Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicationCITY OF CARMEL -CLAY TOWNSHIP • '- ~-~ HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA '-', ! tE) - b P{)OS APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTIONS n P DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FEE: Single Family (Primary Residence) $286.00 for the first variance, plus $88.00 for each additionalrA-6riflfe ordinance being varied. All Other $1,133.50 for the first variance, plus $535.50 for each additional section of the ordinance being varied. OR see Hear~iln~g Officer Fees DOCKET NO. y °~ L ~©G~ DATE RECEIVED: ,) Address: np~s ,LL< 2) Project Name: l ~ e ~U l~ ~` ~S `~ j Cam' ~ r``~ I Phone: /G~~1/ - ~f~ °~~ ~) Engineer/Architect: W ~ r ~ L' ~-~ ~ i1PCFl n J iM S ~l~ t~"SPhone: O 7 ~O ~ ~ ~O ~~ / ~ q~ '~ ...__._... ~r~-'r S~iina/~!- -/UC an C41onk[nlrr..ro~....,.. S~yy 'Q /~° ri Contact US ~'~rn~~~a o~ C one 3} Applicant's Status: (Check the appropriate response) (a) The applicant's name is on the deed to the property (b) The applicant is the contract purchaser of the property /1 / 1 1 t (c) Other: ~ Ust r~(5 ~ I"~v~tr~P-I" 7 ~ C P reSG ..7z 'r7 Vc 4) If Item 3) (c) is checked, please complete the~I/rf~ollowfing: / Owner of the propertyPpinvoll1ved: ~V / ttz~r~ Cd M /^)'~o~ ~^ ~ , L C Owner's address: O4'd' VvtG~r~/~ S~• , ~-~,~ y ~ _-~-~ Phone: ~~,~ -d 5) Record of Ownership: / 7 ~/U~ Deed Book No./Instrument No. Page: Purchase date: 6) Common address of the property involved: Sit S - ~~f I~ d . Legal description: Tax Map Parcel No.: lfi ' Dg •'~ 'off -d~- d (- ~O ~C~ 7) State explanation of requested Development Standards Variance: (State what you want to do and cite the section number(s) of the Carmeel/Clay Zoning Ordirnance that applies and/or create"s the need for this reques/t). l C ~l0-nAC- T ~~ ~L 4T '~F n C (n y {'u. a `(-c ~ ~a~ ~/`U n~ G/hG"~' G-~4S Cor~,v„~c ~ a-f- ~Z~ Gn ~'/t7 a7. pes~rc~ e~ ~ o~sn~- ~- a 11 a~ -{ z r a ~ ~1~.~,g~` ~ n ~ 6 ~~ cK ~1~~, .s wtu~l, In~l7er q~~ ~~ -~tiu~~ wao Pagel of8-zwna~emr«ms~eu apgmeti«a~oae msw~wa.es vmlenra nppficabon .eV. oiro:vtoos n or ~v,~~ ~e~c~ 8) State reasons supporting the Development Standards Variance: (Additionally, complete the attached question sheet entitled "(Findings of Fad-Development Standards Variance"). MM~7riK~-~ /-/4S Mace }thin 7"hu~ WL Gt.CJU~G'~,2ln.S~~~h~ ~t wGa~ nG e , ,Qe 5i~rvo~ -fence rv4~ w~e! %a~~ ~S ri ~~~ ~~~~ J 9) Present zoning of the property (give exact classification): 1~ "- 7 10) Size of lot parcel in question: }'~ ~~ /~ acres 11) Present use of the property: /'TTI-fit G f'~e ,1 ~J` ~ Y l a ~ -S _ 12) Describe the proposed use of the property: /~ 13) Is the property: Owner occupied Renter occupied Other 14) Are there any restrictions, laws, covenants, variances, special uses, or appeals filed in connection with this property that would relate or affect its use for the specific purpose of this application? If yes, give date and docket number, deciNsio/n rendered and pertinent explanation. Iv ~~ 15) Has work for which this application is bei~~nlIg filed already started? If answer is yes, give details: Building Permit Number: ~ /T Builder. 16) If proposed appeal is granted, when will the work commence? Sp ~i nG t-~ 9 17) If the proposed variance is granted, who will operate and/or use the proposed improvement for which this applicationlIhas bee//n fi_'lelId? IV~ICh~+'Y~oO~ a55oGi~~-ird/~ , NOTE: LEGAL NOTICE shall be published in the Indianapolis Star a MANDATORY twenty-five (25) days prior to the public hearing date. The certified "Proof of Publication" affidavit for the newspaper must be available for inspection the night of the hearing. LEGAL NOTICE to all adjoining and abutting property owners is also MANDATORY, two methods of notice are recommended: 1) CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED sent to adjoining property owners. (The white receipt should be stamped by the Post Office at least twenty-five (25) days prior to the public hearing date.) 2) HAND DELIVERED to adjoining and abutting property owners (A receipt signed by the adjoining and abutting properly owner acknowledging the twenty-five (25) day notice should be kept for verification that the notice was completed) REALIZE THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ALL NOTICES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT. AGAIN, THIS TASK MUST BE COMPLETED AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE (25) GAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE. The applicant understands that docket numbers will not be assioned until all suooortino information has been submitted to the Department of Community Services. Page 2 of 8 - z:~nne,aMams~Bm eod~®ums~ oevew~ment s~~dards vena~ca nroi~ti~ reg. oirosrtoos CARMEUCLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No.: Petitioner: 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: r ~ e ~ sue/o,0i~n {_ 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: / //~~ ~G~~efr`a ( 5~~~ I /~~O/1 /S TGIF h~~~er ~jC/~ ~~ 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: c ~d ZGn~~9 or~~n~,,~ce ISjS~-e S~~^„~ ~ ~ C'Gv~ti.~~-~,,.~~T MF~~ ~ l~Z~ o<<Jf l~y~ n(Yi~e-SS a-F See k,.~5 (f q r i ~t „ c e s. DECISION IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Development Standards Variance Docket No. is 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 20 CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals $Fr~RFTAf~V (_armgllr:lav Rnard of 7~ning Appeals Conditions of the Board are listed on the back. (Petitioner or his representative to sign). Page a of a - zineremtom~~ezn e~wuars~ o~reiw~~ sw~aa~ variance nPoi~ua, re.. oirosaow ,~~~~y~~~q~ == CITY OF ~~ ` '' ~~ ~~ .• Yr. n f,~14 S} A:o `~~ jjff ` ~'~' CARMEL C J =~9 ~- ~~'~~'V~~ 'L!i~j.~-- Gp. {{{I`ll DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES "~~i/%/////////~~11~~~ Division of Planning & Zoning LETTER of GRANT September 25, 2007 Jim Shinaver Nelson & Frankenberger 3105 East 98th Street Suite 170 Indianapolis, IN 46280 Re: Uatown Partners. 531 S Guilford ° 07070044 UV, 07070045 V-07070052 V Dear Mr. Shinaver: At the meeting held Monday, September 24, 2007, the Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals took the following action regarding the Use Variance (UV) and Development Standards Variances (V) filed by you for the property located at 531 S. Guilford Road. APPROVED: Docket No. 07070044 UV for permitted uses in [he B7 District. APPROVED: Docket Nos. 07070045 V through 07070052 V Development Standards Variances for minimum front yard, side yard, side yard aggregate, rear yard, lot width, lo[ size, lot coverage, and areas to be landscaped with the Commitment to establish a fence, ht accordance with the standards of [he US 421 Overlay, along [he east perimeter. Please be advised that per Section 30.05.05: Time Limit of the Zoning Ordinance, the aforementioned Development Standards Variance approvals are valid for one (1) year. By [ha[ time, either continuous constmction of the improvements must be underway, or a written request for aone-time, six-month extension of the approval must have been received and approval granted by this Department. The expiration date of the approval is September 24, 2008. When applying for applications for permits regarding the improvements contained within this approval, please include a copy of this letter with your application materials in order to assist the Department's review. If 1 can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 317/571-2417. Sincerely, Christine Barton-Holmes Planning & Zoning Administrator Department of Community Services Cc: Jim Blanchard, Building Commissioner Sarah Lillard, Building & Code Services ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317-571-2417 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting September 24, 2007 tried hard to design around. It is not a Federal wetland. It was their understanding that it was under State jurisdiction. Through a permitting process, they can impact a certain percentage of it. It is over one-half acre in size, about 20,000+ square feet. According to the current site plan, they will impact about 1600 square feet. As they go through the Plan Commission process, they will be looking at further ways to improve the site. They will look at the unit design to see if they can alter some of the units so that they do not even encroach on the 1600 square feet. Mr. Dierckman asked about the conditions the Department had requested. The conditions would be taking a lot of leverage away from the Plan Commission. Would they commit to a fence along the east side with brick columns? Mrs. Barton-Holmes stated the Department would typically ask for a privacy fence or a mixture of brick columns and wood. The conditions were just to start the dialogue with the Petitioner rather than conditions they would be asking for as a condition of approval of the variances. They are conditions or commitments that would come up at the DP/ADCs stage. Mr. Dierckman wanted to focus on the fence because of the individuals impacted by the fence and lights and so forth. Mr. Moffett stated they were obviously concerned about that because it was included on the site landscape plan. They would make a commitment for asix-foot privacy fence for the entire row. At this point because of economics, he did not know if he could commit to brick columns every six feet. He did not know the standards. Mr. Dierckman thought it was every 20 feet and Mr. Ripma thought it was every 24 feet with atwo- foot column so six-foot fence would fit. Mr. Dierckman asked if they could commit to that. They did not want a fence that would be flopping when it was not built properly. Mr. Moffett asked if they were specifically talking about the east property line and was 24 feet the current standard. Mr. Ripma stated it had gone through the Subdivision Committee. It was twenty-five feet with two- foot columns. The sections of fencing are six feet and fit in the twenty-four feet between the columns. Fences at 30 feet come apart. Mr. Moffett stated they could agree to that sort offence on that property line. Mr. Broach stated he had not seen the fence on the plans. He was okay with the last variance. They would need to work through the ADLS process and work with the neighbors for a proper buffer. Mr. Hawkins thought the utility easements looked close. Based on the previous petition, make sure the landscaping was done correctly and do not come back and ask for a variance. Mr. Shinaver stated the date on the Findings of Fact and Ballot sheets had not been changed from the August 27 meeting. Page 21 of 22 Enhance your surroundings. Stone wall beauty without the expense. ~_ :; j 4 x b:~ ~: µ~r . e ~, im ran e FENCE Real stone look without the expense • Tested to withstand winds over 100mph Much greater impact resistance than vinyl • UV stabilized for a lifetime of vibrant color Maintenance free • Stable in hot & cold weather extremes Graffiti resistant • Lifetime warranty ACC@SSO1'[@S Double Caps Gap Fillers Gates Single Hinge Latch COO!' OptIOt1S Double Drop Rod Brown Granite Black Granite Beige Granite desert Granite Grey Granite White Granite ~ ti :: ~. ___f L3-~ "P~Mh.~ J]«. t r~~~e~:ff~,. _ r~i Y 3 ~rR` .~-~ _._~ ~ ~Slm_Tek, FENCE 1330 West 400 North, rem, Utah 84057 801-655-5236 866-648-9336 simtekfence.com ~FA MEMBEA