Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceJAMES J. NELSON CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JAMES E. SHINAVER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER JOI-IN B. FLATT FREDRIC LAWRENCE JAMES A. NICKLOY CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON Christine Barton Holmes City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Enclosures Ltr to C Holmes 041510 NELSON FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 PHONE: 317- 844 -0106 FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782 April 15, 2010 Re: Long Branch Market Michigan Road Kroger Dear Christine: Enclosed you will find 9 copies of the informational brochure for the above referenced item to be heard by the Plan Commission on April 26, 2010. Also attached is a CD with a digital .pdf of the entire brochure. Should you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C. Jon C. Dobosiewicz Land Use Professional JANE B. MERRILL, Of Counsel JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ, Land Use Professional March 12, 2010 Carmel Plan Commission Re: Kroger Petition Docket No. 09100009 Please let this letter serve to document that Property Advocacy Group on behalf of our clients, Fred and Suzanne Fehsenfeld with principal residence located at 4415 W. 116 Street, support the Kroger petition for Development Plan and ADLS Approval subject to the most recent set of commitments provided to the Carmel Plan Commission. Sincerely, Steve A. Pittman President Property Advocacy Grou 12400 N. Meridian Street, Suite 190 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 573 -6692 Tingley, Connie S From: SHARLETTE MORDOH [smordoh @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 10:05 AM To: Idierkman @carmel.in.gov; Dutcher, Dan; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Irizarrym Heather M; Rider, Kevin D; Tingley, Connie S; rripma @carmel.in.gov; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan; Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Zoning for Kroger on North Michigan Road Docket 09100009 I am a resident in the Townes of Weston Pointe that will be adjacent to the new Kroger store being developed on the land currently occupied by Altums. Since my residence is so close to the property, I have been following the zoning issues that are being proposed. I am against several and here is a list: 1. The full exemption from the requirement that no more than 75% will be retail. Having 100% will violate the current requirements that would help transition from retail use for the existing neighbors. 2. The outlot and gas station being allowed less that 120 feet from Michigan Road. 3. Signage variances for height, number of signs, total square footages allowed, signs not facing a right of way and the electronic signs for the gas station. 4. Drive -thrus that are planned for front and side of the buildings. All of these variances are objectionable and my choice for making Carmel my home was because of all of Carmel's high standards. Thank you in advance for you attention to this matter. Sharlette Mordoh 4035 Weston Pointe Drive Zionsville, IN 46077 317 873 5251 smordoh @sbcglobal. net 1/25/2010 Page 1 of 1 Pagelofl Tingley, Connie S From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:11 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Proposed Kroger in West Carmel Attachments: Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals.doc FYI From: mpi98mcgil @aol.com [mailto:mpi98mcgil @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:41 AM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Dierckman, Leo J; Dutcher, Dan; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Irizarrym Heather M; Rider, Kevin D; rripma @carmel.in.gov; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; Torres, Madeleine; Westermeier, Susan Subject: Proposed Kroger in West Carmel Please see the attached regarding our opposition to the proposed Kroger along Michigan Road between 106th and 116th Streets. Gia and David McGill 4105 Much Marcie Drive Zionsville, IN 46077 317 431 -8630 1/20/2010 Ramona Hancock Administrative Assistant Plan Commission One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 January 19, 2010 Dear Members of the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals: We are deeply concerned about the proposed Kroger along Michigan Road between 106 Street and 116 Street in West Carmel. We live in the townhomes at 4105 Much Marcle Drive, just south of the proposed development less than 100 feet from the proposed south line. You have heard or will be hearing from several of our neighbors and we felt our voice should be heard as well. Our family includes 5 year old twin boys and they are the major reason for our concern. Our children go to bed at 8:OOpm daily and awaken at 6:45am for school. So we are very much opposed to truck deliveries, trash pick -up, construction noise pollution, large -scale HVAC systems, drive -thru pharmacy, Recycling Drop -off, barking dogs at the proposed Kennel, etc due to the immense level of noise these things present during times when children are sleeping. It is a major concern. Another point of concern is the proposed sidewalk into our neighborhood from the Kroger site. There has been a significant rise in the number of burglaries and robberies at the businesses around this corridor. A sidewalk would offer an "escape route" to someone running either from a business into the neighborhood or from the neighborhood into the parking lot. It is a major safety concern. The neighbors and residents of this area really need to be heard. There are many negative issues involved in this project the way it is proposed now. Can we take another look at this and find common ground between the people and the Kroger so that this could be a mutually beneficial situation. Thank you for your time. Gia and David McGill 4105 Much Marcle Dr Zionsville, IN 46077 317 432 -5114 Tingley, Connie S Page 1 of 2 From: Dale Ankrom [dea @deainc.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:44 AM To: Dierckman, Leo J; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Irizarrym Heather M; Rider, Kevin D; rripma @carmel.in.gov; jhagan @carmel.in.gov; Stromquist, Steven R; mtorres @carmel.gov; Westermeier, Susan Cc: ctingley @carmee.in.gov; Tingley, Connie S Subject: Docket No. 09100009 DP /ADLS: Long Branch Market w/ Kroger To All: My wife Susie and our family live in the Woodhaven neighborhood and are extremely concerned with the proposed development and the upcoming zoning process. We believe the Plan Commission should, at the very least, uphold the standards of the Michigan Road Overlay Zone and refuse to dissolve the restrictions otherwise. In addition to being a neighbor in the immediately affected community, I am a commercial architect and real estate developer and have been involved in many developments such as this for over 30 years and have numerous concerns. 1. The Mich. Rd. Overlay Zone. I realize typically commitments can always be modified or changed, however, it should be binding (The existing in- place standards) and should be upheld in good faith. I would certainly hope, our neighborhood should have been protected from uncontrolled development growth, affecting our quality of life. 2. Have you truly analyzed the Overlay Zone documents and developer's requests, that addresses traffic, parking, etc, as well as typical developmental standards? We are very concerned about the impending potential disasters with increased traffic, the Woodhaven residents' other neighborhoods and importantly, emergency vehicles' ability to make a left /south turn onto 421. I'm sure there will be well over 300 500 parking spaces required and the typical turn -over ratio is based upon every two hours on an eight to 10 hr. day. This means potentially well over 3,000 vehicles per day could use the lot, entries, etc. to the property. Our neighbor, Tom Rushworth, identified that it may take a couple of fatalities to get someone's attention to do something. We want to be "on- record" as identifying this likely problem now. 3. Our neighborhood is home to some professional community- minded people who regularly make a positive difference for our local communities and our state. I would hope our show of unity would have some influence. We are also not opposed to signing a letter drafted to be sent to anyone on the BZA, Plan Commission, Carmel City (Mayor included) and even Gov. Daniels as it may relate to a state road and the likely potential hazards that will be created. 4. It sounds as if the process has progressed to the point where we have only a little chance to halt it and only a small voice in the ultimate developmental outcome. We certainly did not realize this potential development nighmare when we chose to live in the neighborhood. If this is to pass and become reality, we also want very many restrictions (lighting, noise, visual, traffic etc.) placed as possible to maintain our quality of life. We want, and would desire from zoning leaders such as you, to control: Percentage of retail; No gas stations; Limited or no Drive Thru's; Very stringent lighting controls; Adequate screening/ fencing controls; Stringent sign 1/20/2010 1/20/2010 Page 2 of 2 controls and some solution to the impending traffic debacle that will be created, endangering citizens and emergency vehicles in the immediate area. I/ we are out of town and will not be able to attend the meetings, however, be assured, we are extremely concerned about your positions and the outcome regarding quality of life and development growth for the sake of local revenue. How would you feel if this was in your back yard and neighborhood? We are part of your community. Please stand up for our rights. Dale and Susie Ankrom DEA, Inc. Architecture Westgate Crane Development Co., LLC 317 513 -8584 cell 317 -257 -1880 office Tingley, Connie S From: Chris Koch [chkoch99 @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:37 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: RE: Opposition to the Long Branch Market Variance Requests Ms. Tingley: Page 1 of 2 As I received a little more informtion and insight about the other requested variances I wanted to also voice my concern on one more. If it is not too late, can you please share this additional concern with the BZA members as well: I am also opposed to the variance request from the "maximum allowed setback from the US 421 right of way For a similar reason that I am opposed to the 75% retail restriction, I believe is is important to maintain a "friendly" transition to the existing residential areas neighboring that property and by keeping the intense commercial development as close to Michigan Road as possible. I cite the development project just south of the proposed Long Branch Market as an example. The commercial strip mall that includes Stone Creek restaurant has the condos behind the commercial development as a transition to make better neighbors for the Weston's to the east of the development. The Long Branch Market proposal does not call for any such transition or buffer to any of the residential neighbors to the North or East. Thanks, Chris Koch From: chkoch99 @hotmail.com To: ctingley @carmel.in.gov Subject: Opposition to the Long Branch Market Variance Requests Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:31:59 -0500 Ms. Tingley: Please distribue this email to the Carmal Board of Zoning Appeals members. Dear Carmel Board of Zoning Appelas Member: We are writing this letter to voice our concerns over the proposed variance requests by the developers of the Long Branch Market proposal on Michigan Road that is being presented to you at the 26th of January zoning appeals meeting. First and foremost, we oppose the requested variance to lift the 75% retail restriction that is included in the zoning of that parcel of land. It is our understanding that the 75% restriction was put in place on land north of 106th street to protect the neighboring residential areas and create a "transition" from the heavier retail development farther south on Michigan Road to the residential areas north of 106th Street. Approval of a variance to lift that restriction would be of no benefit to the Woodhaven neighborhood or any of the other surrounding residential neighborhoods and would negate the reason the zoning 1/20/2010 requirement was originally put in place. We are also opposed to the proposed variance requests to allow for a maximum sign area and a changable copy of a sign. In the Zoning Ordiance for the Michigan Road Overlay Zone, the stated purpose of the overlay zone is to provide for "consistent and coordinated treatment of the properties bordering U.S. Highway 421." It is our concern that allowing for those signage variances will not be consistent with the other development onf Michigan Rd. and make the Kroger signage stand out and make the development appear overly commercialized. In closing, we thank you for reading this email and ask that you consider our concerns as well as the concerns of our neighbors before you grant approval to the aforementioned variances. One of the main attractions for us to this neighborhood was the quiet, peaceful and serene setting that had all the conveniences of the stores and restaurants farther south on Michigan Road. Part of that buffer that separated Woodhaven from the development south was Altum's nursery. Our personal preference would be for Altum's to remain there forever, but since the Long Branch Market proposal is for Altum's to no longer remain there, we ask that you enforce the 75% maximum retail retail requirement to keep the transition of lighter commercial development north of 106th Street and ensure that they operate within the existing signage codes to remain consistent with the other development on Michigan Road and maintain the otherwise "tactful" commercial development in that coridor. Sincerely, Chris and Kristin Koch 4477 Haven Court Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. 1/20/2010 Page 2 of 2 Tingley, Connie S From: Hancock, Ramona B Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:23 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Proposed Long Branch Development/ Kroger 09100009 Connie: FYI Ramona From: Julia OMalley [mailto:juliaann2 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 2:22 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B Subject: Proposed Long Branch Development/ Kroger 09100009 Ramona Hancock Administrative Assistant Plan Commission One Civic Center Carmel, IN 46032 Members of the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals: Page 1 of 2 I live at 4120 Much Marcle Dr. with my three children aged 8, 13 and 16. I am writing this in regards to the proposed Long Branch Development/ Kroger 09100009 project. I feel that it is important for me to voice my concerns in regards to this project. Obviously my main concern is for my children and their safety. I realize that I can't prevent Kroger from proceeding however, being that my family will be adversely affected by this project, I feel that my wishes and demands should be taken into consideration. Being that the Altum's property sits between two residential neighborhoods, the current zoning restriction of 75% retail should be kept and enforced. It is imperative that sufficient buffer between residential and commercial use be in effect. Having studied other retail developments up and down the Michigan Street corridor, this project is the only one that has a Big —box store (Super Kroger) but up against a residential neighborhood. Where is the usual buffer street or green space that is normally planned for a project of this size? If things go as the current plans show, Kroger and its HVAC units will literally be in my backyard. It goes without saying the significant amount of noise pollution, light pollution and safety issues that this will cause. My children are all of school age, it is imperative that their sleep schedule not be disturbed. My children's bedrooms all face the proposed Kroger site therefore; there should be no truck deliveries, trash pickup, construction times or drive thru hours between the hours of 8 pm to 7 am. 1/20/2010 Page 2 of 2 Having read my neighbor Casey Carter's letter that he recently submitted to you, I will re- iterate the developmental requirements that we are requesting: 1. Mounding on the south of proposed development, north of the Townhomes of Weston Pointe must be 10' in height with an 8' fence built with masonry post and neutral color fencing. o Landscaping facing the Townhomes will be dense with 8' 10' pine /spruce trees. o Trees will be replaced by developer if and when they die with trees of same height. o Tree line currently in place will remain protected and preserved during demolition /construction/grading /finishing with fencing of some sort. o Mounding /fencing /plantings to extend west of the northern most point of current Real Estate/Insurance /School Building to the currently proposed Weston Pointe road access. o Elimination of Southern most parking island (currently 8 spaces). Island to become a planting /tree /pine /spruce island. o Mounding shown on final plans with elevations consistent with above requirements. 2. Signage must be consistent with current tenants along 421/Michigan Road. Lettering must not be allowed larger than what currently exists at Marsh. Number of signs must be consistent with current tenants along Michigan road. In addition to the above requirements, I would also like to mention that the residents whose backyards face the Altum's property have had to deal with past drainage issues (I have pictures of ducks paddling in the "lake" in my backyard to prove it!). This problem should be taken into consideration. Drainage must be kept on the Kroger development side with some type of drainage system to prevent future drainage issues. I am completely opposed to a sidewalk access from the Kroger parking lot into my neighborhood. This proposed sidewalk would not connect to any existing sidewalk system so obviously it serves no purpose., What this sidewalk would create is an easy access to the back of our townhomes. This definitely creates a safety issue for all residents whose homes are near this proposed, unnecessary sidewalk. In conclusion, I am asking the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals to consider my concerns and those of my neighbors. This planned development will affect our safety, health and well being. It does not benefit any of us in anyway. Please do not allow these plans to pass in their current form. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. Sincerely, Julia A. Price 1/20/2010 Tingley, Connie S From: CWIC2 [cwic2 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:04 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: Martin, Candy; Forwarding Email, Sharp, Rick; Rider, Kevin D Subject: Long Branch Market (Kroger) BZA Hearing Page 1 of 1 Carmel has striven to set high standards via zoning ordinances. The Michigan Road Overlay Zone is an example of those high standards resulting in quality development, which in turn has made it a very desirable area. The proposed Long Branch Market w/Kroger seeks to benefit from locating within this thriving area, while attempting to avoid many of the very provisions that have resulted in the area's success. The filing of 11 variances points not only to an unwillingness to work within the rules, but a desire to be exempted from standards the other businesses met in order to locate in this highly desirable area. Of particular concern are the requests to be exempted from some of the most fundamental of requirements. The variances regarding maximum 75% gross floor area permitted for retail uses and the drive thru locations flout the very purpose of the Overlay Zone. What hardship exists that reasonably results in 6 variances for signage! Please consider that there are additional ramifications with granting these sign variances: it would encourage other existing businesses in the Overlay Zone to ask for their own sign variances. Please refuse to set a precedent for ignoring the sign standards of the Overlay Zone. Perhaps reasonable, small differences could be addressed regarding frontage on a public street, some signage issues, and perimeter fence designs. However, "small" differences could be expected to be worked out by the Plan Commission while they upheld as much as possible the high quality standards required of everyone choosing to locate in the Overlay Zone. As proposed, this development is asking you to make important standards just disappear for them. If variances can essentially make zoning ordinances go away, what is the point of establishing zoning ordinances to begin with? This property is desirable, within a highly desirable corridor, on a much traveled "gateway" road. There is no hardship to the property making these variances necessary, just a desire to be exempt from the very standards that have made this area so desirable they want to locate within the Overlay Zone. How ironic. We strongly urge you to refuse the variances so as to uphold the high standards as written and which already exist in this important corridor. Marilyn Anderson, President 1/20/2010 MaryEllen Bormett, Vice President Dee Fox, Secretary Tingley, Connie S From: Julie A. Camden [jc @camlawyers.com] Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 6:06 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Krogers and Woodhaven subdivision concerns I am writing to give you my opinion on what should be done to allow Krogers to be placed on Michigan Road where Altum's nursery currently is located. Page 1 of 1 The neighbors in our subdivision met and decided we had three major concerns. Currently, to the best of everyone's knowledge in this neighborhood, we have received no commitments from the developer. Our concern is that the law firm will come and represent that they addressed our concerns, when in fact this is not true. Although I have called Charlie Frankenberger, and he has spoken to me, he hasn't called me back with commitments. The three concerns we have are: 1. First and foremost, we do not want the 75% requirement exceeded, as the overlay is there for a reason. While Kroger's stated one reason it wanted this is financing, this is simply not our concern. The only other reason they could provide is for flexibility. However, if Krogers if forced to comply with these provisions, they could move the store forward, which would eliminate a lot of the neighbors' concerns. Krogers may not want to do this because it might cause their gas station to be eliminated. 2. Secondly, we want a ten foot mound with 8 foot fir or spruce trees (consistent with what the neighborhood currently has we've been told that pines will not do well), and proper draining with a fence behind the trees (facing Krogers). This should eliminate the unsightly trucks, lights, etc. This is similar to what Krogers did at 96 street and Meridian. Additionally, this would prevent depreciation to our homes for the Krogers visibility factor. I moved into Woodhaven almost a year ago today due to its name, and the massive amounts of woods. Allowing a Krogers not to have this would severely hurt my property value, as I would back up to dumpsters, where a pond currently sits. Additionally, we would lose the pond, where we currently have "Big Bertha," a huge carp exceeding 5 feet in length that many of us neighbors feed. 3. Finally, we want the dumpsters relocated, with proper rat control measures in place. Currently, they are not restricting the times that the dumpsters pick up, and since they're located close to our neighborhood, we fear that the sound will wake us up at 4 a.m., when the trash services usually pick up and drop down the dumpsters with a loud crash. We made a suggestion that the dumpsters go in between the Krogers and the northern part of the adjacent store. However, this placement is not mandatory, so long as it's further from where we live. While the neighbors have more generalized concerns also, these are the big issues. Other looming small issues are lighting (obviously Carmel has a code that deals with this), and the hours trucks can be there. Initially, it sounded to me that John Dobosiewicz committed to no trucks of any sort from 7 P.M. to 7 A.M. including dumpster trucks, so that our children could sleep, etc., without the noise disturbances to the neighborhood. However, at the subdivision meeting at the neighboring church, we were informed that no such commitment had been made. Obviously, this needs clarification, and the subdivision would like the 7 -7 restriction, so that we are not disturbed by noise. Julie A. Camden Camden Associates, P.C. 9000 Keystone Xing, Ste. 660 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 770 -0000 Phone (888) 339 -9611 Fax 1/20/2010 Tingley, Connie S Page 1 of 1 From: James R. Parker [JRParker @indy.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 9:02 AM To: Tingley, Connie S; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Irizarrym Heather M; Rider, Kevin D; rripma @carmel.in.gov; jhagan @carmel.in.gov; Stromquist, Steven R; mtorres @carmel.gov; Westermeier, Susan Subject: Property Owner's Input Regarding Docket No. 09100009 DP /ADLS Attachments: Planning_commission_letter.doc Dear Commission Members, Please see the attached letter with my concerns. Thank you. James R. Parker 1/20/2010 JAMES R. PARKER 77368 ROYAL CIRCLE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 -8699 January 16, 2010 TO: Nick Kestner, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow, Heather Irizarry, Kevin Rider, Rick Ripma, Judy Hagan, Steve Stromquist, Madeline Torres, Susan Westermeier RE: Docket No. 09100009 DP /ADLS: Long Branch Market w/ Kroger (Altum's site) Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing you in regards to the requested variances being proposed by the developer of the Kroger store and retail center along Michigan Road. Although I'm very pleased to hear that another grocery such as Kroger is being planned, I'm not happy to hear that the developer wants to over -ride a number of the requirements of the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. The other developers in this area have had to comply with these requirements, why should this developer be allowed to disregard them? In my opinion, loosening these requirements will ultimately result in this area looking similar to the retail area along Keystone just south of 156 street (which is an eye- sore). There are a number of residential areas that surround the Michigan Road Overlay. As a property owner, I want to ensure that the area stays attractive thus helping to keep the property value high throughout the western boundary of Carmel. When this topic is discussed in the next meeting, I urge you to reject the variance proposal and help keep this section of Carmel up to the standards of excellence that we expected when we moved to the community. Thank you. Best regards, James R. Parker E- mail: iroarkerPinc/y.rr.com Phone: 317.873.9610 Tingley, Connie S Sincerely, Catherine Jones 1/20/2010 Page 1 of 1 From: Catherine Jones [apothecathy @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:12 AM To: Tingley, Connie S; Hancock, Ramona B Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Dierckman, Leo J; Dutcher, Dan; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Irizarrym Heather M; Rider, Kevin D; rripma @carmel.in.gov; Schleif, Carol; Stromquist, Steven R; mtorres @carmel.gov; Westermeier, Susan Subject: citizen objection to Long Branch Development Kroger Attachments: Tong _branch_objection_cjones.doc Members of the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals: I am writing concerning the proposed Long Branch Development Kroger 09100009. I live adjacent to this site and have attached a letter stating my concerns. I will mail an official signed copy also, but wanted you to have more time to read it before the upcoming Plan Commission Meeting. I was also hoping it will go on record for the meeting. I am still working on a crime report for the surrounding areas and will send that when it becomes available. Thank you in advance for considering my objections. Ramona Hancock Administrative Assistant Plan Commission One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Members of the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals: I am writing concerning the proposed Long Branch Development Kroger 09100009. I live at 4132 Much Marcle Drive with my two children ages 5 and 8. I have many concerns over the plans for this development and have outlined them below. 75% Retail Use Pharmacy Drive -thru January 15, 2010 The current zoning restriction of 75% retail should be kept and enforced. The property sits between two residential neighborhoods, and there should not be such and abrupt divide between residential and commercial. The current plans do not provide sufficient buffer between residential and commercial use. The current plan pushes the retail use to every corner of the lot, using just about every available square foot of land. The current proposal puts my home within mere feet of a Big -box store (Super Kroger). It is so close, that the HVAC units on top of the proposed site will likely affect my children's sleep as their bedrooms face the Altum's property. This is drastically out of character for the current retail establishments already in place along the Michigan Rd corridor. Most if not all large stores have a buffer street between residential areas and retail stores with plenty of green space. The close proximity will cause significant, detrimental light pollution, noise pollution, and safety concerns. There is no need for a pharmacy drive -thru in such close proximity to residential housing. A pharmacy drive -thru will cause significant light and noise pollution. As a pharmacist myself, I have experienced working a drive -thru. Drive -thru customers cannot see how busy it may be on the inside of the store and impatient customers will honk to gain attention. This would happen more often at night because there is only one person on staff to field the phones, pickup and drop off windows, and drive -thru. Customers seemed to often be less understanding and more prone to honking at night. The honk of a car is an extremely loud abrupt sound, even more than delivery trucks or trash pick up. We do not want to be disturbed by the loud honking of impatient customers and our children should not be awakened by this sort of disturbance. Therefore, I oppose the variance allowing a pharmacy drive -thru. Noise pollution Quiet Hours Below is an excerpt from the National Sleep Foundation's website www.sleepfoundation.org Age Newborns (1 -2 months) Infants (3 -11 months) Toddlers (1 -3 years) Preschoolers (3 -5 years) School -aged Children (5 -12 years) 10 -11 hours Teens (11 -17) 8.5 -9.25 hours Adults 7 -9 hours Older Adults 7 -9 hours Sleep Needs 10.5 -18 hours 9-12 hours during night and 30- minute to two -hour naps, one to four times a day 12 -14 hours 11 -13 hours According to the above chart, my two children ages 5 and 8 should have 11 hours of sleep per night. They awaken at 7am to board the Carmel Clay bus which arrives at 7:40am. This puts bedtime (quiet -time) at 8pm. Therefore, the proposed Kroger going in adjacent to my children's bedroom windows should have quiet hours of 8pm to 7am not the proposed midnight to 5am schedule. The store should have no truck deliveries, trash pickup, construction times, or drive thru hours during this time period. I am asking this not only for my own two children, but for the nine children extremely close to the development (ages 1, 5, 5, 5, 8, 8, 14, 16, 16) most of whom have bedrooms facing north toward the proposed Kroger. I would also like to mention the many adults who will be disturbed and the children and residents further down the streets who will be affected to a slightly lesser degree (there are 130 units in our neighborhood). Signage The proposed sign is out of character for the area. The Marsh sign less than Y2 mile away is approximately 5 feet high. The Kroger sign does not need to be 9 feet high. It is out of character for the area. This variance should not be allowed. Outlots Crime has been increasing over the last year, especially among the strip malls and outlots along the Michigan Road corridor. More specifically, there has been an increase in the number of robberies and burglaries. Having two outlot stores next to Kroger will increase the crime in our area. We also have many vacant outlot stores near us. There isn't a significant need for these types of establishments in our area and it will only bring in more crime. A more detailed crime report is in the works and will soon follow this letter. Sidewalk The proposed plan has a sidewalk from the Kroger parking lot into our neighborhood. This is a security concern. This proposed sidewalk also does not connect to any existing sidewalk system. We do not want access to our neighborhood from the proposed Kroger parking lot and store. On August 15, 2009, Lovely Nails at 4000 W 106 St, Carmel, IN was robbed at gunpoint. This store is less than '/2 mile from our neighborhood. The suspect fled through the back door and into the neighborhood behind the store (the Westons the connecting neighborhood to the south of us). The police locked down the neighborhoods looking for the suspect. This recent incident is a terrifying example of what we are trying to avoid in our community. The sidewalk also opens the possibility of crime in the opposite direction with a robbery occurring in our neighborhood and the suspect fleeing into the Kroger parking lot. I object to the proposed sidewalk due to safety concerns. On -site Recycling Areas I absolutely object to on -site recycling areas. I am personally an advocate for recycling. I currently pay for recycling services from Republic Waste Services. Recycling bins cause significant noise when persons drop off glass and metal objects. Most importantly, these containers are available 24 hours a day with no control over when a person can drop items off. This has high potential for disrupting mine and my young children's sleep. It is a hazard to their health and well- being. These types of drop off recycling areas are more appropriate for a commercial or non residential area. Kennel Similar to the Recycling Area idea, there is little control over the noise a kennel can generate. Kennels are noisy, and dogs do not generally stop barking to follow ordinances. A kennel should not be an allowed use for this area. In summary, my objections to the proposed Kroger development are significant and will affect my family and my neighbors' safety, health, and well being. The current plans are also an aberration to the current character of West Carmel. I am asking the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals to consider my concerns as a citizen and neighbor to this development. Please do not allow the plans to pass in their current form. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. Sincerely, Catherine Jones LTABA (retapamulln °intm04.1'0°/o I itIcEivED i S Fr C,e�� u� mro I a cj 3 VW- _www.rrArT- ax.com City of Carmel CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Date: January 15, 2010 To: BZA Members From: Rachel Boone Department of Community Services MEMORANDUM- Re: Docket No. 09110015 -25 V: Long Branch Market w/ Kroger Altum's Site); The Petitioner for Long Branch Market w/ Kroger (Altum's site) has asked that the Department of Community Services convey this message to you: The purpose of this message is to explain the continuance of the Kroger matter. This was originally scheduled for hearing on January 6 but had to be continued until January 26 due to a notice glitch not caused by the applicant. So, it was rescheduled to be heard on January 26; however, this matter has received significant public input, and the public hearing before the Plan Commission will be only 5 days earlier on January 21. In light of this and the fact that the Plan Commission will determine not only DP /ADLS, but also whether to authorize the applicant's proposed B -3 /Business use, we think it is premature to ask the BZA to hear this matter on January 26. In this regard, one of the requested variances is from the 75% retail ceiling, which will be directly affected by the Plan Commission's deliberation on use. In short, we thought it would be more considerate to the BZA and to the public if the BZA hearing were forestalled until at least after the first Plan Commission Special Studies Committee meeting. Should you have any questions or comments, please call the Department at 317 -571 -2417. Sincerely, -w Rachel Boone Planning Administrator Filename: BZAMEMO- 2010 -0115 Long Branch Market w/ Kroger (Altum's site) Page 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Tingley, Connie S From: MaryEllen Bormett [mebormett @me.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:11 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Long Branch Market Hello. I am a resident of western Clay Township. A proposed zoning or ordinance change has come to my attention that I would like to share my input on. I am active in my community and am the HOA president of my neighborhood, Laurel Lakes. I believe that the look and feel of our community is important to all of us and thus want to express my feelings regarding the proposed changes for the Altium's property. It is my understanding that when the zoning change was granted to Altiums to be built there, there were some stipulations put on the property to limit the uses. I believe this was a good decision as it is in a transition area and has immediately surrounding residential property. This was a smart. move not only to be considerate to the immediately surrounding properties but also for the general good of the community to organize our city into logical areas of commercial, industrial and residential areas for obvious reasons. I feel that nothing unforeseen has happened in our community to warrant a change_ position, for the limitations on that property. The commercial located farther south on Michigan road provides two options for groceries, several restaurants, several banking options, clothing stores, home improvement stores, several pharmacies and all general services that our community needs to service the surrounding area. To approve the change in zoning to add yet another grocery store seems to just be looking to add more commercial and not to be looking at the overall needs or desires of the community as a whole. If there was a goods vendor of needed service that was not located within an easy drive of the area homes, I think at that point a zoning change could responsibility be considered if that store could not be accommodated in the existing commercial area. But that appears to not be the case regarding this proposal. Thus I believe this proposed change should be denied as it does not add any needed services to our community and would stretch out the commercial area on Michigan road unacceptably far to the north into the residential and rural area. Finally I want to share with you that I recently took a poll of my neighborhood asking all residents to respond with their input on a vast majority of topics regarding our area from residential density to commercial sites being added to our community so that I could adequately know my communities sentiments when representing them regarding the newly proposed Comp Plan and regarding other zoning considerations that arise from time to time. The unanimous opinion was that the responding residents of Laurel Lakes were not interested in increasing the density of the zoning and were not interested in seeing commercial development outside of the already defined commercial areas. Thus, as I write to you I am sure my letter represents the sentiments of not only myself, but also many more residents in this area. Thank you for your time and service to our community! Sincerely, MaryEllen Bormett HOA President, Laurel Lakes 2430 Hopwood Drive Carmel IN 46032 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Casey Carter [denali9674 @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:13 AM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: RE: Letter to Board of Zoning Appeals Attachments: Tingley Letter.pdf Dear Ms. Tingley, I wanted to send you this letter in regards to the proposed Kroger store on US421 in West Carmel. I would like this letter to get into the hands of those members of the AREA PLAN COMMISSION and the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. I will also be'sending this to Ramona Hancock. Thank you, Casey M. Carter Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up.._now. 1/7/2010 Page 1 of 1 Connie Tingley Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 January 6, 2010 Ms. Tingley and Members of the Plan Commision and Board of Zoning Appeals: I am writing in regards to the currently proposed Kroger along Michigan Road in West Carmel between 106 Street and 116 Street. I feel that it is important for me to state some of the concerns that I have about this development. I live at 4138 Much Marcle Drive within feet of the south line of the proposed development. I have tried to outline my concerns in this letter. I have organized it into three categories: developmental requirements, design concerns and zoning commitments. I feel that these issues are important to this proposed development. I feel that these should be addressed before proceeding toward a possible approval. Developmental Requirements 1. Mounding on the south of proposed development, north of the Townhomes of Weston Pointe must be 10' in height with an 8' fence built with masonry posts and neutral color fencing. a. Landscaping facing the Townhomes will be dense with 8' 10' pine /spruce trees. b. Trees will be replaced by developer if and when they die with trees of SAME height. c. Tree line currently in place will remain protected and preserved during demolition /construction/grading /finishing with fencing of some sort. d. Mounding/fencing /plantings to extend west of the northern most point of current Real Estate /Insurance /School Building to the currently proposed Weston Pointe road access. e. Elimination of Southern most parking island (currently eight spaces). Island to become a planting/tree /pine /spruce island. f. Mounding shown on final plans with elevations consistent with above requirements. g. Fence /guardrail (1 -3' high) around wet pond to prevent another person from driving into pond similar to accident on Nov. 2, 2009 at the pond at the entrance to the Townes of Weston Pointe. 2. Signage must be consistent with current tenants along 421/Michigan Road. Lettering must not be allowed larger than what currently exists at Marsh. Number of signs must be consistent with current tenants along Michigan Road. It must be enforced!! Design Concerns 1. Sidewalk access at the Eastern most point near townhomes to be eliminated. There is not a need for a FOURTH access point at this location. Currently proposed three other access points will suffice. Proposed townhome access point would create a path to nowhere as no other sidewalk system exists close by. Location would create an easy path to the back of our townhomes becoming a safety hazard by inviting unwanted trespassers onto our areas. 2. There are currently only two drive -thrus viewable from US421, the Burger King in front of Home Depot and the drive thru for the Goodwill, current zoning does not allow for these types of drive thrus. The drive thru should be located on the back of the proposed Kroger. If it is allowed access to the drive -thru pharmacy on the south of the proposed Kroger would enter north toward the building and exit toward the west, reversing the currently proposed drive thru plan. This would prevent light pollution, possible traffic interference from deliveries /trucks /etc. It is understood that the North drive thru follows this pattern of driving towards the building. a. Area at the south of the building and around the drive thru will be heavily landscaped. Currently states on Sheet C2.0 "S29" -see Landscape Plan. Landscape plan shows no plantings there. Require heavy landscaping in this area. b. Car stacking in the pharmacy drive thru is not shown. How many cars can this drive thru currently hold at one time? c. Without satisfying these demands I cannot waive the variance to allow the Drive Thru on the side of the building, put it on the back where the ordinance says it is to go. 3. Loading dock to face East instead of south, preventing light pollution to developments to the north and the south. 4. Traffic plan (page C2.1- (truck route)) must be better stated, eliminating any reference to usage of the north drive. Turning radius noted at each area where a truck will be turning. Explanation of how truck will make turn just north of fuel station and turning south along current proposed "truck route Are trucks turning from the left turn and then turning right? Is this the best the developer can come up with? Does this not seem dangerous? 5. How will drainage on the mounded sides facing current residential areas be addressed? Won't it drain towards the townhomes and other residences? Drainage must be kept on the Kroger developmental sides by storm structures of some sort; this must be shown on a detailed drawing before approval is given. 6. Is a gas station necessary for this site? Why the current location? If it is to be allowed it must be moved between the two outlots or not at all. 7. By allowing another grocery store, (by my count 10 currently exist within a 5 mile radius!!!) Carmel will NOT allow another one in the area, specifically saying no to a future Wal -Mart proposed on the west side of 421. 8. Concern over the INDOT contract for a light in front of proposed site. Numerous residents of the Townhomes as well as tenants /owners of the Commercial area along Weston Pointe Drive stated that a Tight was proposed and promised at the intersection of Weston Pointe and 421/Michigan Road. A request submitted with Planning and Zoning to find the plans for the Townhomes at Weston Pointe and the commercial area along Weston Pointe Drive; no plans have yet been disclosed to me. Current traffic patterns make it incredibly difficult to turn South onto 421 from Weston Pointe Drive. How will the proposed light in front of the proposed Kroger alleviate this difficulty in exiting Weston Pointe Drive? In the developmental plan for the townhomes a light was suggested and encouraged, yet never put in. I have discussed this with Planning and Zoning, Engineering and INDOT and no one can give me an answer as to why this was not put in. This needs to be revisited. 9. Current lighting plans show a bubble down type of globe (Tab 11 page 2), where will this go? We were told at neighborhood meeting at Zionsville Presbyterian Church that the street lights would be "shoe box" lights with no bubble down type of globe. 10. Why is there no B -shop separation proposed? Wouldn't this be a more attractive option to the community? Zoning Commitments 1. Commitment for Grocery Truck Food Delivery/Trash Pickup no later than 7:OOpm and no earlier than 7:OOam. 2. Commitment made to remove /demolish Kroger structure if it were to ever become vacant or empty and return site to its original condition before any development existed. 3. A written pest/rodent plan. General Concerns with this Process Better communication with residents and ad joiners. The tabling of meetings and rescheduling has become difficult to stay informed, the developer is not required to renotice? Was two separate meetings with neighbors to the north and neighbors to the south necessary? Why no contact with the Home Owner's Association about the neighborhood meeting for the Townhomes? Does Carmel not require contact with HOA's? Why not? a. The developer's "Explanation of Request" states that the "applicant has worked diligently with surrounding property owners..." The only diligence that has been taken is buffering. They presented their information and plans to us and as of the final packet that is currently available that is what they are "giving" us as neighbors. When will all of this construction begin if approved? Initial application stated immediately upon approval of permits, yet I have heard that Altum's will continue its operation through 2010 which is different than the initial application. Who will enforce the approved commitments? How are these commitments enforced? This development is not sufficient for the area. It does not benefit the residents the way that it is being promoted. To many issues exist that need to be remedied before this is allowed to be passed. There is too much at stake to not take a step back and take another look at what it is that the neighbors and residents are asking for. This is not the best design for the area and should be reconsidered. The commitments that currently go with this property do not allow for this type of 100% retail development. Thank you for your time, Casey M. Carter DEC -15 -2009 TUE 03;28 PM REAMED INC Vitt C_tt 7157k:2-426 Plan Coinn ission and Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals City C)C' Carmel One Civic Satiate Carmel, Indiana 10032 R1 Development Platt AI)I,S J) cket.No ff 09100009 1)1' /ADI -S To whom it may concern: December 15, 2009 FAX NO 3178146691 P. 01 Timber Ridge llomc Owners Association Scott Herbst 910 Tillson !)rive Zionsville, IN •1(077 (c) 317- 7119•GS43 (w) 317- 814- Ca710 I alit the president of 'Timber Ridge 1luulc Owners Association ("1C111IOA and am Providing comments on plans for a Kroger, Incline; station and the eventual development of two out -lots ,•t) the real estate commonly known as 1 1335 North Michigan Iond an�1 currently occupied by Altums (tlae "Development Several nlctnhcrs of'fR1•l()A attended an informational meeting hosted on Wednesday 1)cccrnber 2, 2,000 and our comments are based on material presented in that meeting, by the developer and Nelson cti 1°rankcnbcrgcr, Based ott that meeting, our members share and support the concerns raised by the Woodhaven home Owners Assoi ltil: "Woodhaven as articulated at the informational meeting. We understand those concerns Inciudc, but ;Ire not limited to: Lighting pollution, Noise pollution, including restrictions on nighttime deliveries, mitigating the noise caused by the compressors suppottirtg too refrigeration equipment, which run ;'.4/7/350, and noise from testing or Ole emergency generator (perhaps lint 'ling For only one hour between the hours of 10 AM 4 PM each week and ex:tucling weekend and holidays), 1)ultupster location and pest control, Traffic (we understand a light will be added at I3ennett Parkway And that laic L1rtvc ut 11h0 North etul of too development will be for ingress only which are boils uhsolutc minimums to address our issues on traffic and safety), O I'hc appropriateness of a gas station on this project. and DEC -15 -2009 TUE 03:29 PM REAMED INC FAX NO. 3178146691 P. 02 Esthetics, including visual and physical buffers, We understand that the developers also Seeks variances on the; mix of businesses that can 00ealpy the out-lots and seine members of Woodhaven have suggested a prohibition on fast food leases and have reminded the developer that the intention of the c.)ttinl tegultttions was to provide lower intensity transition Zones that abut residential t1C1gllborlioOd,i. We again support Woodhaven' s views on these natters. Wc. also have a unique issue that was not adequately or accurately addressed in the informational meeting. We believe that (he Development niay exacerbate severe erosion issues on several of our property owners' land via the Long Branch (reek (the "Creek f!y way of b(tokgroun(1, we believe the Development will drain into Lone; Branch ilrat cute tinder i'1ichiltnn rand ttnd across the northern edge of our subdivision and the southern edge: of Pittman 1'ztrms. Since the widening of Michigan load, tlii, \tucrway lie Se4.'11 severe erosion and is threatening property owners' homes in our tiubdiVisio11, We arc in CIISGt1sSiolaS Willi both INDO'1' and the County regarding these ptoblen1!( zinc) have had informal discussions with the Pittman family. 1Nn1T1' and the County will need to perlurin studies bclore any rernediation can he perforated. Our concern is that water from the dcvelohment will further exacerbate this s erious erosion issue:, \Vu understand retention ponds will be located at the back (fur Vag side) of the i)evelopntent. Our fear is that the natural slope of the land will allow water to flow tc)\v rcl Michigan Road and this creel.. '1 he developer mistakenly reported that the i,onc IIrwich ('reek 11owod west to e:►sl .uld was unable to address our conc•crns in the illlorl )ational meeting. lf you have any questions, please call me at 317 709.6843. Voty truly yours, C7 ;v& t -14 Seen 1-;, 1lerL,st, President, hither Ridge 1 Iomc Owners Association cc: Nelson Ac t i' nkenberger (via fax 846-8782) Steve litttn;tn (via e aril steve(c"r?pitttnnnpartncrs.com) Tingley, Connie S From: MRS MISSUS [the_missus2001 @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:19 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Proposed Kroger development along Michigan Road Connie, would you please distribute this email to the BZA members. Thanks so much. Page 1 of 1 12/11/2009 Oh dear, a developer wanting to change rules that were put into place after much thought and work, and for many very good reasons. We'd sure appreciate your support in adhering to those rules and now allowing changes thereto that would definitely have an adverse effect on surrounding residents. Thank you very big. Barbara Layton JAMES J. NELSON CI- IARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JAMES E. SHINAVER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER JOHN B. FLATT FREDRIC LAWRENCE JAMES A. NICKLOY CHRISTOPHER A. FERGUSON Christine Barton Holmes City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 November 18 December 15 December 21 January 5 January 19 NELSON FRANKENBERGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3105 EAST 98TH STREET, SUITE 170 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46280 PHONE: 317 844 -0106 FACSIMILE: 317- 846 -8782 November 6, 2009 i JANE B. MERRILL, Of Counsel ON C. DOBOSIEWICZ, Land Use Professional Re: Long Branch Market Michigan Road Kroger Dear Christine: Enclosed you will find applications for Development Standards Variances. Our anticipated schedule is as follows: TAC Plan Commission Public Hearing Board of Zoning Appeals Special Studies Committee Plan Commission (if forwarded out of January 5 committee) We will soon be conferring with you to review the variances that are being filed. Should you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to call. Enclosures Lir to C Holmes 110609 Very truly yours, NELSON FRANKENBERGER, P.C. Jon C. Dobosiewicz Land Use Professional