The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLetter #20 Doug Morris Butler, Bric From:Doug Morris <douglasmmorris@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 29, 2024 11:42 AM To:Butler, Bric Subject:Fwd: PZ-2023-00227-PUD Amend: Jackson’s Grant Village - Daycare Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Bric, Sorry for getting you a forwarded message. I mistyped you email with .com instead of .gov Doug Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Doug Morris <douglasmmorris@gmail.com> Date: January 29, 2024 at 11:27:15 AM EST To: Bbutler@carmel.in.com Cc: Sfinkham@carmel.in.gov, Agreen@carmel.in.gov, Jworrell@carmel.in.gov, RRushton@associatedasset.com, Jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com, jghoa@outlook.com, gusnavarra@comcast.net, mkkmorris@gmail.com Subject: PZ-2023-00227-PUD Amend: Jackson’s Grant Village - Daycare January 29, 2024 Bric Butler, AdministrativeCoordinator for Carmel Plan Commission. Bbutler@carmel.in.com Sue Finkham, Carmel Mayor Sfinkham@carmel.in.gov Tony Green, Carmel City Council South Central District Agreen@carmel.in.gov Jeff Worrell, Carmel City Council At-Large Jworrell@carmel.in.gov Ramanna Ruston, Regional Director, AAM, LLC. RRushton@associatedasset.com Jill Meisenheimer, CCRZ Jill.meisenheimer@outlook.com Paul Morrison, jghoa@outlook.com Gus Navarro, gusnavarra@comcast.net RE: PZ-2023-00227 PUD Amend: Jackson’s Grant Village – Daycare This letter is in opposition to the current Jacksons Grant Village PUD changes. 1 The proposed land swap and commercial changes are in conflict with the previous, fully coordinated PUD that was developed with with the Jackson’s Grant neighborhood, Republic Development, and approved (up) through the City Council. The request to double the size of a single commercial space to 10,000 sf is exceeding a restriction that was specifically included in the previous approval of the PUD. The provision was to avoid the type of individual commercial anchor, like the Daycare that the petitioner is requesting. During the first PUD process, it was discussed that limiting the size of any individual structure would assure Jackson’s Grant residents that less traffic-intense services would operate in this neighborhood commercial area. The addition of the Cunningham property with additional townhomes and no modifications to previously approved commercial limitations would be a fitting change to the existing PUD. The requested creep of commercial uses, to the already approved PUD, fuels distrust in developers and the public involvement process. The following includes our review and reasons for our position. Background This new request comes forward due to new owner interests from the Cunningham property and not any new hardship or inability to use the land as it is currently zoned (R-2). The property can continue to be used with its current zoning. When considering the approval of the JG Village PUD, Republic Development, Carmel Staff, Board of Zoning Appeals, Plan Commission and City Council were all aware that the Cunningham property was not to be included in the PUD. The Cunningham property’s protection is provided for in the previously approved PUD. There is a separation of uses and screening requirements in that PUD approval. All of the entities involved agreed and affirmed that this approval met the needs of Carmel, the adjacent properties, and proper development requirements of Carmel. Ownership transfer does not change any of these property conditions. Current Zoning The Cunningham property is zoned R-2 which can support residential development beyond the current residence, but a Daycare is not permitted, not even with a special exception. The PowerPoint presented by the group proposing this land swap and daycare is misleading. There is a statement in that presentation that a daycare is “expressively permitted”. The daycare would not be permitted on the current Cunningham property unless the property is rezoned. S-2 only allows for a preschool by Special Exception Special (UDO Table A.03) but a Daycare is not allowed. A daycare could be operated in the commercial zone of the JGV PUD, but the currently approved PUD only allows an individual commercial space to be 5,000 sf. or less. Connectivity Related to connectivity: In the original PUD approval process, both Republic and the city staff represented that even without including the Cunningham property in the PUD, proper connectivity would be achieved for Carmel. In February of 2012, Emma Lou Cunningham conveyed 0.132 acres of th land by warranty deed to the city of Carmel to assure that connectivity is possible along 116 and this can still be achieved whenever any further development of the land occurs or if the City of Carmel wants to th complete it earlier. At this time the path along 116 street extends on both sides of the existing Cunningham property, but no further than the end of the Republic PUD at the west end. Traffic: We are very concerned about traffic generated by adding any commercial. Packet PC 1-24-2024 provided by the applicant includes a traffic impact study for the proposed 160-child Daycare. That study only th comments on the impact of the daycare traffic upon 116 street entering and exiting the Cunningham property. The report says the traffic generated by the daycare would not be of significant th impact on 116 street if there are only right-turns in and out of the property. The report makes no statement about traffic, if this proposed amendment is approved. The study included in the latest packet states that a facility of 160 children will only generate 60 cars entering and 54 exiting in the morning. This must assume that there are 2.6 kids in each of the 60 cars. I don’t know how these numbers were generated, but having dropped off grandchildren at another daycare, there are a 2 lot more parents dropping off an individual child than this study suggests. The report must assume that all the staff will arrive in 6 vehicles, since that is the only number of cars expected to remain on site in the th morning. If there is that little traffic, and the impact to 116Street is so negligible according to that study (actually a 1-page letter), it would be better to keep the Cunningham property out of the PUD and rezone that land separately for the daycare. My guess is the city thinks the impact of traffic would be greater than this study states, and Jackson’s Grant residents feel the same way about introducing this traffic into a residential area. Parking The traffic study presented says there will be a total of 60 cars coming and 54 leaving in the morning so most of the day only 6 parking spaces are needed. The approval of the first commercial section restricts any drive through business. It seems like the daycare is a morning and evening drive through. City Staff noted in their recommendation that the additional parking could supplement residential and commercial parking spaces in the evening when the daycare is not open. The city staff wrote in support of the additional 60 parking spaces. They state these additional spaces could support resident and commercial needs when the daycare is closed. It should be embarrassing for the city staff or the developer to suggest that additional parking would even be needed. They presented in the original PUD application that all the parking needs would be achieved in the previously approved (not this proposed) PUD. Does Staff now think that these approved “neighborhood commercial” property’s parking needs are greater than first represented by the developer in their originally approved application? Natural Protected Area and Impervious Surfaces vs Green Space The plan for townhomes has a small infringement into the wooded/protected area. Although the infringement is slight, an attempt to develop the townhomes that close to the wooded area will damage the area. Construction work and related traffic will probably remove a minimum of 10 feet into the woods and probably be harmful to this area to an even greater extent. Any PUD amendment must assure the natural areas are still fully protected. The submitted drainage study indicates that the retention basin and sewer system is sized to meet this additional amount of impervious surface area created by the additional buildings and parking lots. The amount of hard surfaces and resulting runoff water to the retention system still seems much greater than the previously approved PUD plan. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our comments. Doug and Kim Morris 520 Terhune Lane Carmel, Indiana Sent from my iPad 3