HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #18 Bruce BerryDear Members of the Carmel BZA,
Pure Development is proposing a 6-Story Apartment directly behind the homes located on Emerson Road. No
other structures are 6 stories in downtown Carmel that are directly adjacent to single family residences and,
especially homes that are single story ranch homes. The relationship in scale is completely undesirable and
there a should be a cross section view included in Pure Development’s package that represents this
relationship. It is not a difficult item to produce, but the lack of its inclusion represents the disregard for the
Johnson Addition that Pure development is displaying and a lack of thoroughness The City of Carmel Planning
and Zoning Staff is guilty of by not requiring and reviewing this document. Also consider the fact that the
Pure Development team is requesting 9 (nine) variances. Because they are trying to maximize this project
and its investment return at the expense of any social consciousness.
I feel the BZA requests before you today, will impact the subsequent approval requests received by the
Carmel Planning Commission for this and future projects adjacent to Johnson Addition. The remainder of the
note outlines why the BZA requests associated with the former AT&T lot should be rejected. Additionally, I
also wholeheartedly oppose any Variance Requests associated with the homes on Emerson Road especially,
but not limited to, the Use Variance.
1. The proposed front yards do not allow for sufficient front yard and landscaping.
2. The fact that this setback has been proposed in other new homes does not work in the Johnson
neighborhood. It is comparing apples to oranges and completely disregards the existing context of the
neighborhood which appears to be the goal to set precedent to allow future development to follow this
same strategy eroding the character of the neighborhood.
3. Reducing the lot sizes will disrespect the character of the existing neighborhood houses and property and
will devalue the existing homes and properties because instead of fixing up and improving the existing
homes, purchaser’s goals will be to buy the properties only to tear them down and subdivide the lots into
smaller denser lots essentially destroying the character of the neighborhood as has happened north of
Woody’s.
4. Pure Development has the right to purchase the existing lots but under no circumstance should they be
allowed do whatever they want with the lots with complete and utter disregard to the neighborhood
they are impacting. None of the Adjacent Homeowners approve of this design request and all will be
negatively impacted – especially any neighbor directly to the west of the 451 Emerson Road who will lose
his privacy.
5. Practically speaking, if approved, what would prevent a Developer from acquiring home(s) in other
established neighborhoods such as Crooked Stick, Brookshire, Woodland Springs, Bayhill, Prairie View,
Laurelwood or The Village of West Clay and using a decision like this to acquire a home in an established
neighborhood, break-up that property and insert an enormous office building close to that
neighborhood’s lake, golf course other nice view?
6. Pure Development needs to reconfigure their building plans starting with eliminating any and all Variance
Requests associated with the homes located at 449 and 451 Emerson Road. Then they should ensure
they are adhering to the other UDO requirements or asking for a very modest concession given the
sensitivity to neighbors (e.g., requesting a slightly higher lot coverage percentage than the existing
ordinance allows).
7. Any issues that residents may still have with the former AT&T property would then be handled with a
separate BZA Zoning Request based on the revised plans for that original property.
8. Regarding the strict enforcement of the UDO creating a hardship for the developer is an absurd
statement. They knew what the requirements were when they purchased the land and if they didn’t
want to adhere they shouldn’t have bought it. Show some backbone and enforce the rules for once.
9. Regarding the request for variance for the two existing Johnson Addition properties that have been
included, there is nothing natural or peculiar about any of these zoning relationships that has not been
created by Pure Development fully knowing they were doing so. DO NOT FEEL SORRY FOR THEM and
actually stand up for our neighborhood that has been a part of the fabric of Carmel (and paying taxes) for
50 years.
10. There is not 35 feet of buffer yard space between the building and the neighborhood as outlined in the
C2 / R2 Ordinance. 10 feet is too little and doesn’t contain enough trees.
o The buffer yard requirements state that trees and other blocking heavy landscaping are required in
this 35-foot buffer yard. Pure Development’s proposal of a 10-foot ALLEY is unacceptable. At a
minimum, the developer should be providing an 8’ tall masonry wall the entire length of this
property to provide proper visual separation and security to the existing home owners of Johnson
Addition.
o The “alley” that Pure is proposing will be a pedestrian walkway – operational 24 hours a day and
night. Noise will be present at all hours.
o Regarding language that the variance will not “be injurious to public health”, I disagree. There is not
adequate maneuvering room for the fire department to safely stage and reach the north side of the
building. Please provide documentation that they have been consulted and weighed in on this.
11. The maximum height of the primary structure (i.e., apartment building) when abutting a residential
neighborhood is only 35 feet maximum. A six-story apartment structure on top of parking and then
mechanical structures will easily be over 75 feet (just look at the Railyard building). As mentioned earlier,
there should be cross section views available to review.
12. Residents have asked Pure Development and City Officials to produce proof that the 6-story structure will
not create a shadow on any part of Emerson Road homes. To date, no proof has been presented. This is a
simple deliverable that can be accomplished with a $700 program called Sketchup Pro (not expensive for
a project of this magnitude). Pure Development’s unwillingness to provide is either proof that it will not
be in their best interest or arrogance.
13. Incremental parking for Carmel Residents will be negligible at best. With 240 units and up to 8 stories of
additional tenants and their visitors/guests (4 for Merchant’s Bank + 2 for Pure HQ + 2 for Family Office),
exactly how can anyone believe those 400 spots will really produce more parking for more than a few
other vehicles? These spots will essentially be for the new people driving to work or their residence – it’s
not an entirely new parking garage for use by all Carmel residents.
I am proud of much of the development in Carmel and what the City has become in the 22 years I have lived
in Johnson Addition. Good development can be termed “good” when it is a partnership, and when every has
a voice that is heard. There is no partnership in this situation, evidenced by the number of variances being
requested. I’m also extremely disappointed that City of Carmel Planning and Zoning Staff got out their rubber
stamp and approved all of them. They didn’t even oppose one. Therefore, I am asking the BZA to please do
what is right and reject all of the Pure Development BZA requests and send them back to the drawing board
to come up with something more appropriate for the land they have purchased rather than asking nearby
residents to simply accept their desired result.
Thanks for your time and your service.
Sincerely,
Bruce Berry
733 Emerson Road
Carmel, IN 46032