclosed with this facsimile transmission are private and confidential
and are the property of the sender. The information contained in the material is privileged and is intended only for
the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any
unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied
information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile transmission in error, please immediately notify
us by telephone to arrange for return of the forwarded documents to us.
~
~
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
April 28, 2008
llh. Happily Ever After Flower Shop
The applicant seeks the following use variance approval:
Docket No. 08030009 UV Appendix A: Use Table Retail uses in residential district
The site is located at 4611 East 1 1 6th Street and is zoned S l/Residential
Filed by E. Davis Coots of Coots Henke & Wheeler for Lisa & Stuart Lawrence, owners.
, '1
~ "', .
...J;;~. ~~. '-~
.~=- 'i.. '"
'~~, .~ ~,_..:
"r , .' ''''m
~.."
'. .....)
General Info: The petitioner is requesting to use an existing dwelling
located on the southwest corner of 1 1 6th Street and Gray Road as a
flower shop. Adjacent uses include residential and agricultural uses,
and parks. No major improvements are anticipated at this time tor the
site, which includes the dwelling and a garage.
Analysis: The site is zoned for residential use; however, the expansion
of 1161h Street placed the right-of-way within 14 feet of the dwelling.
In this location, 11 6th Street includes two driving lanes, a center
passing lane, and bike lanes, and is heavily traveled. The appearance
of the site would not change, with the possible exception of two small
ground signs, and would maintain its residential aspect. The signs
would be pemlitted under the sign ordinance if the use variance were
approved. Given that the north side of 1161h Street on both sides of
Gray Road is parkland, and that the southeast comer of 116111 & Gray is a fully developed subdivision, it is unlikely
that this commercial use, if approved, would spur additional commercial conversions in this area, however, the
community expectation is that this portion of 116111 Street remain wholly residential, as it historically has been. A
flower shop is considered a low-intensity retail use, and does not generate the amount of traffic typical of most
retail uses; it would be more comparable to office uses, which would be permitted at this site as a home-based
business, however, the home would be used only as a business. Some additional parking is planned, adjacent to the
dwelling, and is proposed to be screened with shrubberies. Access to the site is from Gray Road, over two hundred
feet from the intersection. nle Comprehensive Plan recommends residential uses at this site, but also recognizes
low-intensity retail or office uses generally considered compatible with residences. The proposed flower shop
would mainly provide flowers for events, with walk-in retail sales being a small part of the overall business. While
the impact from this proposed use would likely be minimal, there is a concern with the possibility of additional
con versions appearing in the 116111 Street corridor.
Findings of Fact - Use variance
1. The grant of this variance wiD be contrary to the public interest, due to the existence of special
condition(s) such that enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship
because: The house, which has existed for many years, is within 14 feet of the right-of-way of a busy
thoroughfare, however, it has been used as a house since the right-of-way expansion.
2. The grant of this variance will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of
the community because: The surrounding area is prinlarily parkland and fully developed subdivisions,
which are not likely to either convert to commercial uses or he impacted by a low-intensity retail use
comparable to a home-based business, however, there is a concern with additional conversions in this
corridor.
3. The use or value of the area adjacent to the subject property will be substantially affected in any
adverse manner because: The surrounding area is primarily parkland and fully developed
subdivisions, which are not likely to either convert to commercial uses or be impacted by a low-intensity
retail use comparable to a home-based business, however, there is a concem with additional conversions
throughout the 116th Street corridor.
o
..
4. The need for the variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the subject property because:
The house isimmediatc1y adjacent to a busy thoroughfare, however, there are many other dwellings along
1161h Street with similar setbacks, which continue to function as residences.
5. The granting of tbis variance does substantially interfere with tbe Carmel/Clay
Comprehensive Plan because: The scale of the proposed use is similar to what would be permitted as a
home-based occupation, and could encourage similar conversions throughout the 116th Street corridor.
Recommendation:
The Dept. of Community Services recommends negative consideration of Docket No. 08030009 UV after all
concerns have been addressed.
,y:.~
~
****************************************************************************************************
:+: P,Ol *
* TRANSACTION REPORT *
* APR-25-2008 FRI 10:20 AM *
* *
* FOR: *
* *
* DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M~ DP *
* *
* APR-25 10: 19 AM 96336619 1/ 13'1 3 SEND OK 428 *
* *
****************************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************************
t. . P,01 *
* TRANSACTION REPORT *
* APR-25-2008 FRI 10:11 AM *
* *
* FOR: *
* *
* DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M~ DP *
* *
* APR-25 10: 10 AM 96336618 1'12/1 3 SEND OK 427 *
* *
****************************************************************************************************
lll***I**IIII*************I******I*********I************1*******************************************
*.' . P.01 *
* . ~ TRANSACTION REPORT *
* APR-25-2008 FRI 09:13 AM *
* *
I FOO: *
* *
* DATE START REeE I VER IX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M~ DP *
I *
I APR-25 09: 11 AM 96336618 1'13" 3 SEND OK 426 *
* *
1******11***1**********************))***********************************************1*********1*****
STARK DONINGER & SMITH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.JOHN W, VAN BUSKIRK
RICHARD W, DYAR.
PATRICI'A SEASOR BAILEY
BRIAN .I, TUOHY
MARK k BAILEY
LEWIS L WILLIS, JR
THOMAS A. BRODNIK"
.JOHN ,J, MOORE'..
-.JEANNE M, HAMILTON
ANTHONY 13 RATLIFF
CYNTHIA M, VAN VOOREN
SUITE 700
FACSIMILE
"'17.633-6618
OR
317-633-6619
4TH FLOOR
317- 633 - 6620
50 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-3542
317-638-2400
'ADMITTED IN fLORIDA
"ADMITTED IN CAUFORNIA
....ADMITTE:D IN NORTH CAROLINA
sdsfirmcom
SENIOI"1' COUNSEL
-.JOHN C, STARK
CLARENCE H. DON INGER
COUNSEL
BRUCE E. SMITH
RICHARD 8. KAUFMAN
WILLIAM K SyRUM
GREGORY S. FEHRIBACH
ROBERT D. MAI'.S
April 23,2008
Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
c/o Connie Tingley, Secretary
Carmel City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Via lJ S. Regular Mail and
Email to ctingley@carmel.ingov
Re: Docket No. 08030009 UV
Site: 4611 East 116th Street
Dear Ms, Tingley:
The undersigned represents the Charles P. Morgan and Roger Pope families who own the
property immediately adjacent to the south and west of the above referenced site. The two families
represent the largest single property owners of property adjacent to the subject site. The Morgan and
Pope families are concerned that the proposed commercial use is 110t consistent with the Carmel
Comprehensive Plan for this site.
I respectfully request a thirty (30) day continuance of this hearing to allow my clients time to
fully study the variance application and consider the impact the proposed use may have on their adjacent
property. This continuance iEHequested because I have a long previously scheduled zoning hearing
before the Plainfield Town Council on April 28, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. My partner, John Moore, will attend
the hearing and formally request this continuance.
I have advised E. Davis Coots of this proposed continuance, and if you have any questions
regarding this request, please contact me at your convenience.
l?~
cc: Mike Hollibaugh (via emai/ to mhollibaugh@carmel. in. go v)
Christine Barton-Holmes (via email to cholmes@carmeUngov)
E. Davis Coots (via email todcoots@chwlaw.com)
John Molitor (via email tojmoliwr@prodigy.net)
Winston Long (via emaillowinston@omniproductiol1s.com)
Tom Kendall (via email totom@hi1.eslIccess.com)
Laurie Spicer (via email toCandLSpicer@indy.rr.com)
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie 5
From: Cynthia M. Van Vooren [cvanvooren@SDSFIRM.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 20'08 11 :44 AM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Cc: BRIAN TUOHY; Hollibaugh, Mike P: Holmes, Christine B; dcoots@chwlaw.com; jmolitor@prodigy.net;
wintson@omniproductions.com; tom@hiresuccess.com; CandLSpicer@indy.rr.com
Subject: Docket No. 08030009 UV; Site: 4611 E. 116th Street
Attachments: _04231 03254_001.pdf
Ms. Tingley,
Please see the attached letter regarding the above referenced matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Cynthia M. Van Vooren
STARK DONINGER & SMITH LLP
50 S. Meridian Street, Suite 700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-638-2400
Fax: 317-633-6618
CVClD\,-QQrflO@.sgsfi[Il}.GQrD
Confidentiality Notice: This email (and any attachments) is from the law firm of Stark Doninger & Smith LLP, and may contain
information which is confidential, attorney work-product, and/or subject to attorney-client privilege. It is intended solely for the
person named above. If you are not the person named above (or if you reasonably believe this message was addressed to you in
error): (a) you are not authorized to read, copy or distribute this message or attachment, and you are notified that such actions are
prohibited; and (b) please notify the sender at the email address from which this message was received or by telephone at the
above number, then delete this email and attachments from your computer system. Neither our firm nor our client waives any
applicable privilege by the transmission of this message. Personal use of our firm's email system is restricted by firm policy. Any
personal messages reflect the views of the sender and are not attributable to Stark Doninger & Smith LLP.
IRS Circular 230 Notice: This email (and any attachments) is not intended by the sender to be used as either a "reliance opinion"
or "marketed opinion," as defined in Internal Revenue Circular 230. It may not be used by any person to establish reliance on an
opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or to promote, market or recommend to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein Further information regarding this disclosure and the availability of an
appropriate opinion from our firm based on your particular circumstances is available from the sender of this message.
4/23/2008
STARK DONINGER & SMITH LLP
JOHN W. VAN BUSKIRK
RICHARD 'w. DYAR"
PATRICIA SEASOR BAILEY
BRIAN J. TUOHY
MARK A. BAILEY
LEWIS E. WILLIS. .JR.
THOMAS A. BRODNIK"
,JOHN'..I. MOORE".
.JEANNE M HAMILTON
ANTHONY B. RATLIFF
CYNTHIA M VAN VOOREN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 700
FACSIMIl.E
317.633.6616
OR
317.63:3-6619
4TH FLOOR
317-6:3:3-6620
'ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
"ADMITTED IN CALifORNIA
"'ADMITTED IN NORTH CAROLINA
sdsfirm..com
50 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA 46204-3542
317-638-2400
SENIOR COUNSEL
JOHN C. STARK
Cl.ARENCE H. DONINGER
COUNSEL
BRUCE E SMITH
RICHARD B KAUFMAN
WILLIAM K. BYRUM
GREGORY S. FEHRIBACH
ROBERT D. MAP.S
April 23, 2008
Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
c/o Connie Tingley, Secretary
Carmel City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Via Us. Regular Mail and
Email to ctingley@carmel. in.gov
Re: Docket No. 08030009 UV
Site: 4611 East 116th Street
Dear Ms. Tingley:
The undersigned represents the Charles P. Morgan and Roger Pope families who own the
property immediately adjacent to the south and west of the above referenced site. The two fami lies
represent the largest single property owners of property adjacent to the subject site. The Morgan and
Pope families are concerned that the proposed commercial use is not consistent with the Carmel
Comprehensive Plan for this site.
I respectfully request a thirty (30) day continuance of this hearing to allow my clients time to
fully study the variance application and consider the impact the proposed use may have on their adjacent
property. This continuance is requested because I have a long previously scheduled zoning hearing
before the Plainfield Town Council on April 28, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. My partner, John Moore, will attend
the hearing and formally request this continuance.
I have advised E. Davis Coots of this proposed continuance, and if you have any questions
regarding this request, please contact me at your convenience.
l{~
cc: Mike Hollibaugh (via email to mhollibaugh@carmel.in.gov)
Christine Barton-Holmes (via email to cholmes@carmel.in.gov)
E. Davis Coots (via email todcoots@chwlaw.com)
John Molitor (via email tojmolitor@prodigy.net)
Winston Long (via email towinston@omniproductions.com)
Tom Kendall (via email totom@hiresuccess.com)
Laurie Spicer (via email toCandLSpicer@indy.rr.com)
Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 202
Carmel, IN 46082
Dear Board Members:
~. ,~'\' ':~ L.....:...'..;
" ,,~'. IA ~,
.' .....=;:--;- ~ .
~.. s _ - '\
/ . ~';, RIEtEWED ' \
- \
~- I
~\ :,. APR 2 2 2008. I
\ ~
", DOCS I'
/''-~-_-.:/ ".
~ .',. I' \". .
. ,
ThroughJhe Public Hearing sign posted on the property involved, we becameaware-'of
the owners request for a use variance for tbe property at 9780 San Marco Pass on the
southwest comer of l16tl1 Street and Gray Road.
Board of Zoning Appeals
City of Cannel
Re: Docket # 0830009 UV
We oppose the granting of this request for the following reasons:
1. TIns is a S-l residential area. This would be the first commercial business east of
Keystone A venue thus setting a precedent for future businesses.
2. Flowers are available from the Marsh O'Malia store just one mile north of this
location and from Marsh, Krogers and MacNamara's just 2 miles west oft11is location.
Thus the nearby area is well served without another flower shop here.
3. What happens when the current owners sell the property? Will it revert to
residential use again?
4. WInIe this small house is close to l16tl1 Street, up until now there has not seemed
to be problems renting it for I iving purposes. Since according to the application, the
property totals 1.70 acres, why couldn't the present house be moved back toward the
center of the property or have it replaced with another residential structure?
5. The Mayor and current City elected officials and staff are doing such a grand job
of implementing an ambitious and very attractive master plan for Carmel. Please don't
allow individuals to override the public good with isolated spots of commercial
businesses where they don't fit.
We have 216 homes in our sub-division and we are trying very hard to keep our area
looking very attractive even after 25 years. We ask that others do the same so that Cannel
continues to be the brightest area on the Indiana map.
Thank you, ~J
Ken McGinity, President I
Page 1 of2
Tingley, Connie S
JSvec1 Osvec1 @5bcglobal.net]
Monday, April 21, 2008 4:41 PM
Tingley, Connie S
Id kern@sbcglobal.net; mep 1222@aol.com; c.hedin@sbcglobal.net; michelle@netwebsite,com;
bob.glavan@roche.com
Subject: Use Variance Applic. - 4611 E. 11651., Carmel, IN
Importance: High
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
To: The Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Jozef & Josephine Svec
Date: April, 19th., 2008
Subj.: the Use Variance Application, re.: 4611 E. 116th. St., Carmel, IN
- to allow operation of a Flower Shop from that property
Dear Connie Tingley,
Please Rrint this request and present It to The Appeal Board aUheir meeting on the April 28th., and any other
meeting or proceeding relative to the above mentioned Use Variance Application.
Please assert on our behalf our strong opposition to that, and / or any residential property In and around our
development (Sycamore Farm) being converted to any commercial use.
Doing so would have several adverse effect on our property ownership, including increased traffic, traffic
noise, parking noise, increased air pol.lution, unsightly sign age (any signage is unsightly in a residential
neig'hborhood), undue attraction of commercial vehicles traffic - delivering merchandise to the business and
frequent turnarounds of delivery vehicles- as most flower shops offer delivery as a part of their service, ugly
commercial trash container(s) and the related - extremely noisy trash collection actiVity, unwelcome attraction
of people who do not live in our part of town, etc.
While the above list is not all inclusive, the business related activity would no doubt have a measurable
negative impact on our property values and on our overall quality of life.
Sycamore Farm residents invested a great deal of money into their homes, understanding that those property
values would remain at their level, since the Sycamore Farms is a RESIDENTIAL zone.
It is beyond our understanding why there is a request to operate a commercial business from the property in
question, since there is absolutely no other business operating within a mile of it, the traffic patterns and
vehicular capacity of Gray Road is already at maximum - especially during peak traffic hours and there is NO
existing parking available at the said property.
Allowing the conversion of the property at 4611 E. 116th. Street, Carmel IN 46033 would be
against the wishes and expectation of Sycamore Farm residents, would
violate the trust that Citizens placed in the hands of the Carmel government and would
fly in the face common sense.
It is without a question that one operating business would lead to manY' more ... what's next, allowing a strip
mall with a liquor store and a gas station onto the last piece of land across the street?
We must preserve the right of the Sycamore Farm residents, including many children, to enjoy a peaceful
4/22/2008
Page 2 of2
lifestyle that they secured for themselves by investing in a RESIDENTIAL neIghborhood.
Please take our strong objections very seriously and PERMANENTLY reject current and lor any future
attempt to introduce any business activity into Sycamore Farm RESIDENTIAL section of Carmel, IN, including
the yet undeveloped land on the south/west corner of 116th. S1. & Gray Rd.
Thank you very much for your understanding of our concerns and for protecting our way of life by rejecting the
Use Variance Application in question.
Joe & Josephine Svec
11426 Burkwood Dr.
Carmel, IN 46033
317-815-9761
4/22/2008
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie 5
From: Chris Jensen [delhiman@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21,2008 12:49 PM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: Proposed flower shop at 116th and Gray Road
Dear Ms. Tingely:
I wish to inform you of our formal opposition to the proposed flower shop at 116th and Gray Roadl which is scheduled to be
presented for a variance hearing next week. We live in Sycamore Farml which is across the street from this property. This business
is proposed for a residential area by a busy intersection and it is completely unacceptable for any consideration to be given for a
commercial variance, There is not currently any safe ingress or egress to this property and having a commercial venture there
would have a detrimental impact on the home values for all the properties in Sycamore Farm. Furthermorel if this property would
gain commercial variance there would be nothing to stop further development across the entire empty field adjacent to the
property. This proposed variance is opposed by the entire neighborhood in Sycamore Farml and we urge you to uphold the city's
master plan and keep this "house" designated as residential.
Sincerely,
Chris and Daphne Jensen
11469 Burkwood Drive
Carmel, IN 46033
Pack up or back up-use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how,
4/21/2008
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie S
From: Tamara M. Tuchmajer [tmtuchmajer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday. April 19, 2008 9:27 PM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals - Gray Rd and 116th
bear Mrs. Connie,
As residents of Sycamore Farm, on Gray rd, close to 116th, we oppose the plan of the owners of the SE corner of Gray Rd and
1,16th interesction to convert the house in to a flower shop. We bought the house thinking this area cannot be used for business and
we believe it should remain as it is today. Otherwise, this opens a precedent for others to open different types of business, including
restaurants, pubs, etc.
Thank you,
Marcelo Ferraro and Tamara Tuchmajer
4836 Greenspire Dr,Sycamore Farm
Be a better friend, newshoul1d, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. InrjLl].QY,r,
4/21/2008
Page 1 of1
Tingley, Connie S
."='''''''~'''''''''C..."-~~,,,;;,,,=,,,,",..cc~..,.,~:...=,,,,"~VOC'_,,-,,_~~",-_"'_'~'~'~C~.~'''''.~_'''-=.-::C-'-.:crC'C~~''~",",,",'.",,'_'''~''''''_~_,^'~~"'~"""-""...,.,..,,....~.,..~,,,,,--~.~.=-:-::-.==..,,-..,,c--,,,-=-~-.-o-----..
From: LarsonRLARSON@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 11 : 16 AM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: Proposed flower shop at 116th and Gray Road
I live in Sycamore Farm and firmly oppose the proposed flower shop at 116th and Gray Road.
Please vote no to future retail there. Thank you.
Robi n Larson
. 11429 Regency Lane
-,._"-,-"-"~~--",,,,,~~,,-,~~:,,,:,CC'""-=-'~~~~~~"~''''''''~~=_''.=-."'_^'""'.=-c-;::C"-:,..",.,
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for u.s. used car listings at ,!\Q!"AutClli.
4/18/2008
Variance SW comer of 116th and Gray Road
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie S
From: Larson, K. (Kenneth) [kenneth.larson@us.ing.com]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 11 :50 AM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Cc: LarsonRLARSON@aol.com
Subject: Variance SW corner of 116th and Gray Road
I strongly oppose allowing a variance to allow the existing single family home to be converted to a business property flower shop.
This would be very detrimental and undesirable for our community. Sincerely,
Kenneth Larson Sycamore Farm property owner
NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential and intended on.
---------------------------------~------------------------------------------~~--------------
---------------------------------------------------------------,----------------------~------
4/18/2008
Tingley, Connie S
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mike sullivan [sullivanm50@yahoo.com]
Friday, April 18, 2008 8:43 AM
Tingley, Connie S
Proposed flower shop
My name is Mary Sullivan and I have been a Carmel resident for 17 years. I live in the
Sycamore Farms subdivision off 116th Street and Gray Road. The reason I am writing to you
is that it has come to my attention of a. proposal for a flower shop at the corner of 116th
and Gray, that is coming before your board meeting the end of April.
The first reason I am opposed is because it is right in the center of a residential area.
The second is due to the traffic congestion already in this area. I think that there
should be a few sacred areas that aren't zoned commercial in Carmel. I would appreciate
you giving this some thought before it is voted on 'the end of April. I appreciate your
time and hope you will do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Mary Sullivan
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;
_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie S
From: Tingley, Connie S
Sent: Thursday, April 17,2008 12:30 PM
To: 'bm_59@yahoo.com'
Cc: Holmes, Christine B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'jmolitor@prodigy.net'
Subject: RE: Use Variance 4611 E. 116 St.
I have received your email and a copy will be given to the BZA Board members.
Cohn ie Tingley
BZA Secretary
571-2419
From: bm_59@yahoo.com [mailto: bm_59@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:16 AM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Cc: bm_59@yahoo.com
Subject: Use Variance 4611 E. 116 St.
Dear Connie:
I am requesting that the letter below be read at the hearing on April 28, 2008 regarding the Use Variance for the property
at 4611 E. 116 St, Carmel, Indiana. Please aclmowledge receipt of this email by replying back to me at
bm_59@yahoo.com.
Thank: You,
Purrdrevv Starner
Letter to be read on April 28, 2008 at Use Variance hearing:
My name is Andrew Stamer and I live at 11456 Regency Lane, Camlel, Indiaria, in the Sycamore Fann Division. My
wife, Beth, and I are opposed to the Use Variance to allow the Hower business or any other business.
We bought our property seven years ago with good faith that the property located at E. 1 16th and Gray was zoned for
residential use. We would not have purchased this property if a business was near the entrance to our di vision. If we
wanted to live near a business district, we would have bought a different property.
We urge the mem bers of lheCannel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals to think about the real meaning of 11 good faith".
Good faith is based on honesty, principles, and integrity. Please repeat these words slowly in your mind: Honesty nn___
Principles _m___ Integrity. We believe the city of Carmel bas constantly demonstrated the belief of good faith since
it's birth in 1874.
We ask the Board t6 reject the Use Variance and keep our peaceful neighborhood the way it was when we bought our
property - a residential district.
Thank You,
Beth & Andrew Stamer
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Iryitl1Q:W,
4/ I 7/2008
Page 10f2
Holmes, Christine B
From: C and L Spicer [CandLSpicer@indy.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:56 PM
To: Haimes, Christine B
Cc: MayorJim Brainard Politics
Subject: Re: Zoning Variance 116th/Gray
Christine, if this tlowershop is allowed, other businesses would also be allowed - all invading a residential area. I am heartily
against it. Is there anything I can do to prevent it? We've got to keep up the value of our 1970's neighborhood. This will
cheapen it.
Wasn't there an effort to maintain more established neighborhoods in the platfornl of the Mayor? IfYOll dOll't mind, I am
copying this to him.
Tonight we have a homeowners' board and block captain meeting 7:00 PM @ Brookshire Clubhouse.
Sincerely concerned but thankful for your reply,
Laurie Spicer
848-2780
----- Original Message -----
From: Holmes, Christine B
To: HoHtQflIJ9.!:LJ\,iljJseP ; .C....!i.1mLL...9.Ris::52f.
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: Zoning Variance 116th/Gray
Ms. Spicer,
The request is to operate a flower shop in the existing house. The owners are not anticipating any changes
beyond adding some parking next to the house and a couple of small signs, if they are approved, The intent is
to primarily provide flowers for events, more than offer walk-in retail services, so they are anticipating very little
traffic to their site, and are not planning on adding any greenhouses or other structures. At this time, they
expect to have one full-time employee, and one or two occasional part-time employees.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Regards,
Christine Barton-Holmes
Planning Administrator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
317.571,2424
3175712426 fax
~ Pieas.e cOl1sider the. environment Ixfor~ printing
From: HOllibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Wednesday, April 16,2008 11:31 AM
To: C and L Spicer
Cc: Holmes, Christine B
4/16/2008
Page 2 of2
Subject: RE: Zoning Variance 116thjGray
Dear Ms. Spicer
The variance is requested to operate a flower shop in the home at 4611 East 116th Street.
Christine Barton-Holmes is the planner on staff who is working on this petition - she is copied on this email and
can provide you with more specific information should you so desire.
Mike Hollibaugh
From: C and L Spicer [mailto:CandLSpicer@indy.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15/ 2008 6: 15 PM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: Zoning Variance 116thjGray
Are you the person,Mike, to ask what kind of variance is bcing considered at the April 28th Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting for I J 6th/Gray?
Th anks,
Laurie Spicer
Brookshire Resident
848-2780
4/16/2008
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie S
'~-~~--~~~""""""~~',,",""'~'~~'~~''''C"=''..'_-:"~''7:''_~-'.=-'.'''' --c_,,__';c';;_~"~"M_"~__'~ ----.-"-cc.-,='-c."CC'''''-,,~~~~<<_'._C,^'-'__:O~~...,,..,._...._.._
From: Laury Karwoski [Iaurykarwoski@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9: 15 AM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Cc: Bill Karwoski
Subject: Prospective Flower Shop at 116th & Gray Rd.
Ms. Tingley:
As property owners in the Sycamore Farm neighborhood, we are writing to let you know that we are opposed to the use of the
single family home on the SW corner of 116th and Gray Road as a flower shop. We believe that a retail shop in this location could
adversely affect property values in our neighborhood.
An additional concern is that a retail shop in close proximity to our development would encourage further retail development in the
adjacent field south ofthe prospective shop and directly opposite the entrance of our neighborhood on Gray Road. Retail
development in this area would definitely cause depreciation of property values in the Sycamore Farm development. It would also
cause increased traffic in an area that is already quite congested during morning and evening commute times.
Sincerely,
Bill and Laury Karwoski
11473 Regency Lane
Carmel, IN 46033
4/16/2008
Holmes. Christine B
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tingley, Connie S
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8: 11 AM
Holmes, Christine B; Hollibaugh, Mike P
FW: The proposed flower shop at 116th Street and Gray Road
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: mjgamble [mailto:mjgamble@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:01 AM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: The proposed flower shop at ll6th Street and Gray Road
I have every intention of attending the April 28th hearing regarding the property at the
corner of 116th Street and Gray Road to voice my opposition to any use of the land other
than a single family stand alone dwelling.
Other than the public golf course built some 20 years ago, there is not a single
commercial property within a one mile radius of that location. The southbound turn from
eastbound 1l6th Street on to Gray Road is already treacherous in inclimate weather.
Additional traffic coming in and out of that location would make it doubly so. With the
amount of vacant existing, newly constructed, and planned construction commercial property
in Carmel, I see no reason to add an additional location to the mix - one that will not
promo~e future cOTI@ercial development and will only stick out in stark contrast to the
surrounding properties. It seems to me there are plenty of more appropriate places to
allow a business to operate than in the midst of a residential area.
To make an argument that we need a flowershop in the midst of residential implies that
store ',""auld be most convenient to the neighbors. There are certainly commercial
develo~nents that could arguably be more convenient to a residential area and just as
undesirable to be around. To take an old cliche - it is a slippery slope to begin turning
residential areas into commercial locales.
What's next - a gas station? A liquor store? Perhaps a strip mall would be planned for
the farm i~mediately adJacent?
t1atthew Gamble
mjgamble@gmail.com
317-627-7477
1
Tingley. CQnnieS
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mjgamble [mjgamble@gmail.com]
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:01 AM
Tingley, Connie S
The proposed flower shop at 116th Street and Gray Road
I have every intention of attending the April 28th hearing regarding the property at the
corner of 116th Street and Gray Road to voice my opposition to any use of the land other
th~n a single family stand alone dwelling.
Other than the public golf course built some 20 years ago, there is not a single
commercial property within a one mile radius of that iocation. The southbound turn from
eastbound 116th Street on to Gray Road is already treacherous in inclimate weather.
Additional traffic coming in and out of that location would make it doubly so. With the
amount of vacant existing, newly constructed, and planned construction commercial property
in Carmel, I see no reason to add an additional location to the mix - one that will not
promote future commercial development and will only stick out in stark contrast to the
surrounding properties. It seems to me there are plenty of more appropriate places to
allow a business to operate than in the midst of a residential area.
To make an argument that we need a flowershop in the midst of residential implies that
store would be most convenient to the neighbors. There are certainly commercial
developments that could arguably be more convenient to a residential area and just as
undesirable to be around. To take an old cliche - it is a slippery slope to begin turning
residential areas into commercial locales.
What's next - a gas station? A liquor store? Perhaps a strip mall would be planned for
the farm immediately adjacent?
Matthew Gamble
mjgamble@gmail.com
317-627-7477
Page 1 of 1
Tingley, Connie S
From: Ducky4us@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:09 PM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: Flower shop on Gray Road and 116th Street
I am absolutely opposed to the flower shop proposal.
Respectfu Ily,
Colleen Minieri
4851 Greenspire Drive
Carmel, IN 46033
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice onAQl.Mo_Q!2y}l,_Elnaoc:e.
4/16/2008
Tin~ley. Connie S
From: Saleguru1 @aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:53 PM
To: Tingley, Connie S
Subject: no flower shop @ 116th and Gray
I strongly oppose this proposal.
Dominic J Minieri
4851 Greenspire Drive
Carmel, IN. 46033
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice onA.QLMQ!1J1y_.s._EJ.DSJO_~_E:l..
4/1612008
Page 1 of 1