Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #31 Ralph Roper1 June 5th, 2023 Carmel Plan Commission c/o Joe Shestak, Secretary RE: Andrews PUD Rezone Comments regarding Residen�al Commitee Department Planning Report Mr. Shestak, Upon reviewing the current dra� of the Andrews PUD Rezone Department Report I got the feeling that none of the many concerns expressed by our Gray Oaks residents have been considered. Moreover, some of the statements in the report are, in my opinion, exaggerated, misleading, and erroneous. Accordingly, I have consolidated many of our resident’s comments in the text that follows in hopes our viewpoints are given adequate considera�on prior to the Commission making a rezoning determina�on. The following also includes ideas for the Commission to consider that would eliminate the need for an access point at Gray Oaks Ct. Please share this with the Residen�al Subcommitee prior to their June 6th mee�ng. 1. The PUD Development is not an age-restricted or rent-restricted community. The townhouse designs are not consistent with the pe��oner’s claim that the targeted residents are the 55+ age group; and there is no such requirement. Thus, the Report’s comment that “promo�ng op�ons to support aging in place” does not apply to the Andrews PUD development and should be deleted from the document. Considering the developer also builds rental units, it seems likely the proposed units could eventually become rentals if they do not sell. This could lead to much higher occupancy, poorer maintenance than we are accustomed to in our community, increased street parking and an overall nega�ve impact on the adjacent Gray Oaks neighborhood. To address this, as has been noted by Commissioner Westermeier, the pe��oner needs to commit to a no-rental agreement. Clearly, there are many risks with the proposed development, all of which would have an adverse effect on property values in our Gray Oaks development. Retaining the R-1 zoning would eliminate this concern. 2. The current R-1 zoning would most likely enable 25-30 lots, not 40. The Department Report implies that the 60 units proposed by the pe��oner would be only about 50% more units that the current R-1 zoning would allow, i.e., 60 units compared to 40 R-1 units. This is an exaggerated comparison because about 3.0 acres of the 14.3-acre site is taken up by the overhead electrical power line easement and the reten�on pond. A basic layout of single-family detached homes using those in Gray Oaks as a template indicated the site could comfortably accommodate 26 homes and maybe 30 at most. Thus, in prac�ce, the 60-unit PUD development would be at least twice the number of homes if zoning remained R-1. 2 3. The traffic volume generated by the PUD would be significant at approximately 432 trips per day. Traffic studies usually include es�mates of both the peak hour rate and the total daily rate. The total daily rate gives a more intui�ve feel for overall impact. The ITE Land Use Code 215 indicated that townhomes generate an average of 7.2 trips per day. Thus, the traffic volume generated from the 60 townhomes in the proposed PUD development will be approximately 7.2 x 60 = 432 trips per day. 4. The Pe��oner’s analysis of traffic Impacts on Gray Oaks Subdivision was misleading and invalid. The pe��oner’s ini�al traffic report as well as the follow-up memo were based on unrealis�c traffic flow assump�ons such as (a) U-turns on 146th to head west, (b) traffic passing through the development from Gray Oaks, and (c) use of Arrowwood Drive for access to 146th for le� turns. These poor assump�ons made their es�mates of traffic impacts on the Gray Oaks neighborhood misleading and invalid. Their results should thus be discarded. The pe��oner should be required to complete a thorough traffic study that includes all adjacent streets. 5. About two-thirds of the PUD traffic would be imposed on the Gray Oaks Ct. access point. Because the Pe��oner’s traffic impact analysis on the Gray Oaks neighborhood was invalid, the Gray Oaks neighborhood developed or sponsored the following three independent alterna�ve methods for es�ma�ng the amount of PUD traffic that would be imposed on the Gray Oaks Ct. access point: 1. Common-Sense Method (Roper). This method assumed the PUD is centrally located so that trips are distributed equally in all direc�ons; and that the 146th St. access point allows right-turn only. This results in 50% of the exi�ng trips and 75% of the returning trips using the Gray Oaks Ct. access point. The overall average (exit + entering) use would be about (50% + 75%)/ 2 = 62.5%. 2. Online Survey of Gray Oaks and Stafford neighborhood residents (Peri McMichael). This method used “Survey Monkey” so�ware to develop sta�s�cs on resident ’s driving habits regarding use of the Wellswood Bend access point to Gray Road. The survey included residents in the adjacent Stafford neighborhood as a surrogate that somewhat simulates the proposed PUD development in that it has a right-only exit onto 146th street. The overall results indicated 82% of exi�ng trips and 64% of the entering trips use the Wellswood Bend access point at Gray Road. By presump�on, this suggested that the traffic entering and exi�ng the PUD development would likely average about (82% + 64%)/2 = 73%. 3. Traffic engineer hired by the Gray Oaks HOA (Yarger Engineering). The Gray Oaks HOA hired a traffic engineer to assess, among other things, addi�onal traffic the PUD would impose on Gray Oaks Ct. Depending on his assump�ons, the traffic entering the PUD via Gray Oaks Ct. ranged from 23% to 61%; and that exi�ng the PUD via Gray Oaks Ct. was es�mated to be 88%. The combined es�mates for entering and exi�ng ranged from 55.5% to 74.5%. Collec�vely, the results from these three independent methods were very similar and the overall average indicated that about 66%, i.e., 2/3 of the PUD traffic would use the Gray Oaks Ct. access point. Thus, it should be clear that, as was intui�vely obvious, the Gray Oaks neighborhood would become the major thoroughfare for the PUD development. 3 6. The traffic volume imposed on Gray Oaks Ct. by the PUD will be very significant at 288 trips per day. Based on the foregoing, the traffic generated by the PUD will be approximately 432 trips per day; and about two-thirds of the trips would be via the Gray Oaks Ct. access point. Thus, the traffic volume imposed on Gray Oaks Ct. would be 432 x 2/3 = 288 trips per day. Based on the ITE Trip Genera�on rate, the traffic volume from the four homes on Gray Oaks Ct. is only 38 trips per day. The 288 trips per day from the PUD would thus increase traffic on Gray Oaks Ct. by over 7- fold! This would undoubtedly have several nega�ve impacts on the residents living on Gray Oaks Court including safety, privacy, noise and property value. 7. The addi�onal traffic imposed on Wellswood Bend would be a significant safety concern. Gray Oaks is a very walkable neighborhood with pedestrians using the sidewalk at all hours of the day. The addi�onal 288 traffic trips imposed on Wellswood Bend via Gray Oaks Ct. would exacerbate traffic safety concerns that already exist at the intersec�ons of Wellswood Bend at Gray Oaks Drive, McCormick Circle, and Gray Road itself. 8. Reasons to Deny the Rezoning Pe��on • Gray Oaks residents have all made a substan�al investment in their homes and have been confident in the belief that the R-1 zoning of all adjacent property, stewarded by the Planning Commission, would protect our investment. • The proposed PUD is an incompa�ble development having twice the housing density as the adjacent Gray Oaks neighborhood. This would adversely affect Gray Oaks property values and cause an imbalance in the planning of the area. • Due to restricted access from/onto 146th St., the Gray Oaks neighborhood would become the primary access point to this development. This would lead to an es�mated 288 trips per day increase in traffic volume imposed on the Gray Oaks neighborhood. This would adversely affect pedestrian safety in Gray Oaks neighborhood; and exacerbate exis�ng traffic safety concerns along Wellswood Bend. The addi�onal traffic would also adversely affect the character and lifestyle of the Gray Oaks neighborhood. • The Carmel Unified Development Ordinance requires that developments with over 40 lots have at least 2 access points to ‘perimeter streets’ meaning in this case, onto 146th Street. As proposed the Andrews PUD has just one, restricted access point onto 146th St. • Considering the PUD development is not age-restricted or rent-restricted, there are many adverse long-term risks associated with its implementa�on. • If the pe��oner’s property is rezoned, it is conceivable that some�me in the future the Salsbury property and the property to the east will eventually be rezoned. This would be catastrophic because the Gray Oaks connec�on could ul�mately be required to accommodate 150+ homes! Rather than considering this rezoning request in isola�on, it should be considered as part of an overall zoning plan for all undeveloped acreage in the vicinity, and access as a whole should be addressed. 4 • Clearly, the PUD would not be in the best interest of the community, and thus the rezoning pe��on should be denied. 9. The plan should consider ideas for elimina�ng the need for a Gray Oaks Ct. access point. Based on preliminary inquiries and research by our residents Jayne Gates and Peri McMichael, we believe there are reasonable traffic alterna�ves, such as the following, for the Commission to consider that would eliminate the need for the Gray Oaks Ct. access point. A. Work with Hamilton County to provide Andrews PUD a le� turn-in access from 146th St. (westbound). This leaves the only issue being those exi�ng onto 146th St. who would need to do a U-turn to head west. B. Use a boulevard-type entrance (like we have at Gray Road) to sa�sfy the requirement for two access points. C. These two modifica�ons could become temporary depending on when and how the County elects to reconfigure the 146th St / Gray Road intersec�on. For example, one of the concepts under considera�on would enable access to the PUD development from the east using an easement that connects the PUD to a ramp of the new interchange. The alternate plan would also serve to eliminate concerns about construc�on traffic. Respec�ully submited for your considera�on, Ralph Roper 4764 Gray Oaks Drive Carmel, IN 46033