Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence John Sullivan 06-14-11June 14, 2011 To Carmel Plan Commission Members: John W. Adams Leo Dierckman Jan Dorman, President Brad S. Grabow Judy Hagan Nick Kestner Steve Lawson Kevin Rider, City Council Steve R. Stromquist, Vice President Susan Westermeier Ephriam Wilfong JOHN SULLIVAN 13562 KENSINGTON PLACE CARMEL, IN. 46032 Telephone (317) 815 -8374 FAX (317) 844 -2085 Email: jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Justus /Kensington Place I first want to apologize to each of you for sending this to your non- municipal addresses. I was fearful that this letter, with attachments, may not have reached you if it was sent first to your City office as our hearing is set on June 21, 2011. THE PROJECT ITSELF I recently visited the Plan Commission Office and reviewed their file. There appear to be several hundred drawings of the Justus apartment project from every conceivable angle except one. There are drawings from the north, northwest, northeast, east, southwest, southeast and south. Is it a coincidence that there are no drawings submitted to the Plan Commission of the Justus building directly west from the Kensington Place residences? There is one drawing of the basement walkout which will be seen by Kensington residences, but it gives no perspective of the building as it will be seen by Kensington Place residents. The building as now planned has five floors, the first of which by Ordinance is the walkout basement. The second through fifth floors and the ten foot parapet extends the building by an additional 10 feet. This extends the building from ground level to about 70 feet. The building will also be as close as 65 feet to the Kensington residences. Exhibit "A" is a drawing to scale prepared by Martin Welch, a Kensington resident (the building height is shown as 60 feet but will be closer to 70 feet tall). This drawing shows the height of the building, its proximity to Kensington Place, and the affect it will have on the residences on the west side of the street. The Justus project will, without doubt, deprive residents of light and air. Ordinance 23B.08(3) states that the project shall not deprive adjoining property of adequate light and air. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.) Justus must be required to discuss the F.A.R. with certainty. The building is a minimum of 221,643 square feet according to the March 31, 2011 letter from Mr. Dobosiewicz's letter to Angie Conn (Exhibit "B The total acreage in this project is 7.1 acres according to the SUMMARY OF WOODLAND TERRACE BUILDING AND PROJECT FEATURES (Exhibit "C The DP Amendment filed by Justus on February 18, 2011 (Exhibit "D the Hamilton County property records (Exhibit "E the Plan Commission record of hearing for April 19, 2011 (Exhibit "F and the survey of the subject property obtained by Justus Business Park (Exhibit "H show the subject area to be 7.1 acres. Page 2 of Exhibit "H" does state the parent area of the Business Park to be 7.298 acres, but that is not the area sought to be developed. The part of the area to be developed is 7.1 acres as outlined in red on Exhibit "H" and is substantiated by Exhibits "B" through "H The parent area very probably includes other areas outside the dark black line at the top of the survey which may well be a part of Smokey Row Road. The F.A.R. is 71.66. In addition, the Courtyard of the building is apparently not included in the F.A.R. computation. The Courtyard appears to be at least 2,000 square feet and is within the building perimeter. Therefore, the actual space which the building occupies is considerably more than has been set out in the Justus narrative. My estimates for the Courtyard and the area of the two story high entrance (only counted as one story) are estimated at a minimum of 4,000 square feet. My estimate includes the courtyard and the two stories. My point is that the two story entrance and the courtyard should be counted as square footage as they occupy this amount of space. When this estimated 2,000 square feet is added to the gross floor area and the 2,000 square footage of the two story entrance is added as two stories rather than the one story as in the submitted plans, the F.A.R. ratio is at least 225,890 divided by the actual 7.1 acres, and not 7.298 acres as set forth in Mr. Dobosiewicz's letter to Angie Conn dated March 31, 2011. The site area is 309,276 and not 317,729 square feet. With this considered, the F.A.R. is at least 72.87. Justus should not be allowed to submit measurements which merely suit their purpose. Justus does not count its walkout basement as a floor, does not count its two story building entrance as two floors, does not include the courtyard footage and does not include the proper acreage of 7.1 in its calculation. THE ORDINANCE (TWO PARTS) First, 23B.03 Permitted Uses states that "All uses which are permitted in the underlying primary zoning districts(s), except the uses expressly excluded by Appendix A:, Schedule of Uses, are permitted in the U.S. Overlay Zone" is interpreted so that Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility" permits Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility in the Meridian Overlay Zone. In Appendix .A (Exhibit "G the graph under "Residential Uses "Multiple Family Dwelling" does exclude that use by placing an "E" in the graph. The section of the graph under Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility" is blank. Directly above the graph section of this part of Appendix A is the definition of "Blank "Blank" is defined as "Prohibited The words "excluded" and the word "prohibited" are interchangeable. If the Council did not wish to Prohibit this use, why would it have the term "Blank Prohibited" in the glossary of terms? If the Plan Commission permits this project as submitted, I suggest that the Plan Commission will have exceeded its authority. If the Ordinance is inadequate or if is too ambiguous under these circumstances, then it is in the sole prerogative of the City Council to correct the Ordinance if the Council sees fit. It is not in the prerogative of the Plan Commission or the Staff to correct any purported ambiguity. Second, Justus has stated in hearings that they want to proceed in this project in two phases. The first phase is to develop the apartment part of the project. The second part of the project is apparently to develop the east and west wings of the project "as market conditions dictate" per Exhibit "H Appendix A of the Ordinance has no mention that Nursing /Retirement Facility/ Convalescent Facility" could or should be built as "conditions dictate They should be built all at once to prevent Justus or anyone to whom they consider selling the project, to know that this project must be used for Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility Without the firm hand of The Plan Commission in this regard, Justus or their purchaser /successor could very easily continue to operate this facility as a Multiple Family Dwelling, which is an excluded use. On page 1 of its Woodland Terrace Summary (Exhibit "B Justus defines a CCRC as a place where three or more levels of continued care are provided, including but not limited to independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing /memory care Their lack of licensure and their admitted failure to provide in house skilled nursing and memory care prohibits Justus from any CCRC provision. In addition, the parking requirements mould not be met if indeed they did build the two wings required for such services in the future. Further, the Summary provides that the community will be staffed by skilled nurses 24 hours per day. How can this be if the Nursing service portion of the Nursing /Retirement/ Convalescent Facility is not implemented until it is financially feasible. Justus has stated that they would never fail to build the two wings because the City mould implement fines. I suggest that a $50 or $100 daily fine would not prevent Justus from continuing to use this project as an apartment facility until "conditions dictate With apartment occupancy in the Carmel area continuing to exceed 90% and occupancy of a project such as Justus intends to build averaging approximately 50% occupancy, conditions will never dictate adding the two units. Why mould the City of Carmel want to take a chance that the Justus project will succeed? A corporate bankruptcy mould end Justus' responsibility but the building would continue. LAND AREA The survey of the subject land in question (see Exhibit "H and Justus tax records agree that the land is comprised of 7.1 acres. The Justus petition itself states that the subject land is 7.1 acres. Justus has verbally alleged at hearings that the land is 7.298 acres which is not substantiated. Ordinance 23B.02 provides that the Commission shall review a DP to determine if it satisfies the requirements of Sections 23B.03 through 23B.08. Under Section A, 2, the Commission's review shall include, but not be limited to: c. Surrounding zoning and existing land use; g. General vehicular and pedestrian traffic; h. Vehicle and bicycle parking facilities and internal site circulation; n. Proposed setbacks, site landscaping and screening, and compatibility with existing platted residential uses; q. Compatibility of proposed project with existing development within the U.S. Highway 31 Corridor; and, r. Consistency with the policies for the Overlay Zone which are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Thoroughfare Plan. 23B.Section C, Zoning Waiver, states that a waiver may be granted subject to the following criteria, (2) The proposal shall enhance the overall Development Plan, the adjoining streetscapes and neighborhoods, and the overall U.S. 31 Corridor. (3) The proposal shall not produce a Site Plan or street /circulation system that would be impractical or detract from the appearance of the Development Plan and the U. S. 31 Corridor, and shall not adversely affect emergency vehicle access or deprive adjoin property of adequate light and air. (4) The proposal exhibits extraordinary site design characteristics, including, but not limited to: Increased landscape treatment, tree preservation, public art, provisions for bicycles and /or mass transit, reduced surface parking coupled with provisions for above or below ground parking facilities. 23B.08.06 Maximum Parcel Coverage and Density: provides that: A. Maximum Parcel Coverage shall be 65% of any parcel and B. Maximum Floor Area Ration shall be .70, with the F.A.R. being calculated by dividing the total gross floor area of a building on any parcel by the area of such parcel. 23B.08.07. The applicant may request a Plan Commission Waiver to the dimensional quantitative standards by not greater than 35 consistent with requirements as set forth in Section 23B.02C. Note that 23B.02C states in C.2 that "The proposal shall enhance the overall Development Plan, the adjoining streetscapes and neighborhoods, and the overall U.S 31 Corridor. How do low rent apartments accomplish this goal for the City of Carmel? This project does not fit into the 7.1 acres. The setback requested, the existing buffer zone, the building and parking area, and the existing tree density of more than 90% do not give room for this project. Either this project should be denied or Justus should be compelled to obtain a survey which states the exact square footage of the areas, the setbacks with an overlay of the forest area to be consumed by removal of existing trees. TRAFFIC STUDY The last traffic study that was documented by the Staff was dated October 27, 2008. The Staff is relying on this study or on a study made in 2005 and has not ordered another traffic study which would include traffic from the two new condo projects at the Monon and Smokey Row and the roundabout at Smokey Row and Range Line. The traffic count on October 27, 2008 from Meridian to Range Line was 4,486. I feel sure that the Plan Commission is not aware that there is an additional traffic count study which was made just last month by INDOT (Exhibit "J That traffic count received by me is enclosed and is as follows: Date Direction Count all vehicles May 10, 2011 East and West 6248 May 11, 2011 East and West 6183 Average per day 6216 units It only makes sense that there is increased traffic over the past few years in view of the roundabout at Smokey Row Range Line Road and the two new condo units at Smokey Row and the Monon. This is an apparent increase of 1730 units per day and is a 38% traffic increase over the prior study. Will the Staff consider this? If not, why not? REAL ESTATE VALUES At hearings Justus has complained that they have already invested $2,000,000 in this project and inferred that if is not permitted to proceed, they will lose that money. On Kensington Place's behalf, real estate broker Virginia Kerr has stated her professional opinion that values of homes and lots for sale in Kensington Place will be reduced in value up to 35 At an average value of $325,000 per home, this is a reduction in value due to the Justus apartment project of $1,820,000 plus $100,000 for the four lots for sale for a total loss of $1,920,000. The Ordinance provides that the City protect the welfare of Kensington residents. A possible $2,000,000 increase mould be offset by expenses of emergency services provided by Kensington Place will decrease estate tax benefit to the City road maintenance, police, fire taxable income received by the PARKING Parking is inadequate for the "Nursing /RetiremeatConvalescent Facility If it is a nursing facility, Section 27 of the Ordinance provides that 100 additional parking spaces be provided. The actual total of parking spaces should be 273 and not 173. The only way that the total would not be 273 parking spaces is if the final two wings of the project are not built as proposed. Justus' complete plan, including the two wings, will not allow enough parking spaces for the 100 spaces required by nursing use. ENVIRONMENTAL Gary Doxtater, a Kensington Place resident, has submitted his booklet regarding our neighborhood entitled "Kensington Place, A Wildlife Friendly Neighborhood It is a thorough and accurate depiction and I include that material in this letter by reference. CONCLUSION in real estate tax income to the City road maintenance, police, fire and the City. The gross tax base of by that same $2,000,000 reducing the real of Carmel. Because of the expenses of emergency services, the overall net City of Carmel could very well decrease. This project is a 'Multi- family development (nursing facility)" as set forth in Exhibit "K which is the Urban Forestry Review. The nursing portion of the facility will not be built unless economically feasible. If the project is all built at once, the project is truly a multi- family development. That use is prohibited in the Meridian Overlay. I suggest that if the Plan Commission approves this project as submitted, it will have exceeded the authority given it by the enabling Ordinance and the laws of the State of Indiana. I ask that this letter and all attachments be made a part of the permanent record in this matter. Respectively submitted, P.S. For your easy reference I enclose Exhibit "L" which is a copy of this Plan Commission's decision in the Midwest Hospitality Group proceeding which was previously denied on "L EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "L" EXHIBIT "H" SEPARATE To: All 2011 Carmel Plan Commission Members This email references some of the concerns of the residents of Kensington Place with respect to the Woodland Terrace Project (WTP). Attached is a map showing the elevations on the site of the proposed WTP and Kensington Place residents. Also attached is a graph showing the line of site from each floor balcony /window of the Woodland Terrace Project and the residents on the west side of Kensington Place. I chose Lot 18, 13562 Kensington Place, (marked with an X on the Hamilton Co. Map) because it is approximately halfway between Smokey Row Rd /136 to the North and the end of Kensington Place to the South and it is at approximately the same elevation as the walkout basement proposed by the WTP, 830 ft with the first floor elevation at 840 ft. Also the elevation at this location is approximately halfway between the highest and lowest points from North to South on Kensington Place. The residents from this location are looking at a building that is 5 stories high plus HVAC reaching a height of approximately 60 ft above ground level. At Lot 15, 13544 Kensington Place (marked with a circle on the Hamilton Co. Map) the elevation is 828 ft, and WTP first floor elevation is 840 ft. Therefore, the Lot 15 resident is looking at a building that is, in effect, is approximately 62 ft above them. As you can see by the graph the privacy and quality of life of the residents on the west side of Kensington Place will be greatly compromised especially from Oct to mid Apr due to the lack of leaves on the trees. Also there will be an increase in the noise and light pollution during this same time period. It should be noted here that the 4 floor residents of WTP would be able to see over and between the west side residents into the 2nd floor and in some cases the main floor of the east side residents of Kensington Place effecting their privacy and quality of life as well. Another very important point is the shadow formed by the proposed Woodland Terrace Project building. Most of the residents of Kensington Place would loose several hours of sunlight, (earlier sunset) due to the height of the building. One could argue that the sun light is blocked by the trees in the summer but the fact is we do get some sunshine through the trees were we would get absolutely no sunlight through a four story building. We also believe the eco system in the tree protection area would change with the possible loss of trees and ground vegetation due to the drastic change in the available sunlight. This loss of vegetation would also have an adverse effect on water runoff. We were informed at our meeting with the representatives of the WTP, April 28, 2011, that the construction on top of the building hiding the HVAC was not included in the height of the building. We believe it should be considered because when you look at the building you see it's full height and sunlight is blocked by all of the building not just the four floors. Thank you all for taking the time to review this information. Please call me on my cell phone 317- 691 -4909 if you have any question. Martin Welch, 13571 Kensington Place, Carmel, IN. 46032 L( JAMES J. NELSON CHARLES D. FRANKENBERGER JAMES E. SHINAVER LAWRENCE J. KEMPER JOHN B. FLAT FREDRIC LAWRENCE JAMES A. NICKLOY CHRISTOPHER A FERGUSON Angie Conn City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Angie: Woodland Tertece. Response letter to A Conn 033 1 I f 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 March 31, 2011 Re: Docket Number 11020013 DP /ADLS Application for the proposed Woodland Terrace Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) Plannin Zonin De artment review comments: APR 17 JANE B. ME f Counsel JON C. DOBOSIEWICZ, Land Use Professional Below please see the response to the questions included in your review of the above referenced matter dated March 7, 2011. Feel free to bring color /material samples of the building to the Plan Commission meeting. We will have material samples and colors for all exterior building materials at the Plan Commission meeting. Need Secondary Plat/Replat application, in order to combine the two platted lots into one, to remove the middle property line, and also to remove part of the N.A.E. The application will be filed at a later date. We anticipate filing for DOCS revieNN once we conclude the DP /ADLS process. Please provide copies of your correspondence with the TAC members and their correspondence with you. You have been copied on all TAC corresportcents. Remember to include the Development Plan application's Findings of Fact sheet in your final info packets. Thank you for the reminder. This will be included at the appropriate time. 5. In the future, please provide all Design Information on the ADLS application. OK `fit it Provide the filled out and notarized affidavit of notice of public hearing page of the application. This will be provide on or before April 15 with items requested under #7 and #8. Provide the filled out Notice of Public Hearing page of the application. This will be provide on or before April 15 with items requested under #6 aui #8. Provide the filled out and notarized Public Notice Sign Placement affidavit page of the application. This will be provide on or before April 15 with items requested under #6 and #7. Provide an exhibit with the site plan overlaid upon and aerial photo of the site. See attached. Please explain how you calculated the floor area ratio. We calculated the floor area ratio (FAR) in accordance with the definition provided in the zoning ordinance. The building area was measured from the interior face of exterior walls .and includes basement, elevator shafts and stairwells of each story and floor space used for mechanical equipment. The two -story lobby area was counted once. The gross floor area is 221,390 SF. Divided by the site area of 317,729 SF, the FAR is 0.69. 2 1• 1. Need to -scale architectural building elevations on 24 x 36 or similar sized paper. r/ Attached are exterior elevations nlotted at a scale of 1/16 =1'0 42. Please label the mechanical equipment locations on the site plan and building elevations and provide details on how they are screened from view. This includes electric and gas meters. Mechanical systems design has not been completed at this time, however, we believe that the perimeter screen wall above the roof elevation will conceal all mechanical equipment located on the roof froiniriew. We do no intend to locate mechanical equipment on the ground. e- raric and gas meters will be located in the receiving area and will be scre ed by the adjacent screen wall. Please consider using additional LEED or `green' building practices, such as a white membrane roof, solar panels, skylights, etc. List is attached. Sustainable "green" building design features will include the following: a. Bio retention areas for stormwater b. Native landscaping and tree preservation c. Connectivity to adjacent sites d. White membrane roof e. Porous paving f. Landscaped parking islands that will provide shade within 5 years g. High efficiency building and site lighting h. Building materials sourced from within 500 miles i. Water efficient plumbing fixtures throughout j. Use of recycled building materials k. Use of Energy Star appliances Woodland Terrace letter roa Conn o33111 Woodland Terrace Summary 1- The Justus Companies wishes to construct their newest senior living facility on their 7.1 acre vacant parcel located near 136 Street and Smokey Row Road, 'n Carmel, Indiana. Currently, Justus owns and manages 2475 ndependent and Assisted Living apartment homes within the metro Indianapolis market. The c.osest location to the subject property is Crestwood Village North Apartments, a 300 un :t "over 55" community, located on the Monon Trail, near East 91 and College Avenue. The proposed faciFty is being designed and all facets are intended to be compliant with the city o= Carmel's building ordinances under the auspices of a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). A CCRC is a permitted use on the subject site and as described in the B -6 zoning district and not excluded in the U.S. 31 Over!ay Zone. ,A CCRC is defined as "a place where three ;3) or more levels of continue care are provided to senior citizens, including but not limited to: independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing /memory care. It can include independent apartments, detached or attached cottages, and nursing home rooms in a congregate building, as well as support services and facilities." The defined levels of service to be delivered within the proposed facility are Independent Living Assisted Living and Skilled Rehabilitation Care. Rather than construct a building that requires its residents to be moved from place to place within the community, this facility will allow residents to remain within their chosen home and receive a choice of three levels of service which they may require. This approach is recognized as a more supportive option to address the needs of aging. ,The community will be staffed by sO 'ed nurses 24 hours per day and private duty care will be available as residents may require. Level I, independent residents would remain at home in an environment that provides for wellness, convenience and social interaction to be supported by onsite concierge services. As needs increase to Level II, housekeeping services, laundry assistance, bathing, dressing, shopping, medication reminders and meal preparation are made available through an on site Personal Service Agency. Should Level III be required for our residents, therapy, injections, nursing visits, transports or wound care will be provided by a skilled representative. alitrProperties, Planner:: R,:itt and —rr Since i9 1393 0. Box 19439 Indianapolis, Indii2ns 46219 Ph n e 1 7 3 3311 FAX '3171352-1570 Z7r Surewn Pry of Woodland: Terrace Building and Project Features 7.1 .3.C.RES LOCATED r I PRO-M7:12: PARK AT 136 AND oLD MERIDIAN STRI:::T c TOTAL OF 1 85 UNITS ASc!STFD LIVING 159 UNITS) INDEPENDENT CARE UNITS (126 UNITS) 82 TWO BEDROO:vi D.EPENDENT CARE UNITS- .:AVG 384 44 ONE BEDROOM INDEPENDENT CARE UNITS- AVG 638 SQ.FT. 28 ONE BEDROOM ASSISTED LIVNG CARE UNITS- AVC3 6.58 SQ.FT. .7: 3 FFFrIFNCY STUDIO Aq.SISTFID UJiNG CARE UNITS- AVG 566 SQ.FT. TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 221.643 SQ. T. FOUR FLOORS PLUS EASEMENT IN CENTER com•oNis AREA. BUILDING H7 50 FT. O PROPOSED PARKING 173 PROPOSED TOTAL 63 GARAGES- 104 SURFACE !PARKING RFclUIRFD: ONE SPATE PER INDEPENDENT CARE I 'NITS 1 26 PI US 1/2 SPACE PER ASSISTED VYING UNIT (52 X 0.5)= 30 SPACES PLUS ONE PER STAFF EMPLOYEE =17 r. STAFF EMPLOYEES PROPOSED 17 ADMINISTRATION 5 (DIRECTOR, BUSINESS MANAGER, 71E(.727-MONIST, LEASING-2'; rt./IAINTEi 3 SUPERINTENDENT PLUS 2 SUPPORT STAFF); DiNG 5 r!-IFF PI tic 4 SUPPORT STAFF 1; NURSING 4 Construction Schedule. or Woocliand Terrace CONSTRUCTiON iS ANTICIPATED TO START IN EITHER THE FALL OF 2011 OR SPRING OF 2012 WITH A COMPLETION 05 PH.A.SE ONE NO LATER THAN APPROXIMATELY 12 MONTHS AFTER THF START "IF CONcTRUCTinN, Project PhE 00 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PI-LASES. THE NORTHERN TIN VviINGS OF THF BUD DING LOCATED ON THE FAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE COURTYARD AREA JE DESIGNATED AS FUTURE PHASES. THESE WINGS WLL CONSTRUCTED AS MARKET CONDITIONS DICTATE. TEMPORARY CONNECTION POINTS AT EXPANSION AREAS WILL BE COMPLETED WITH SIMILAR BUILDING MATERIALS AND STYLE 70 PROVIDE .3. COMPLETED APPEARANCE TO THESE AREAS SFTWFEN PHASE-S 05 CONSTRUCTION. THE INTERIOR GARAGE PARKING AREAS WILL 36 coNsiRucTED AS MARKET CONDITIONS DICTA THEIR NEED. THESE AREAS WILL 56 CONSTRUCTED AS SURFACE PARKING AREA UNTIL THE NFFD FOP, GARAGES ARE THF EXTERI0i GARAGES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED VV:TH PHASE ONE TO SHrIW COMPLETED I inrIK. PROM THE PRIMARY VIEWS FROM ADJOINING PARCEL AND S tic [7.13. ?1aa Built :Lac. ii'. 40219 Phon; :317 35,S- .!311 RAY_ (317) 352-157 DEVELOPMENT PLAN/DP Amendment APPLICATION r �JPJ Fee $912.00 plus $121.20 per acre DATE: February 16, 2011 DOCKET NO. 11 (Check all that apply) X DP DP Amend X ADLS /ADLS AMEND Attached Name of Project: Woodland Terrace Project Address: Pro Med Drive, Carmel, IN 46032 /6 6 L_,., Project Parcel ID 16- 09- 25- 01 -05- 001.000 16- 09- 25- 01 -05- 002.000 Legal Description: see Exhibit "A" Name of Applicant: Justus Homes, Inc.(see Exhibit "B Applicant Address: See Exhibit `B" Contact Person: Jon C. Dobosiewicz Phone: 317- 844 -0106 Fax No.: 317- 846 -8782 Email: ion(anf- law.com Name of Landowner: Justus Homes, Inc. Phone: (317) 353 -8311 Landowner Address: 1398 North Shadeland, Indianapolis, IN 46219 Plot Size: 7.12 Acres Zoning Classification: B -6 Business District US 31 Overlay Zone Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) *Note that required fees are due after the application has received a docket number, and not at the time of application submittal. A M-S N The undersigned agrees that any construction, reconstruction, enlargement, relocation or alteration of structures, or any change in the use of land or structures requested by this application will comply with and conform to all applicable laws of the State of Indiana and the zoning ordinance of Carmel, Indiana, adopted under the authority of Acts of 1979, Public Law 178, Sec. 1, et seq., General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and al Acts amendatory thereto. State of INDIANA County of MARION APPLICANTS STATEMENT Justus Homes, Inc. By My Commission Expires: 7/26/2014 Walter E. Justus, P SS: sident Before me the undersigned, a Notary Public for Shelby County, State of Indiana, personally appeared Walter E. Justus, President of Justus Homes, Inc., and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument this 17th day of February, 2011. H Zoning Real Estate MatktsVustus Cannel US 3ItkpplicattonsVustus Development Plan Application 021811 doc 2 N• ary Public Karen Saville EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 in Justus Business Park, an addition to the City of Carmel, as per plat thereof recorded August 22, 2007, as Instrument No. 2007047987, in Plat Cabinet 4, Slide 356, in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana. 3 a 2. approval: Frankenber'g@r. City of Carmel CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2011 i City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, !k 1 Civic Square, Carmel, IN 46032 rf' 6:00 PM Members Present: Leo Dierckman, Brad Grabow, Judy Hagan, Heather Irizarry, Nick Kestner, Steve Lawson, Kevin "Woody" Rider, Steve Stromquist, Susan Westermeier, Ephraim Wilfong Members Absent: Jay Dorman DOCS Staff Present: Director Michael Hollibaugh, Angie Conn; Legal Counsel John Molitor. Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Secretary, Cannel Plan Commission The Minutes of the March 15, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. Legal Counsel Report, John Molitor: House Bill 1311 legislation is pending before General Assembly and planning and zoning it has not yet gone to the Governor's desk, but no problem is anticipated will keep the Commission posted. Department Reports No Concerns H. Public Hearings 1. TABLED TO MAY 17: Docket No. 10110012 DP /ADLS: Legacy PUD Turkey Hill Minit Market. 3. Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC The applicant seeks site plan design approval for a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on 7 acres. The a •lication also seeks the followin zonin waiver re uest: 4 Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback The site is located at 136 Street and Pro Med Lane, and is zoned B-6/Business, within the US 31/Meridian Street Overlay. Filed by Charlie Frankenberger of Nelson Frankenberger, on behalf of Justus Homes, Inc. S: /PlanCommission/ Minutes/ PlanCommissionMinutes /PCMinutes2011 /PC- 2011 -apr19 1 www.carmel.in.gov 317 -571 -2417 Conn, An elina V From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Rich, The following email represents comments for this project specifically addressing the area of urban forestry. I have reviewed the drawings and offer the following comments: URBAN FORESTRY REVIEW COMMENTS Mindham, Daren Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:25 PM 'RKelly©emht.com' 'Jon Dobosiewicz'; Conn, Angelina V Woodland Terrace Crabapple List.pdf; Tree Preservation Detail.pdf; Tree Preservation Sign pre const.doc; Tree Preservation Sign- postconst.doc 1) The bar scale will need labeled lengths; also needed is a north arrow. 2) The site's use is as a multi family development (nursing facility) which is a permitted use in B -6; conversely, the use, for the purposes of the bufferyard requirement, is not business (offices). So, the perimeter bufferyards should be all C except for along Smokey Row which is D. This will not affect the tree preservation areas, or the total shade trees needed, however, the West P.L. will need a total of 13 ornamentals and 69 shrubs and the South P.L. will need a total of 14 ornamentals and 77 shrubs. The additional required shrubs can easily be placed near the parking area for use as a buffer from headlights and cars. Also, from my counts, the current shrub totals in these two areas do not match the noted counts in the listed bufferyard chart. 3) I have attached a tree preservation signage design for posting the tree preservation areas. I highly recommend posting signs on the east perimeter, due to past concerns. 4) It might not be initially feasible to plant trees within the tree preservation areas for example on the Pro Med /Smokey Row intersection and one of the MJA on the north buffer. The tree preservation should be fenced off with no construction /grading inside the fence. 5) I noticed a sanitary line and a 4' wall going through the tree preservation area near Pro Med and Smokey Row Rd, also there is a variable height retaining wall in t`ie same ocation as the tree preservation fencing on the east perimeter. For the tree prese vation a •eas to be effective, construction cannot occur in these areas. Even with a retaining wa and parking to the west of it, these structures will have a devastating effect on the tree preservation to the east. The roots of many large trees currently are in non preservation areas and adding fill and compaction of these areas will have an effect on the trees in the preservation area. Better mapping of this crucial divide will need to be shown on the plans. The tree preservation fencing should be one of the first things in place before construction starts. I realize that the purpose is to have the tree preservation for 50', but the construction limits for a wall will obviously encroach into this 50' area. I would like the plans to reflect that with the tree preservation fencing, knowing that this wall to fence area will then be left to 'fill in' afterwards. 6) Please substitute the TCG with native yellowwoods or maybe Japanese tree lilacs; TCG are very susceptible to Japanese beetles. Also, please substitute the GBA with native trees like more tulip trees, river birch, or oak. The ginkgo is such an exotic looking tree, I feel the overall aesthetics would benefit from sticking with a more native setting. 7) Redbuds are native to woodland edges, it would provide better survivability to have th& redbuds along the woods and the crabapples along the building on the northwest side of the building or simply substitute the 3 MJA for 3 more CCA. 8) MPR is on our 'not recommended' crabapple list, please select an approved species. Attached is our crabapple list. 9) There are 2 GBA tree circles overlayed by lawn at the SW entrance. Please have the tree circles on the top. 10) The water quality plants will eventually need quantities. 11) Within the Plant Schedules: 'Spring' should not be capitalized and `headed' should be removed from all remarks. Heading is a term for pruning from the top down, f believe the intent here is for pruning from the bottom up (crown raising). We never recommend topping a tree. Definition of heading: Pruning off the terminal or "head" growth of a plant, especially a tree. Heading back is a general term, whose subcategories include "topping" and pollarding." Topping is performed on large old trees as an inexpensive alternative to their full removal. Pollarding, in contrast, is performed for aesthetic reasons. Pollarding begins when a tree is young, and continues throughout the life of the tree, Please illustrate how these comments will be addressed by letter or revised plan. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks. Sincerely, Darren Mindharri City of Carmel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Office: 317 -571 -2283 *The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. "'Nelson Henderson 2 nti RE, APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, EXTERIOR LIGHTING, LANDSCAPL\G, AND SIGNAGF APPROVAL of MIDWEST HOSPITALITY GROUP, Applica IN THE CARNIEL PLAN COMMISSI Docket Nos. 07030035 DP and(07070009 ADLS) 1 410 1 April 15, 2008 6 DECISION C po.t :;pphcation and after a public hearing pursuant to the Advisory Planning Law of the State of lydana and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. the Commission hereby denies. 9- vo.e, the application for DP.'ADLS approval filed by the Applicant, Members vot:ri` to dcn.`.: Leo Dierckman, Tay Dorman, Kevin Rider, Rick Ripma. Caro Schleif, Steve Stronaquist, Sue Westernleier Member voting to approve: None. Members absent and not voting: Dan Dutcher. Wayne Haney, Kevin Heber, Madeleine Torres. FINDINGS l'n accordan.:e W:th '';c Cannel Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance the Commission hereby determines that the Applicant's DeN elopment Plan and ADLS Proposal (the Proposa; should be disappro■ ed pursuant to the following pro%isions of the Ordinance: SCar10 -2 CARMEL 0001284 §23B.02.A.2.a: The Proposal is not compatible with existing site features including topography and wooded areas, in that the Proposal necessitates cxcessivc utilization of retaining walls and calls for the destruction of virtually all of a mature woodland. ti23B.02.A.2.c: The Proposal is not compatible with the surrounding land uses, which uses have been developed without modifying the topography and woodlands so drastically. §23B.02.A.2.h: The Proposal does not provide for adequate vehicle and bicycle parking facilities and internal site circulation, in that the proposed bicycle path is only five feet wide, and the parking facilities would accommodate only 155 vehicles when the Ordinance requires 169 to be accommodated. §23B.02. '_.2.n: The Proposal is not commpw :ible "rill" existing platted residential uses. in that the building setbacks with accompanying landscape plans are not sufficient to safeguard the privacy and quiet enjoyment of the neighborin` residents. The Proposa: does nor orient the new building with its lon axis parallel to the adjoining as required to .recce a sense ef enclosure _!on2 the .'reef, nor d Des the x'sa1 locate ali parking to the rear or the side oft the huiidi:h'a a recessary to accomplish this Proposa; does s' use only pe_ :mit ed materia s lOT the building ex'.e.r ors. EIFS t: -r Syrena 11 1:..: v .Lt_: t:1 finish. B.O9._!. 1: The .i!.pp tote' s')rese :a ::0'7 o .ie Proposal did Gt include all required architectural exhibits. in that no perspective color renderings sl:ovvin, the proposed building from locations alontii U.S. 31 were pro\ ided :o the Cor. and the building elet atio ,s that CARMEL 0001285 were provided did not show how the parking structure would be ventilated nor how openings 10 he parking structure would fit in with the rest of the building. C23B.10.02.C(1): The Proposal does not show a planting area equal to an area measuring 25 feet in depth b) the width of the front of the building plus 20 feet out on both sides along the `,uilding facade that faces U.S. 31, nor does it include as an alternative an innovative and original design for the planting area as encouraged by §2313.10.C(5). fi23B.1O.04: The Proposal does not make a reasonable effort to protect and incorporate 1e existing stands of trees into :he cverali site design, in that fewer than 70% o of all trees that are n :i.e inch DBH or :arger and located i$.1i1 the perimeter buffering were preserved. §23B.16. The Prop.: sa does t-o. :i-clride a roof on the accessory structure for refuse s :orage. ti24.02.B.3.a: The Appiicar :t's p:•ese:lration of the Proposal did not include a traffic study that provided a mean: ngfui comparative analysis of present volumes on streets bordering the c'evelopment. in fiat he ra`ic data 'that provided were 17awed due to the titres of day studied (ice 10 :in'> traffic ge.nerared by Carmel High School students at school starticlose times or dates of stud.: (data having been com=piled during Cannel High School vacation periods). Filed in the Office of the Carmel Plan Commission this 30` day of May, 2008. Leo Diercknan President ATTI✓ST: Ramona Hancock Secretary CARMEL 0001286