The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLetter #46 Dee Fox Butler, Bric From:Dee Fox <dasfox2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 5, 2024 12:33 AM To:Butler, Bric Subject:For Feb. 6, 2024 Plan Commission Commercial Committee meeting: Jackson's Grant Village - Day care. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good morning, Bric: Please send my email along to all of the Plan Commissioners. Thank you! Dee Fox Date: February 4, 2024 To: Plan Commissioners for Feb. 6 Commercial Committee Meeting From: Dee Fox (West Carmel) Subject: Docket No. PZ-2023-00227 PUD Amend: Jackson's Grant Village - Daycare To Plan Commissioners, I ask you to please consider my comments below, regarding a proposed Daycare that would require amending the Jackson's Grant Village (JGV) PUD. Some Background: * In 2011, the Silvara/Jackson's Grant PUD was proposed to replace the low-density S-2/single-family Residential zoning (townhomes & commercial not permitted uses) on the large NW quadrant of Springmill Road and W. 116th St., in West Carmel. It included a proposed commercial site in the same area that is now JGV. Thanks to strong City Councilors at that time, the commercial site was withdrawn, and the density of homes was significantly reduced, in order for the Silvara PUD to gain City Council approval for that location. * The JGV developers successfully waited for a more-favorable City Council that would allow those non-permitted commercial and townhome uses via a PUD rezone of the area now called JGV. Some Councilors even actively pushed for it and pressured nearby homeowners. The strong objections from many neighbors in Jackson's Grant (JG) and from many other West Carmel residents, as well as a petition with hundreds of signatures, were ignored. Also ignored, were the many years of repeated City assurances to concerned West Carmel residents that creeping commercial development would not be allowed to cross "the line in the sand" of Springmill Road, and into West Carmel. City officials betrayed the trust of West Carmel residents, and set a precedent for commercial creep further into and adjacent to West Carmel. * In 2020, the JGV PUD was approved to include 19 single-family homes, 52 attached townhomes, plus a maximum 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in buildings each limited in size to 5,000 sq. ft. or less. At the 6/4/2020 Plan Commission Committee meeting, DOCS Director Mike Hollibaugh referred to this JGV Commercial node as a test case for a neighborhood "corner store initiative" in West Carmel. (West Carmel residents have made it clear for many years that they do not need or want a "corner store initiative".) My Comments: * The existing commercial area/building limitations were put in place in an attempt to pacify and assure concerned neighbors that the Commercial node would be small, neighborhood-serving uses like retail and food shops or office spaces. Neighbors rightfully expect these limitations to be enforced. * Now in 2024, the developer, the DOCS, and apparently some Plan Commissioners desire to rezone additional S-2 zoned land, and to expand those commercial area limitations by adding 10,000 sq. ft. more commercial space. Again, 1 public trust broken, and continued commercial creep. (There is public confusion about the building size limit change: 5000 sq. ft. vs. 7500 sq. ft.? Total square footage vs. building footprint?) * The proposed 160-child Daycare facility in a 10,000 sq. ft. building, with 60 parking spaces, is not small "neighborhood-serving commercial" or a "corner store". (And the licensing requirement for at least 75 sq. ft. of outdoor space, per child, means that the outdoor play area would have to be 12,000 sq. ft. (75 sq. ft. x 160 children). This will bring significant traffic & noise. * I agree with the Jackson's Grant HOA letter: "Frankly, the Daycare school belongs in a larger commercial area, not in the middle of a small residential area." * It is irrelevant what the size of other Daycares are, that do not have comparable circumstances and surroundings to the one being proposed. A Daycare can be made any size, respective of the location. For example, the cited Creme de la Creme 30,000 sq. ft. Daycare is along E. 116th St., is not within a residential neighborhood, and the surroundings are totally different. * This issue is not about a Daycare use: a. A Daycare use is a permitted-use in the JGV existing approved commercial node. If a Daycare had been proposed to fit into the approved commercial area (where it is allowed at 5000 sq. ft.), there would be no issue. But instead, the DOCS chose to encourage the problematic scenario now proposed: A violation of the existing PUD, and the limitations that were placed on the commercial node area and building size in 2020, which were presented to the neighbors as assurance that the commercial development would be kept as small "neighborhood commercial" gathering spaces. * This issue is about: a. The violation of the existing approved PUD and its commercial limitations; commercial creep; and a growing frustration and lack of trust from homeowners/neighborhoods toward Carmel government's assurances related to any proposed development nearby. b. The need to include the neighbors earlier in discussions about the planning of development proposals. By the time the public is involved, the proposal is often mostly a done-deal, except for maybe being able to get a few minor tweaks. c. The City's continual rezoning to PUDs in order to get more intense development than the established zoning (which residents had trusted) would allow. d. The City's routine dismissal of citizens' surveys and petitions that show opposition to a development proposal, as somehow not being valid. If any information stated in a survey or petition is incorrect, then that needs to be clarified by the DOCS, and the survey/petition repeated for acceptable accuracy. e. The Department Report is misleading and appears to show a strong bias by the DOCS to promote and obtain approval for this PUD Amend, JGV - Daycare proposal. The Report does not specify what "misinformation" in the JG survey apparently led to it not being considered. The Report also did not specify how many letters "for" and "against" that the DOCS received. (From the Laserfiche file. As of 2/1/24: Of the 34 residents who wrote, 30 were Opposed to the Daycare and Preferred townhouses, whereas only 4 Preferred the Daycare over having more townhouses.) f. The attitude of some in Carmel government, that they are experts who know better than Carmel residents do, what is best for us and what we should want. And that once they do what they want to do, we will surely love it. This was especially frustrating for JG residents when City officials were pushing hard for approval of the JGV rezone and commercial node in 2020, in spite of strong opposition from residents. * Conclusion: I agree with another letter that stated, "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." Although, I would add that to not entirely fill the Cunningham parcel with townhomes, would enable it to also provide some much- needed amenities and greenspace that would truly benefit all JGV residents in this overcrowded site plan. This proposal needs a redo. Please prioritize the public input and abide by the terms of the existing approved JGV PUD. If you must return this proposal back to the full Plan Commission at this meeting, I hope it will be with an Unfavorable recommendation, or with no recommendation. 2 Thank you for your time to read and consider my comments. Dee Fox (317) 816-0565 3