HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #22 Charlie DemlerNO 6 STORIES — NO LOT SPLITS!
JOHNSON ADDITION HOMEOWNERS GROUP
IN R'EFERENCE TO THE PROPOOSED DEVELOPMENT OF FORMER
ATT SITE AND THE IMPACT ON OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD
Packet for: Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting June 27, 2022
Contents
Johnson Addition plat from 1955 with covenants and restrictions
Exhibits of:
Emerson Road Street view with proposed homes with less setback
Map of Johnson Acres homes in development area meeting setback and
two not in compliance
Modified Bufferyard view
City of Carmel Document references of applicable portions that address this
development proposal
Analysis of nine variances and our Findings of Facts
Submitted by
Charles Demler
463 Emerson Road, Carmel, IN 46032
Ph (317) 848-7612 Email: cdemler77@gmail.com
It is difficult to present a complete remonstrance to 9 variance requests. We appreciate your
consideration of our viewpoints and our findings
L—lw r_. L 9__—_ r�"..a1L•3faa5�ii__ c et .if nn ` ..GAO
J
1
r yy
� X'
Q
tJ 9
--S 11 1I I
f•1
s
r
44
/.. 5
n, •a e
aTr �i1
a.
- LI» s;
2as
4
S $
r
i u. to a
42
-0
8 &
7
t4�
13
o-/ w
4 t o
s•= 111���
of
i
b
I
.a le-t
17
�. 16
F
r
IR d1
Z2
�L
}
r 9
10
11 .9
y�
l9
l
20
d
8 39 R
a
16 ,
r�
x EMERSON
8 3e - 37
-.,. 36 'S
35 ��
34 -�
33
32
31 30
g .
4
J OPNSON
ADDITION j
_
hetv[hel, M1nreDy rertlry tMt I A. a regletered Surveyor, lle.n.ed In
pll Sth he less of 9ta to lod leM.
No —id.— shell 1e .—Ad r mi—Laud on any lot or lo[e In thla eu Ddl I iap
.the of eptl tNt [M1le Clet cor ectly
y cop as
p e solve p1eGd by of Ds r[ of the .set Itelf of he ewth 6o.t
heving n gtou d floor else nxcl u.l ve ar op.n porcn11 d Reregss, rot lann cM 900 -
fnet 1p the
�' "'-
Gueit er: at Ssctldn 25. To.pEhlp 1h XOrth, Pevge ) X.et of the 9acunU lr Inc 1pel
quer. tees or n on.
o .Cory ecru Ctcre, or bb0 squall feet In [h.
it, 2 or 20 story Atruotur,.
Xerld inn, Hess loon 0vmty, Inatem, being more porcloulerlydeacrlBeginning
c -' ec -
e n point th P I'd. of .ale a-t 0 ., ol—At 3D4 feet South
.Xo —I... t ae or ed dolly .M11 be c ;'I'd on -upon Illy 1'dt in [hle aubdl rl Ion=
tall enythinN be I... here In .nlon my teeome a v"r�myenee
n
of CM N. g- c [M nor Sng thence nee p.rellsl on ehq Xor th line 'h—,
D23.14 {set:
or a vul Bence to he ..r7
neighborhood e[ lerg..
to enc• North ''veil el t the g. 11 n. [Mreot 304 fee[ [o th. North"
1mn3ne of Ile id t-i See,: thence a et eloeg held North 11 4yn5 foot; to nce 60u to
king -en SnserSor angle of 90 degree. 57 ml nu [Ile, a d1 or 982.5'{set:
-
If the perclae Mnto o -rY of tMm or thslr hell, o neat gnn -hall vJ.lAt. ror attempt.
to al lets eny of the coven rote, restrl e[l onei
-
tDme. Beet Eli[g on Smteriar n81e of 89 degne. 2h 1 LC • Ie Gnee of 521.6
Crovl.l one o von' Stionv Mretn, f
oMII De l..ful for any penon oaning reel Ile in tDln eubal vl of on to
f t th C North puns en ldterior angle f 90 deg 54 in [Ile, a d"t—, of
200 r pence duet rkl.e 1.1.11
proeenute xny
rovsetl3nge at l.. of In enui ty .galnet [roe Varepn or peredv. atoleting o mDtlog
[o
n or n551. of 9D d q }4 dl.tenee
or151 05 feet: to the He.t 11 pe or Ilia-t-gee.: tnnnce North elopg ,.1d gevt
viola to .ey aunty coven t! "n. 1 p—:flpt him ar"c hue room aotng e o o r [o :.never
- dem.g.
- 11 4ti' f c to the point of D.glnnimg, eont.f tying i it 19.3e . o Of Inns.
or otter due. for eoah rl oil tion.
" ..1 '..gal hlgh.0 ye of../ror tlghte or ny.'
The foiegving r.e trlottoee, eOV n.nt. ena pro "Intl 'eh'11 run .lth the Iend end nlmil
rn D e ell bee tract of grouts .. d' Into a auDal vl,ion eov.letlnq r 45 loin
In Sn run force nod effnc ceuntll Jnnu.ry 1, 19d0, et .4111 ties old coo -ants
hell De entumebioalr • enase for eu senile, one of In y"" unless ny v c
upD.na ^non 1 to 40, dotty in<lu.f".e.1cn e G ennIn Mreon. rn, .its of
'Cha lots a aid— f rte Itreecn .hoe onn'nfe 'let
`elf or
the oe Jorl to or cne thenxome a If the lot. 1, this eubefvlelm, It % egrned to eMnge
1n figure- den. ting test
ena duel®1 pe rte thereof.
Bata eorem cu ln.-hot. or lnrp.rt.
Innlld.tlen of eny di the toregoing a onn te, provl.l ono, ran trl etloov or ooMl clone
anise
by lodgement Or court order eMl] Sv n eff.e[ env or the other provlel cne, .rtl eh
: Nlitl. m..V•..19a.Fur this 25th any of A. c, 1955•
ehnll -min 1n full forax ena of redt.o
-
Y.
gl tn. Ile Der .lgneeure• tnf,_aay
- *bur. sD
v
kegieteor a g .ror No. 39D7
--
D(Hue Deno )t f vu (pl fsl f
]oaldne
'
91, th,tl re ignaa, Palpn 4. PIltlltt and teal ve D, N. cliff, tr--d end life,
-
d ;—If R Ion -eon, ones rrlsa, the orrer o{ the above dnerlbea reel eutvte,♦--
h .ly I...lfy [net .. do herby l.y eff, 'let entl-edIdA olds the n m 1v ..eons nos
o neon '
Rlth tble plat a tl e rt lflmte. 'hie eubd lvl Ilion ,hell Da knoeI entl dealgnat'ed
oI :OHXWN ADDITION, den .ddttIm to the tole or Carpel, -
-
The street., if not hero -[-for, a.aimted, Ills hereby 0edf c. tea to use.
v•
,Dublly
'here Ili n[rin of gfound u feet In sloth .' eho.p on tnla D',t, nntcn . e hereby-
'�,.-
everretlafor use of 'obit, Idfor inatel let ion e d mSn[ene nce rr of
♦Ice e, seine, ducts, tlrnlne .rod me
r -
...e,
a eubJ act It .I1 [See. to cne au[hotlty of
the proper oi,ll otff cure end to tnar.sepment. herein ......Ad. Noye rmnent or
-
D[ner s rueful. eh.11 D. a ..I.d o min Lelm.d o. slid ."I m, bu[ udh roe r.
.M 11 cake cnelr title sub J.ct tohn t1ghG of eu pu111c act llt3se erdnto [ n
S.I. of lndlene---., e
0.unt1 of
right, or Deer o1 trer lore In "I. eubd SrSeldm,,for ingre an s a g ln`1
o] gfd t 4 and through th .l strips .0 re.en.1. Pevee y b rue ed
p
P.raonelly ppl rod before me, n rod Gry pro bill, 1n end I., ..id County and Sete,
.'
All lots 11 this eubdlrleldh M13 D Y o.n and designs Gd a estd tl 3 3 [e
n.l
per,on, of the .nova etgr stars,, nM Ile pnretely etkvo.le.SId th, execuciov or the fore-
eoi ng Ins Cron' nth ea tne`r vuiusvte ry act ape deed for thl u en0 puryo.. tneretu "
N fret [uranMll bs a eCted, 'leer... s led or rmfttrod t emefn ar eny lot
Pre esetl, d Cf1Eetl heir SRne [urea thereto.
Ce
-.rein o1n.r tMn ov ein^1t faml3y '+elling, n rhea ^tretorlse lv ne3ght
.for
prl vs ce ger.ge of m Chun tun es- en0 neldenclnl edeeaoory Duf lalnse.
Eftneve my Mhd end Ile»I Cn1v__day or
-
Nb lot "Y De vtlilred s In —t. a nut... e, No tern style:,, rtdl rtq ha r.en
e foe] eh.11 F aept on eny 1 t -1M11 pet. for too -It I It pury0e en De peril [trod.
'shell
Nd nlgn of eny eheneGr b di le tl, a cnDt reletl oto
"Pdr Uoav^-.hen yIf
Yy eommlenlor. z Yrev
roe dreary. The cne tr z
biidl. pe 1. Ss henbyre roFlbleedl -
- "
N h " I, beer,: nng nouns, o ca CSIe 111.d 8 f rY bulldlnu or bu Dirge or -
eeM11
d yicfon-fore relel u be ere fed or m.'Itvl n., n eny lo[ 11 [ le sub-
a
- - - -"
�?i erY
-
Nb lldl q e 7111,1, Dt ppu D ea f hell 1 t d
-
of hl 5 f t f `ay.. ld. 1 II pt F t g E ilt p hnn
olidl
1 1 lot h tnla r i 1' rt eh 11 ppl 1 l t 11n r the creme
D d 1- f to tlple 1 t X reeld.rce hulldl n 11 nt.d -n 1,.
App ved ena csii++tea for ems[atl on to <M teen of c.eme] Its l,m this 9tn a y r
6 ]955, by the t I.— of Greet Ind t.ne.
or
Cpined -sorer h 15 feet 15t.. t-the l01 iront.ge red vc the Dul leing
ptsmb.r. wn
-
_
e 1eeY Ills, nl D vet le h 1 0 eny lot or VIDer[y linty on lh'M It le
-
nehdaht�- -
-
B lltli ! lln en D �n fl tat Sn feet Mtk fm h set prnperey
'
h ruby et�blleMd Let.aen .hleh 11nn end [he street pr'yerty 11 roe, [here a 11 bu
ctid v m111 Lnea n uetur1 at 'spy kind Or pert thenof other tMd n
-
'
-span co rch. -
a
c .
,
,
1
V
♦I
• ? (fib lt'�L 619ve i, 4a0z17 ) ro11144V nofnrOf •O 1r1.1 �&1M f
Z OS'Z46
G,zO
• - �oG c5 zG s-1
`1C,
J G�1 ^
S ` rrIF Q u
Oh ""J
Coat
1 • • �� O r � �i O
J
Q-vl-Sz o7s_ 1'M'S IV/, 3 s arl� is7M
A li 12 1,Z 03'17�3"7F
�r � .• � /Y Inr � r 1e l� �I
' K_ 'EOcla1G ( Al1'llLn •S i/�i Z
'Y I
��• .�, r1l � I O IU,In QG-2 �N LL .GL ALAl,�A11.7o,il�0iq! � v
iL .GC .GL I � IY
N
N 3nlbCJ N'VW233Mg r R & o
11L SL 1 L L 5 L 511 'LGI LIS
U L 7MMrill0 W.Cn r i� Q
Q t9� gaon Oq , pbUi r---Z-------� rii —�► —oil---- --CL—
� d salnaa I i ' •ti �il�lin ,f✓el - - I
ps
p ai
i Q �I I I •i 1Y+f O r- S O
i JI I r 4t��� tom» celeaS dint
Y al �3NV� Nt131Nd1S N ° �,
W
p r I � � ,u•LS ,G� ,Gu {.� � � I
J i U ie.l i s lo,inv pe 4, W 1
a
I
el_O�ui
_- _012 --_- J 11*7J !_� __•4L1_____ __Gl__ _psi— ___�11_ _ ,oG .5 L51' J
�W
1
E
cz
�
:aE
O
cn
N
O
E--
cE
(A 1i
cti
4-4
co
ca
N U'\ N
C"
4-4 cd
� � U
CQ O co
ro
.� cd
N O N
� O �
O b.D •�
U N
o�
c0
O
,o O c"1
O N
U r(zl
cd
U1 O
) O
U w cd
N � N
O
O r-i
r-i
N Q�
�K CO cd
8 N
W S-�
N
rd
N
F-1
N
•r-1
r-i
co
4-:)
N
cd
O
rl
O
r-1
cd
r�
•
•
•
•
ire
M
O
CARMEL GUIDING ZONING DOCUMENTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN sets policy
Project area is designated as "Area of Special study" — (No study has been done to guide future
development of this area)
Land Use Chart - shows UC (Urban Center) concept not best use adjacent To Suburban
Residential
Proposed development area is NOT part of MID Town or Old Town zoning - petitioner is not
requesting this designation despite the implication.
ESSEENCE OF COMP PLAN
Policy 4.1 Neighborhoods essential component of community which help build and/or reinforce
the fabric of the city. This document encourages planning for neighborhood in a
traditional sense, and also protects those neighborhoods
Policy 4.3 A concerted efforts should ...determine neighborhood boundaries the city and promote
and identify their boundaries
Policy 4.6 Disallow incompatible site and building design
Policy 6 Community Character includes features of a neighborhood ... that distinguish it.
Community Character is desired... inspires quality of life
North Central District in Comprehensive Plan
1.2 Allow tallest buildings in City Center and US31 Corridor (not area proposed by Pure to develop)
1.4 Protect stable single family neighborhoods in the North Central District as much as possible
COUNCIL ADOPTS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) as the standards
for the Comp Plan goals
BASIC RIGHTS of UDO
General Welfare ... Provide for orderly development
Character — protect the character and stability of residential, commercial, industrial, historic and
natural areas.
G. Bring about compatibility of uses ...(and)... the scale and character of ...development
2.07 Shall comply with Transportation Plan
An amended Comp Plan is being proposed nut has not yet been adopted
VARIANCES
PZ 2022-00081 V REDUCE SQ FOOTAGE FOR LOTS E & F reduce to 7,717 sq ft
Violates covenan%i and restrictions — Has not had proper land division process per Carmel Codes
Approximate 23% reduction from required.
Cut from 10,000 allowed in R2, but existing lots are 18000 sq ft. This would be a cut of 10,283 sq ft or
57% from existing lot
Does not conform to existing lots in neighborhood — harms general welfare and orderly development in
this 67 year old subdivision (against Comp Plan 1.4 North Central District)
Does not protect neighborhood and boundaries (Policy 4.3 in Comp Plan and E. UDO Basic Rights)
Allows for introduction of an incompatible land use (against Policy 4.6 in Comp Plan)
Petitioner packet claims nearby homes with these standards are in this neighborhood, when they are
actually in Old Town District (unique zoning)
Petition states to "introduce contemporary building design" - 95 lots existing for 67 years makes this
against Comp Plan Essence to preserve historic character)
If S1 zoned this would be a designated "historic" neighborhood — platted 67 years ago
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Will injure the general welfare of existing neighborhood — does not "Protect "character. (UDO
Basic Right B)
2) Adjoining properties value may have less of increase if granted
3) No practical difficulty —developer created -strict application allows SF residential home to be
built on existing lot
COMMENTARY
Others in Johnson Addition or adjacent R2 on Emerson, who have similar
requirements have been forced to honor standards or seek limited variances to
most of the standards in ordinance when building homes. Does the little guy have
to comply and the big guy gets changes for a big $$$ project? We could not find
that the Comp Plan or UDO has a "rules for thee and not for me" clause.
USE VARIANCE
PZ 2022 00082 UV USE VARIANCE
Violates covenants and restrictions — prohibits commercial uses
Introduces Incompatible land use into residential area — (violates 4.6 of Comp Plan)
Does not protect residential neighborhood (per Basic Rights of UDO)
Changes the character of 70 plus year old neighborhood (violates Policy 6 of Comp Plan)
Petitioner filed for "Office Use" (UDO — only allows clinic and medical health Center)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Injures the general Order of the neighborhood — building use does not protect
residential character neighborhood
2) May have adverse effect on future value of adjacent property
3) Developer has created own peculiar difficulty due to excessive scale of project
4) Developer created his own hardship and present zoning allows SF home to be built
5) Approval violates several Comprehensive Plan Basic Rights (Protect stability and
character of neighborhoods- UDO Basic Rights 4.6, opposite of bringing about
compatibility of uses — Comp Plan Policy G)
COMMENTARY
Should be denied as office is not an allowed Special Use in R2 zone,
This request clearly violates many aspects of the Comp Plan and UDO as enacted
to govern development...
Protect neighborhoods
Incompatible use
Destroy Character
Pretty pictures of buildings are being used to disguise commercial uses being
requested
PZ 2022 00083 VARIANCE TO ALLOW 15 FT FRONT YARD SET BACK (2.10)
Required 35 feet in R2
..•. f
All other 95 homes in Johnson Addition meet present standards (exceptions may have been on
homes Main Street) — this variance DESTROYS CONFORMITY AND CHARACTER —(violates LIDO
Basic Rights G)
Carmel insisted several I new homes near here in the same R2 zone required to honor set back
Against Covenant and Restrictions
All adjacent parcels in R2 area with similar zoning have kept FY setback standard
With porch or overhang the front of home could be only 10 feet from sidewalk on lots
ADVERSE EFFECT ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY (across the street) RESIDENCES
Strict application allows large single family home to be built on parcel
No home along Emerson has a lowered standard for front yard set back
The Petitioners request referencing homes in Old Town should note different zoning applies
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Injures the general order of the entire Johnson Addition neighborhood (Comp Plan says to
protect character — Basic Rights LIDO - E) since the subdivision platted and homes built in
1955
2) Granting a variance may have a somewhat negative effect on neighboring properties
3) Strict application allows Single Family home on existing lots
COMMENTARY
Imagine your subdivision as you drive down the street. Each home has similar
front yard setbacks. Picture your home and imagine the neighbor next door
tearing down their home and building a new one that starts a mere 15 feet from
the sidewalk, much closer than yours. For almost seventy years, 95 homeowners
have honored our standards and now someone wanting something new
destroys the history, compatibility and character of the neighborhood.
PZ-2022 - 0OU4-V VARIANCE REDUCE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 5.7
FEET LOTS E AND F
Reduces RESIDENTIAL character of neighborhood. (Basic Rights of LIDO — protect character...)
5.7 FEET does not allow for a landscape planting strip (3 feet) and sidewalk (3 feet) . A chair
would block Handicapped access to rear doors or mobility or block emergency access to rear
entry locations
Could not place a BBQ cooker and sidewalk and patio chair in this small yard
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Harms public health, safety and welfare
2) May have negative effect on adjacent parcels or ability to sell this parcel
3) Strict application shows no practical difficulty and is developer created since existing zoning
and setbacks allow existing SF home to be built.
COMMENTARY
This request is really hard to comprehend. In many ways it could be dangerous for
emergency equipment and personnel to maneuver if lifesaving measures were
needed. A child's swing might throw them against the wall they propose. Would
not provide for any practical use of the area. Petitioner states adjacent
bufferyard will give some relief but it is separated by a wall or fence and is
proposed for reduction.
PZ- 2022- 00085 —V VARIANCE - INCREASE lot coverage lots E and F
Not only does these variances introduce incompatible use but this variance request allows
incompatible uses to have greater intensity (against Basic Rights UDO — E)
Does not appropriately provide for the SCALE (Basic Rights UDO — G)
Goes against Comp Plan and UDO guides (?)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Introduction of Special Use and this variance proposing greater intensity affects the
character and general order
2) May affect possible future increase in value of adjacent lots
3) Strict application requires appropriate standards, Developer has created hardship, and
practical difficulty. Harms historic standard that has been applied and upheld for 67
years in Johnson Acres
COMMENTARY
Petitioner is requesting a Special Use (Commercial Use) in a residential zone and
neighborhood and then requests it be more intense than allowed. Seems like a
complete opposite of what should occur.
PZ 2022 - 00086 — V Variance to increase lot coverage 80 % to 85% Maximum
LOTS ABCD
Comp Plan says this is an Area of Special study. According to the DCS this has not been done. So for the
petitioner to refer this as a Mid -Town extension is misleading.
A UDO Basic Right G says the purpose is to bring about "compatibility of uses... the SCALE and Character
of ...development" — This request seems to mix all these uses and then lower the standards to fit them
in.
Neighborhood has a great concern as expressed by some Council members at the City Council TIF
meetings regarding the scale of this project and trying to fit too much into too little space!
FINDING OF FACT
1) Introduction of Special Use and its even greater intensity affects the general order
2) May effect possible future increase in value of adjacent properties
3) Strict application requires appropriate standards, Developer created hardship and
practical difficulty making plans too intense, Standard has been applied and upheld for
67 years in JA.
COMMENTARY
As we envision Cormel's Mid -Town area, we see a Monon corridor and a public
space to gather. Outdoor dining, games and a viewing area invite people to visit.
This proposal crams far too much in the space available and none of those type of
welcoming amenities will be visible or usable by the public and citizens whose
taxes are paying for oversized buildings, diminished setbacks and reduced buffers
and landscaping. Our neighborhood is paying the biggest price.
PZ 2022 - 00087- V VARIANCE reduce bufferyard FROM 30 FEET TO 25 FEET lots
C & D
First of the 6 storyy iss!ie which the neighborhood is ALSO preparing to oppose at Plan
Commission or other legal challenges at appropriate time.
Proposed 6 story structure proposed adjacent to Single family planned here — shown as 2 story
apartment
Bufferyards Protect SF neighborhoods (per Comp Plan Policy 6)
Bufferyards in UDO are "DESIGNED TO AMELIORATE NUISCANCES BETWEEEN DIFFERENT ZONNG
DISTRICTS TO INSURE DESIRED CHARACTER".
Should be at least minimum of 30 feet so appropriate landscaping buffer per bufferyard ordinance, can
be installed to mitigate incompatible uses
Their exhibit, we believe, is misleading - see our corrected rendering
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Harms general welfare with incompatible use next to SF residential and certainly should not be
allowed to LOWER standards (?) (Policy 4.6 Essence of Comp Plan)
2) May cause lessening of neighboring property values
3) Strict Application allow building to be constructed with allowed standards. Developer has
created their own practical difficulty through intensity of project- (Bring about compatibility of
uses... both scale and character— UDO Basic Goals — G)
COMMENTARY
Request is to allow more intense use and then attempt to diminish bufferyards.
Not the standards Carmel citizens should want. Developer is creating the
nuisance, it should not set the standard. See corrected exhibit showing actual
proposed limit.
Remonstrators will demonstrate at appropriate time that the 6 story structure as
presently described is not permitted by the Comprehensive Plan and does not
meet LIDO standards.
PZ 2022-00088 V VARIANCE BUFFERYARD CONTENTS LOTS C & D
Article G of Basic Rights of LIDO states ordinances are to "Bring about compatibility, protect the
character and stability of residential, commercial, industrial, historic and natural areas of uses"
Similar to previous variance but allowing inappropriate materials
Picture in petitioner's packet exhibit shows what we believe to be a misleading impression of
this bufferyard
30 foot buffer consisting of a set number of trees and shrubs and type of vegetation
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Harms general welfare - Incompatible use next to SF residential should not be allowed to
LOWER standards (?) (Policy 4.6 Essence of Comp Plan)
2 May cause lessening of neighboring property values
3) Strict application will force developer to modify their plan to meet LIDO standard and comply
with reasons for bufferyards. Developer has created their own practical difficulty through
intensity of project- Reimagining the project could bring about compatibility of uses... both scale
and character — (UDO Basic Goals — G)
COMMENTARY
What real life is presenting is an alley containing a driveway, front porches, steps,
plants in pots, possibly more cement than grass, and an outdoor living area for
apartment dwellers possibly providing the tenants their only area for tanning,
BBQing, music, lounging, partying and socializing.
Staff implies the necessary trees are planted and spread out in the development,
which is not what is to occur as to the purpose of a bufferyard.
PZ 2022 -00089 V variance 1.07 Transportation Plan Standards
Against Comp Plan,.- "Shall Comply" (Basic Right UDO 2.07)
Request lessens Rights of Way for three streets serving this project
Bank with 250 employees will add (1 car per employ times 2 trips per day)
Est. 500 trips daily (min) or 2,500 week
240 Apts will add (1.3 car per unit times est. 4 trips per day)
Est.1,248 trips per day or 8,736 per week
POTENTIAL est. 11,236 NEW TRIPS A WEEK ON 3 STREETS*
(*estimated based on other development history)
(Count does NOT add Pure HDQ, or small office or live work units)
Why are we lowering ROW without consideration for future needs?
Added traffic on Emerson through residential area to get to Schools is safety concern
Comp Plan calls for interconnectivity of streets which is lacking in this plan
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) May be injurious to public welfare and safety when built and in future
2) May harm value of industrial area to west by limiting proper access or develop appropriately
3) Strict application gives equal treatment to all and keeps project scale within reasonable
development standards
COMMENTARY
This request might just squeak in without much notice, but closer scrutiny
and empirical data show such a project may have serious consequences for
future traffic patterns. Carmel has always prided itself on being pro -active
in things and to lessen ROW in area where much new and future
development is planned seems ill advised.