HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #11 Cindy Babcock1 of 3
Members of the BZA:
The project proposed by Pure Development has been a moving target since it was initially
introduced to the residents of Johnson Addition and Wilson Village in October 2021. Neighbors
were shown handsome renderings of an apartment building, a headquarters building for Pure
Development, a large office building for Merchants Bank, a “family office” building, and two 2-
story homes to provide “visual height transition” on Emerson Drive. The developers spoke with
enthusiasm about becoming our neighbors in such a wonderful area of Carmel.
The residents studied the renderings. An apartment building six stories high seemed excessive
given its proximity to a neighborhood of single-family, predominately one story homes. With the
exception of City Center (which does not abut single family homes), none of the other apartment
buildings or complexes in the entire city are taller than five stories -- and many are four stories or
less.
At a December 2021 meeting with Mayor Brainard and Mike Hollibaugh we were told:
“Not to worry.”
“There will be ‘for sale’ townhomes facing the homes on Emerson Road.”
“The townhomes will provide the needed ‘transition’ to the higher structure.”
“The human eye pays attention to that which is directly in front of it.” and
“[The development will be such that] you won’t really even notice how high the rest of
the building is.”
Mayor Brainard went on to describe how much the neighbors would enjoy the quaint street level
coffee shop, secluded restaurant and other shops that the project would provide.
We sought compromise. This project was designated to receive TIF funds, and now appears the
TIF funds are to be utilized to pay for garage construction. When asked about building the garage
floors below grade so as to lower the height of the structure to four stories, we were told “No, too
expensive.”
Not long after the December 2021 meeting, we learned the of the developers’ true intent for the
two Emerson Road properties:
1. The lots are to be split, front to back, resulting in home lots less than half of the current lot
acreage in the neighborhood.
2. An office building is to be built for Cindy Simon Skojdt in what is currently a back yard.
3. Pure’s headquarters building is to spill over onto the back yard of the second Emerson
home.
4. Two new homes are to be constructed on what remains of the original 18,000 sq. ft lots
(now reduced to 7,600 sq. ft.).
5. The front set-backs of the new homes will be 15 feet closer to the road than the other homes
in the Johnson Addition subdivision.
6. The “back yards” of the new homes will be less than six feet deep.
Understandably, the long-time resident next to the proposed Simon Skojdt office was incensed to
think that a 10,000 sq. ft., two story office building with a steep pitched roof would be directly
next to his outdoor living space, backyard pool and deck.
June 22, 2022
2 of 3
On May 25, 2022, we again met with the developers to discuss, in good faith, possible areas of
compromise. We suggested that perhaps some reconfiguration of the plan could be made that
wouldn’t require division of two residential lots, and perhaps the garage parking could be divided
between the apartment building and the Merchants Bank building so that the apartment building
could be reduced by one story. We were told they would meet with us again after some
consideration of what had been discussed.
Notably, Pure’s Planning and Zoning Applications filed with the City are dated March 10, 2022,
April 18, 2022, and May 18, 2022. Apparently, only the neighboring residents were acting in good
faith.
Also, at that same May 25th meeting, we learned the much-touted “townhomes” would not be “for
sale” townhomes as we were led to believe, but instead, were just another rental option in the
apartment building. As such, these units are not actual townhomes at all, as the UDO definition of
“townhouse” is “One or more Single-family Dwellings with minimal Front and Rear Yards…”1
(UDO, p. 11-27) These units, in fact, have no back yards at all. They are simply a part of the
principal building that has an exterior front door rather than a front door opened from an interior
hallway.
Finally, we were also told at the May meeting that there would be no street level commercial space.
The representatives from Pure and Buckingham appeared rather vexed when we shared Mayor
Brainard’s description of a quaint coffee shop, a secluded restaurant and other shops.
As to the specific variance requests (00081 V, 00082 UV, 00083 V, 00084 V and 00085 V), I ask
that you consider the following:
The Covenants and Restrictions of the Johnson Addition Plat are clear:
o “All lots in this subdivision shall be known and designated as residential lots. No
structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot herein
other than one single family dwelling, not to exceed 2-1/2 stories in height and a
private garage for not more than two cars and residential accessory buildings.”
o “No . . . buildings of any kind for commercial use shall be erected or maintained on
any lot in this subdivision.”
o “Building lines as shown on this plat in feet back from the street property line are
hereby established between which line and the street property line, there shall be
erected or maintained no structure of any kind or part hereof other than a one story
open porch.” (Note: the building lines of the Plat are 25’ from the street property
line.)
Additionally, the UDO gives careful consideration to uses other than residential homes in areas
zoned R2. Those uses are plainly listed on page 2-10 of the UDO. The ONLY Office Special Use
permitted is for “clinic or medical health center.”2 While Mrs. Simon Skojdt’s business
endeavors are laudable, they do not fit the UDO definition of “clinic or medical health center.”
The same is true for the Pure Headquarters. These two buildings need to be reevaluated and
developed within the existing C2 acreage available.
1 Writer’s emphasis added.
2 Writer’s emphasis added.
3 of 3
Simply put, this project is attempting to do too much with too little space, in the wrong location.
An adjacent development should compliment the character of a long-established neighborhood;
not subsume it and/or make it irrelevant. Offers have been made. Offers have been retracted. No
concessions have been given to neighbors of Johnson Addition. We ask: “Where is the ‘thoughtful
transition’ spoken of at the many Comprehensive Plan meetings held over the past 9 months?”
I respectfully request that you adhere to the thoroughly vetted standards adopted by the Carmel
UDO, and decline to grant the variances requested by the Petitioner.
In closing, I share, verbatim, a statement made by CRC Director, Henry Mestetsky, at an NAIOP
Meet-and-Greet at the Hotel Carmichael on June 15, 2021, titled “The Redevelopment of Carmel.”
Mr. Mestetsky declared to the developers present:
If you’ve got a good project, bring it to us! Don’t worry about zoning, the Plan
Commission, City Council or NIMBYs. If we want it, we’ll get it done!
In light of Mr. Mestetsky’s statement, the question must be asked: “Do the rules, standards, and
review processes enforced on individual home-builders and developers not apply to projects
brought by the CRC? Moreover, are the rights of quiet, law abiding citizens residing in Carmel
neighborhoods always to be subordinate to the whims of favored developers and the City officials
who enable them?”
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Babcock
6 Shady Lane
Carmel, IN 46032