Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence John Sullivan 06-21-11 Permanent Record Conn, Angelina V From: JOHN KERR [njkerr @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 7:02 AM To: Adams, John; Dierckman, Leo J; Dorman, Jay; Grabow, Bradford S; Hagan, Judy; Kestner, Nick; Lawson, Steve; Rider, Kevin D; Stromquist, Steven R; Westermeier, Susan; Wilfong, Ephraim; Conn, Angelina V; jmolitor @prodigy.net Subject: Woodland Terrace Woodland Terrace Docket No. 1/020012 DP /ADLS And Docket No. 11030006 ZW As a resident of Kensington Place, general contractor for the building of nine townhomes in Kensington Place, and Managing Partner of Kensington Partners, I hereby request the following: A. That the attorney for the Plan Commission read verbatim to the members of the Plan Commission the law as codified in the City of Carmel Ordinances the following: 1 23B.00.01 Purpose, Intent and Authority 2 23B.02 A. Development Plan, 2. a. c. g. 1. n. p. q. r. 3 23B.02.0 Zoning Waiver (2)(3)(4) 4 23B.03 Permitted Uses 5 Appendix A. Schedule of Uses 6 Note Appendix A does not list a CCRC 7 Note Appendix A lists a Nursing /Retirement/Convalescent Facility 8 Note that this facility is marked "blank" for the US 31 Overlay Zone 9 Note that in the Key that "blank" means Prohibited 10 Note Appendix A lists a Multiple Family Dwelling 11 Note that this listing is marked "E" 12 Note that in the Key that ;;E" means Excluded 13 23B.04 Uses no Special Uses permitted in the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone 14 23B.05..01 Excluded Uses see Appendix A 15 24.02 A Development Plan and A.1.a. and A.1.c. and A.1.d. 16 24.02.A 3.a and 3.h. and A.10.and A.14.a. and 14.d. Traffic !B f. 17 «�F .�rcl B. 2. T ,.�f:� ,SfEkC`l�? :and :and 1 18 24.03.A..1.a,b,c..,d and A..7..a,h,c,d 1{ 24.018:. 1..a1, 2 1 24.£1E .B.2. ..i. and B. and 13 .G Obviously there are many other requirements that a petitioner must meet and the Plan Commission must review. I believe that if the above listed City of Carmel Ordinance citations are read verbatim by the attorney for the Plan Commission to the members of the Plan Commission that there is sufficient and good documentation that the Woodland Terrace project as submitted should be denied. The above citations highlight that a CCRC and /or a Nursing/Retirement /Convalescent Facility are not included in Appendix A as a use in the U.S. 31 Meridian Overlay Zone. The citations also cite several Ordinances wherein it is specified that a Development Plan shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The citations also address the issues of building height, traffic, parking, drainage, soil condition and topography. Respectively submitted for the record, John Kerr Conn, Angelina V From: JOHN KERR [njkerr ©sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:22 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: SIGNIFICANT REASONS Angie, Thanks for the info. SIGNIFICANT REASONS FOR DENYING WOODLAND TERRACE APPLICATION Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback 1 There is no Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) under Carmel's Zoning Ordinance. (see Appendix A) 2 The Justus defined levels of "service to be delivered" within the proposed facility are Independent Living, Assisted Living and Skilled Rehabilitation Care. Justus will not provide the listed services because then they would have to be state and federally licensed. They have stated they will not be licensed. They do not want the oversight (see hldiana State Health laws and Federal Laws) 3 Parking requirement for a Nursing /Retirement/Convalescent Facility (although "Prohibited" per Appendix A) would be 282 parking spaces not the 173 proposed parking spaces for a CCRC. (see Zoning Ordinance 27.08) 4 The proposed building height of 50 feet is being exceeded because of the walk out basement which faces Kensington Place. At this eastern face, the building would be a five story building. Due to the topography of the land, the building would be approximately 70 to 80 feet in height compared to Kensington Place. (see Zoning Ordinance 23B.02 and Carmel Comprehensive Plan) 5 The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) has been exceeded. The survey referenced by Justus in the application shows Lot 1 at 2.651 acres and Lot 2 at 4.474 acres for a total of 7.125. (see sheet 1 of 2 of EMHT Surveyor. This sheet details the actual building site. Sheet 2. of 2 shows land description not the building site). (see also Hamilton County Property Report Lot 1 Deeded Acres 2.65 owner Justus Homes, Inc. owner address 177 Wood St. W., Paris, IL, 61944 and Lot 2 Deeded Acres 4.47 owner Justus Home Builders, Inc., 1398 Shadeland Ave. N, Indianapolis, IN 46219 6 Based on Justus testimony at the Plan Commission Sub Committee meeting, Justus will not provide assisted living or skilled health care, but a tenant in their apartment complex can hire outside help as needed.. For this reason, the .Justus proposed apartment complex is only MuIt i ie Family Dwelli:# g Which is an Excluded Use per Appendix A. (see .Appendix A)) 7 A second curb cut. on Smoke.y Row Road is proposed. No traffic study was required by Carmel for this project, but relied on an old study taken when Carmel High School was on vacation. Today's traffic with the addition of Drees and Centex facilities on this road has increased significantly. A second curb cut was previously eliminated. (see Instrument No. 9020914) (see also INDOT traffic study between Rangeline and Old Meridian taken May 2011). Respectfully submitted for the record. John Kerr, Managing Partner, Kensington Partners Conn, Angelina V From: JOHN KERR [njkerr @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9 :22 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Woodland Terrace Carmel Angie, more for the record Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback 1. In accordance with Appendix A, Schedule of Uses, a Multiple Family Dwelling is an Excluded Use in the US 31 /Meridian Overlay Zone. Justus Homes, Inc. has purposely circumvented the definition of a MFD by calling Woodland Terrace a CCRC. Yet they use a definition of a CCRC which eliminates any oversight by state or federal regulations for a health care facility and the need for state license requirements. By their own testimony at Plan Commission hearings, they do not need or want any state or federal oversight of their project. They propose that the tenants of their apartment complex may hire for a fee any health care needs "outside of Justus Homes, Inc." This prevents Justus Homes, Inc. from any involvement in providing any health care needs of the tenants, thereby shielding Justus Homes, Inc. from any oversight requirements. For this reason the proposed Woodland Terrace project is nothing more than a Multiple Family Dwelling which is an excluded use. 2. There are still many other valid reasons which have been enumerated that form the basis for the Plan Commission to deny the Woodland Terrace project. Several City of Carmel ordinances have been referenced which provide the basis for denial: a. The project ignores the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan in relation to the proposed height of the building, the topography of the land and the shielding of light and air. This project is adjacent to an existing residential community b. They use the definition of CCRC parking requirements instead of a Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility parking requirement which would require approx. 100 more parking spaces. They even highlighted the N/R/C Facility on the Appendix A which was given to the Sub. Committee. c. The anibignity of Appendix A needs to be clarified 'by the City of Carmel Council. A CCRC is not even listed in Appendix A. A NBC Facility shows a "blank" in the US 31 Meridian x that g F a s t_t Prohibited, T 8 t b, left. t T�?� k -e� ��x :?�A.';4 ,:xt. a x This �:s��,u,. not. .i. �.::t .:i,3 Interpretation_ d. Having been the general contractor for building nine townhomes in Kensington Place, I have observed over time that both surface and subsurface water flows from the Justus property into a beehive drain located behind lot 16 at Kensington Place. I am concerned about the water flow affect to Kensington Place should a Woodland. Terrace basement be built and the affect of needed retaining walls to mitigate the differences in topography. Respectively submitted John Kerr, Managing Partner, Kensington Partners This email is to be considered part of the record. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: JOHN KERR [njkerr @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:22 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Docket No for Woodland Angie, still more Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback 1. AMBIGUITY BETWEEN APPENDIX A AND WOODLAND TERRACE APPLICATION When I read Chapter 23B.03 Appendix A and the key for interpreting the permitted uses, I find that "Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility" is Prohibited in the Overlay Zone; that "Multiple Family Dwelling" is an Excluded Use; and I find no reference to a CCRC. The Carmel. City Council needs to amend Appendix A to eliminate the ambiguity and not leave it "subject to interpretation." Chapter 23B.04 states that there shall be no Special Uses permitted in the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. 2. WATER FLOW AND CORE SAMPLE Having built townhomes in Kensington Place, I found water flowing into our retention pond when there is no rain. With a flashlight and looking into various drains, I traced sub surface water flow from a beehive drain located by Hamilton County personnel on the Eastern side of parcel 2 (land now owned by Justus Homes) and adjacent to Lot 16 (13562 Kensington Place): This beehive drain takes both surface and sub surface water from parcel 2 into our pond. During the time I have been building in Kensington Place, I have noticed and inquired that on two separate occasions companies have had land core samples taken. After taking the core samples, I saw no other activity with what would have been potential buyers. Upon talking, with Justus Homes personnel, they said that they would not take a core sample. I question both the surface and sub surface water flow affects to Kensington Place from the construction of a Woodland Terrace. 3. CHAPTER 23, CHAPTER 24 DP /ADLS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VS. BUILDING HEIGHT Tliere are several references in both Chapters 23 and 24 that refer to allowable building heights. .There are several references in Chapter. 24 that "The Commission shall review a Development Plan to determine if the Development Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan states heights s i n t C Z e 7 nt t t C t- es t. a y g zt ram, s 4 illustration ..l3li: {7x ,:.xew :l S..�i1.. -4 :A',, r'1,:,jt4:,s..� to ��+ss<...� a. �aia:::.3 -3 t lsalC)�::s�5;3��. �5�� below)." 'the illustration shows a level elevation tthart stowing 3 stories next to existing nei oods. During a meeting with Justus Homes personnel it was teamed that due to the topography of parcel 2 (Justus land) that their starting foundation height would be at leastl0 feet higher than existing land height of Kensington Place. A 2 story building would then only be allowed to meet the height requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. PROJECT PHASING VS. "AS MARKET CONDITIONS DICTATE THEIR NEED" Phase 1 .as mentioned in a meeting with Justus personnel would be apartments for people aged 55 or older who sign a contract to pay monthly rent and in the contract there would be fees for various activities or needs of the tenant. (see no,1 above for what is allowed in the Overlay Zone) Additional Phases with higher levels of skills would only be built as market conditions dictate their need. A. This raises the question of federal and state oversight regulations for the use of additional phases. t B. When if ever would additional phases be built when they are based solely on market conditions. Who makes that determination and based on what criteria? 5. I believe that the data furnished to the Plan Commission for their review and consideration are grounds for denying the Woodland Terrace application. Should there be consideration for approving such a facility, the City of Carmel should require Justus Homes Inc. to obtain all required federal and state licenses for the use of the total project prior to the undertaking of any ground breaking for the proposed construction. Thank you for your consideration, John Kerr 2 Conn, Angelina V From: JOHN KERR [njkerr @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:22 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Woodland Angie, still more for the record Docket No. 11020013 DP /ADLS: Woodland Terrace CCRC Docket No. 11030006 ZW: Ordinance Chapter 23.08.01.D: front building setback 1. AMBIGUITY BETWEEN APPENDIX A AND WOODLAND TERRACE APPLICATION When I read Chapter 23B.03 Appendix A and the key for interpreting the permitted uses, I find that Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility" is Prohibited in the Overlay Zone; that "Multiple Family Dwelling" is an Excluded Use; and I find no reference to a CCRC. The Carmel City Council needs to amend Appendix A to eliminate the ambiguity and not leave it "subject to interpretation." Chapter 23B.04 states that there shall be no Special Uses permitted in the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. 2. WATER FLOW AND CORE SAMPLE Having built townhomes in Kensington Place, 1 found water flowing into our retention pond when there is no rain. With a flashlight and looking into various drains, I traced sub surface water flow from a beehive drain located by Hamilton County personnel on the Eastern side of parcel 2 (land now owned by Justus Homes) and adjacent to Lot 16 (13562 Kensington Place). This beehive drain takes both surface and sub surface water from parcel 2 into our pond. During the time I have been building in Kensington Place, I have noticed and inquired that on two separate occasions companies have had land core samples taken. After taking the core samples, I saw no other activity with what would have been potential buyers. Upon talking. with Justus Homes personnel, they said that they would not take a core sample. I question both the surface and sub surface water flow affects to Kensington Place from the construction of a Woodland Terrace. 3. CHAPTER 23, CHAPTER 24 DP /ADLS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VS. BUILDING HEIGHT There are several references in both Chapters 23 and 24 that refer to allowable building heights. There are several references in Chapter 24 that. "The Commission shall review a Development. Plan to determine if the Development Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan states "..building heights h n St r• et .stories when dj ,t t t -n et t- 1. neighborhoods l .,i� >s ti n ;`l�� Y.. �:A- vir..... 1 �3 J.. .adjacent i 1.-- +Si. >.�3' :l 3'..- x: e,:3.b�..a. i.. 3 tn.. i ..Ji below). "The illustration '1$o s a level elewAt on chart s:I i n''ing r± glories next to e xistir. :2 neighb ,s,l }s; ods During a meeting with Justus Homes personnel it was learned that due to the topography of parcel 2 (Justus land) that their starting foundation height would be at leastl0 feet higher than existing land height of Kensington Place. A 2 story building would then only be allowed to meet the height requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. PROJECT PHASING VS. "AS MARKET CONDITIONS DICTATE THEIR NEED" Phase 1 as mentioned in a meeting with Justus personnel would be apartments for people aged 55 or older who sign a contract to pay monthly rent and in the contract there would be fees for various activities or needs of the tenant. (see no,1 above for what is allowed in the Overlay Zone) Additional Phases with higher levels of skills would only be built as market conditions dictate their need. A. This raises the question of federal and state oversight regulations for the use of additional phases. 1 B. When if ever would additional phases be built when they are based solely on market conditions. Who makes that determination and based on what criteria? 5. I believe that the data furnished to the Plan Commission for their review and consideration are grounds for denying the Woodland Terrace application. Should there be consideration for approving such a facility, the City of Carmel should require Justus Homes, Inc. to obtain all required federal and state licenses for the use of the total project prior to the undertaking of any ground breaking for the proposed construction. Thank you for your consideration, John Kerr 2 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:43 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington /Justus Please make this part of the permanent record in this matter, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan mailto :jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:01 AM To: idierckman @carmel.in.gov; jdorman @carmel.in.gov; bgrabow @carmel.in.gov; jhagan @carmel.in.gov; hirizarry@carmel.in.gov; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; slawson @carmel.in.gov; sstromquist @carmeLin.gov; swestermeier @carmel.in.gov; (ewilfong @carmel.in.gov) Cc: "'Sully 'Anne and Lee'; 'Bev John 'Chris'; 'Cindy and Gary'; 'Dave and Pat; 'Debbie'; 'Eric and Evie 'Fran 'Jan'; 'Jeanie 'MJ 'Penny 'Sharon'; 'Susan 'Virginia John' Subject: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington /Justus I attended the subcommittee meeting earlier this evening. The process is what it is but incorrect statements made by Justus should be corrected. This email is an attempt to do so. 1. Justus stated that the height of the building would be four stories. This is not correct. The height of the building directly in back of our house is 5 stories plus a 10 foot parapet. The basement will be a walkout basement with 4 stories on top of it and then a 10 foot parapet on top of that. At 12 feet a level, we will be looking at 60 feet of building plus 10 feet of parapet which is a 70 feet high building less than 80 feet from our backdoor. This is a 7 story building. By the way, the height of the parapet increased from 6 feet when Justus was at our house to 10 feet at the meeting earlier tonight. The ordinances cannot permit this. 2. Justus stated that when they were in our house, that vegetation would prevent those on the west side of Kensington from seeing their apartment project. The vegetation will exist from about April through October but not through late fall or winter. The glare from the windows on the back side of the project could cause us to see the glare in the early morning and would completely block the sunset. From April through October, we can see Meridian Street from the back of our house. 3. This 7 story building will cast a shadow over all properties on the west side of Kensington PI. even including the trees. The forest behind the building will not have sunlight past three o'clock or so in the afternoon. The trees and other vegetation will die. The family of 5 deer will no longer be able to live in our backyard. 4. Not only will the trees die because of lack of sunlight, they will die because Justus will cut them down as close to the buffer line as possible. The percentage of trees was miscalculated by Justus. Justus included a calculation that the acreage is 7.29 and not 7.19. The 7.29 includes the buffer zone and it should not. Justus stated at the meeting that they were not bound by the buffer zone between our properties. 5. Justus complains that they have put so much money into this project that they will be damaged if they cannot complete the project as requested. My wife wrote an email stating that in her belief that the value of our subdivision would be reduced by almost $2M in value because of the proximity of the Justus project. Kensington was here before Justus purchased the property behind us. 6. Traffic study a traffic study should be ordered either by you or by the Council. 1 can't reasonably imagine that this project can or will proceed using a five year old traffic study. There is no one in the world that would believe this to be reasonable other than the City and Justus. Starting at 3PM or so, westbound traffic on Smokey Row is backed up all the way to the entrance of Kensington. We will have aged people and at least three roundabouts that will move traffic quicker. So why would we need a new traffic study. Let's use one that was in use when Carmel High was smaller and before the roundabouts. 7. We have lived here for less than two years. Justus stated that everyone who moved to Kensington since 1990 knew that there would be a project to the west of Kensington. That is part true but no one here could possibly believe that such a project as is now being considered would be developed. Kensington did know there would be a 2 story office building but no more that that. 1 8. And last but not least. Justus stated earlier this evening that we refused to meet with them over this project after they had come to us offering a meeting. About a week before we received the notice of the original hearing, Justus did come to our development and talk to a few members. The President of the Association resigned because he had a business situation which required short -term extensive travelling. What Justus did not state is that they approached the City about a year before they met with us and did not bring us into that conversation or negotiations. Justus filed this petition at the first of the year and did not consult us at that time earlier. Only after they received approval of the City did they contact us. Should Justus now be able credibly state that we would not meet with them? Thank you, John Sullivan, 13562 Kensington Place, Carmel, IN. 815 -8374 2 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:44 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Kensington /Justus Please make this part of the permanent in this matter, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan fmailto :ifsullivanir @earthlink.netl Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:38 PM To: Idierckman@carmel.in.aov; jdorman @carmel.in.gov; bgrabow@carmel.in.gov; ihagan carmel.in.gov; hirizarry @carmel.in.gov; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; slawson @carmel.in.gov; krider @carmel.in.gov; sstromquist @carmel.in.gov; swestermeier @carmel.in.gov; (ewilfong @carmel.in.gov); 'mmcbride @carmel.in.gov' Subject: Kensington /Justus Our presentation at the first CPC meeting contained verbatim eleven items cited by your Plan Commission on May 23, 2009 regarding this same real estate which supported this same Plan Commission's decision in denying Midwest Hospitality's proposal to rezone Justus' land for a hotel. At least three of the eleven are pertinent to the present situation. The Special Judge in Hamilton Superior Court 3, in Midwest Hospitality vs. the CPC, under Cause Number 20D03 -0805- MI -565, on December 10, 2009 incorporated those findings in its decision: "h. Sec.23B.10.02.C(1): The Proposal does not show a planting area equal to an area measuring 25 feet in depth by the width of the front of the building plus 20 feet out on both sides along the building fagade that faces U.S. 31 nor does it include as an alternative an innovative and original design for the plating area as encouraged by Sec. 23B.10C( i. Sec.2B.10 -04: The Proposal does not make a reasonable effort to protect and incorporate existing stands of trees into the overall site design, in that fewer than 70% of all trees that are nine -inch DBH or larger and located within the perimeter buffering were preserved. k. Sec.24.02.B.3.a: The Applicant's presentation of the Proposal did not include a traffic study that provided a meaningful comparative analysis of present volumes on streets bordering the development, in that the traffic data that were provided were flawed due to the times of day studies (ignoring traffic generated by Carmel High School students at school start /close times) or dates of study (data having been compiled during Carmel High School vacation periods)." In the presentation filed by Justus, there has been no traffic study done at all. Apparently City Engineering believes that a traffic study is not necessary in that one was done about four years ago. Is this the same traffic study that was set out in the Midwest Hospitality decision where the traffic study was fudged inadequate? I fed sure that there has been some miscommunication between Justus and the City. it is impossible for there not to be a miscommunication considering the great increase in traffic, the new Drees Hornes, the oncoming roundabouts and the somewhat new roundabout at Smokey Row and RLR which has both sped up and increased traffic flow and traffic. As an aside, today at about noon, I left our house to go near downtown. I wanted to turn left but saw a young woman with a small baby getting her mail across the street from her house at 528 SRR. turned right instead but then remember that I need to go south on Guilford first. I made a U turn at Drees and came back on SRR and the woman and her baby were still standing at their mailbox waiting to cross the street back to her house. This is noontime traffic which does not include Carmel High or work related traffic. The additional traffic, both on foot and by personal vehicles, school buses, construction equipment from both the Justus development and from US 3lconstruciton would make traffic for both Kensington and the rest of Carmel more unbearable. Please make this email a part of the record in this matter. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan Ufsullivanjr @earthlink.netj Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:45 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Kensington Place CPC presentation on April 19, 2011 Please make this part of the permanent record in this matter, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan J mailto :ifsullivanir@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:06 PM To: 'Idierckman @carmel.in.gov'; 'jdorman @carmel.in.gov'; 'bgrabow @carmel.in.gov'; 'jhagan @carmei.in.gov'; 'hirizarry @carmel.in.gov'; 'nkestner @carmel.in.gov'; 'slawson @carmel.in.gov'; 'krider @carmel.in.gov'; 'sstromquist @carmel.in.gov'; 'swestermeier @carmel.in.gov'; ewilfong @carmel.in Subject: Kensington Place CPC presentation on April 19, 2011 Thank you for your patience and attention last night. There were several matters that could not be fully addressed in the Kensington presentation. There is no question that the entire Justus property and at least ten Kensington Townhouses are in the Meridian Overlay. All are subject to Appendix A Schedule Of Uses, which is the controlling part of Article 1: Zoning Code, Chapter 17: B -6 Business District. Permitted Uses are set out in Section 17.01 which states: "17.01 Permitted Uses: See AppendixA: Schedule of Uses AppendixA is actually the controlling provision of the Permitted Use section as it sets out specifically what can what cannot be done. Page 1 of Appendix A, as it applies to Residential Uses, did not change from the 2006 and 2011 enactments so Appendix A, as it applies to Residential Uses, should be construed strictly. If the proposed Justus development is considered to be an apartment complex, which it is, this use is excluded (E) on Appendix A according to the coding just above the Meridian Overlay Section. It is an apartment complex because there are no licenses in effect for nursing and no license will be sought by Justus. As a sidepoint, there are apparently no licenses issued to any other Justus facility. Regardless as to any alleged ambiguity in the Carmel Code as to a definition of CCRC, the definition by Indiana statutes require State licensing for nursing facilities control Justus and this CPC and this Council. If the proposed Justus project is considered a Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility, then it is prohibited by the Ordinance. The coding section of the ordinance just above the Meridian Overlay and Old Meridian Zones is as follows: P Permitted SU Special Use A Accessory SE Special Exception "Blank" Prohibited E Excluded" Under the Overlay Zones section of Appendix A, there is a "Blank" where Nursing/Retirement /Convalescent Facility and US 31 Meridian meet. According to the abbreviations used in the Appendix which is the centerpiece of the Ordinance, this use as .a NursingrRetirerent jConvaiescent: Facility is prohibited. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:41 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject:. FW: Kensington PlacelWoodland Terrace Please make this part of the permanent record, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan mailto :jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:05 PM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; jdorman @carmel.in.gov; bgrabow @carmel.in.gov; jhagan @carmel.in.gov; hirizarry@carmel.in.gov; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; slawson @carmel.in.gov; krider @carmel.in.gov; sstromquist @carmel.in.gov; swestermeier @carmel.in.gov; (ewilfong @carmel.in.gov) Cc: Anne Sullivan; "'Sully 'Anne and Lee'; 'Bev John 'Chris'; 'Cindy and Gary'; 'Dave and Pat'; 'Debbie'; 'Eric and Evie 'Fran 'Jan'; 'Jeanie 'MJ 'Penny 'Sharon'; 'Susan 'Virginia John' Subject: Kensington Place /Woodland Terrace Dear Members: I am an attorney and have been licensed to practice law in Indiana for 45 years. I continue to practice law with my office at P.O. Box 479, Carmel, IN. 46082 phone 815 -8374. During this period of time, I have been involved in numerous real estate transactions, including the sale of and the valuation of residential properties in central Indiana. In my law practice, 1 have also had business dealings with staff members of cities, plan commissions and councils regarding zoning, variances and the staff process in the areas in which Kensington and Woodland Terrace are now involved and all transactions necessary and incidental to the sale of residential properties and their values. also reside at 13562 Kensington Place in Carmel with my wife. Our home is directly to the east of the proposed building in Woodland Terrance apartment project. It is my opinion that the staff and the Commission itself either have exceeded or will have exceeded their respective authorities if the Woodland Terrance petition is granted in any respect. The staff and the Commission have or would have exceeded their authority on the following points: 1. Carmel City Ordinance 238.03 refers to certain uses being excluded in in the Meridian Overlay. In "Appendix A permitted use as a "Multiple Family Dwelling" is excluded by use of an °E Permitted use as a "Nursing/Retirement /Convalescent Facility" is prohibited by the use of a "Blank The "Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility" is prohibited by the use of a "blank" in the Overlay column. A "Blank" equals "Prohibited". "Blank" is defined in the "Appendix A" code as being prohibited in the Overlay Zones. the 2. Woodland Ten proposes to build -;the apartment part of their project first and then the nursing ng pa'.et of their project if needed. Justus wishes to do this is because apartment occupancy in the Carmel area exceed 90% occupancy. Assisted living type facilities in the Carmel area average no more than 50% occupancy. The present plan of Justus is very apparently to develop the easy part of this project first and the part which will necessitate licensing by the State of Indiana only if needed thereafter (no time is set out in their proposal). There are numerous projects now existing, being built or proposed in the Carmel area for the Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility category. It is more than conceivable that the nursing facility will never take place. We are told that the City does not consider "need" for such a facility but Justus has stated in their own proposal that the nursing section will only be built if it is feasible, thus "needed The point of my argument is that Justus asks that the City believe them when they say that they will build the nursing facility if "feasible" or needed but that at the same time the City's position is that the City does not take "need" into consideration. Justus proposal relies on "need" but the City says it does not consider "need How can this be? It cannot. 1 3. The height of the apartment project will exceed 70 feet from the exposed ground floor basement to the top of the parapet which will be 10 feet high on top of the 4 th floor of the building which in turn is on top of an exposed walk -out basement. Each floor, including the exposed, walk -out basement, will consume 12 feet which equals 60 feet for the 5 floors (including the exposed basement) plus the 10 foot parapet equals 70 feet exposed above ground level. This building will be as close as 85 feet to Kensington. This building will block out the setting sun for and its resulting light from Kensington. Afternoon sunlight will also be eliminated from that part of the forest that is not destroyed by the building of the Woodland Terrace building. Noise and sound of 200 plus residents, employees, guests, vehicle smell and noise, garbage smell and large truck (garbage and delivery truck) noise will all together change the lifestyle of those not only in Kensington but in the entire vicinity as well as causing the present forest to be eliminated. 4. There has been no traffic study made by the City or anyone else regarding Smokey Row Road to the best of my knowledge since October 27, 2008. It appears that the staff relies on this 2008 study which it states permits this project. The staff and this Commission cannot realistically rely on a study made prior to the roundabout at Range Line Road and Smokey Row Road and prior to the widening of Old Meridian as it approaches US 31. It is my information that the date of the study, October 27, 2008. The traffic study itself did not include the times at which the study was taken. This is apparently the same traffic study that was deemed inadequate in the most recent project for this adjacent land when it was decided in Hamilton Superior 3 on December 10, 2009 under Cause No. 29D03 0805 MI 565. 5. Our way of life in Kensington Place will be forever changed by Woodland Terrance. Not only will there be a 70 foot building in our direct view but the apartment project will eliminate our certification as a Wildlife Preserve (the only residential neighborhood to be so certified as such in the State of Indiana). 6. A greater area than the permitted 70% of trees will be eliminated in our forest. Justus should be required to have the forest surveyed so that no greater a percentage of trees is removed than may be legally permitted. The difference in the percentage apparently is a result of the buffer area between Kensington and Justus being considered by Justus in the total percentage trees, whereas neither the buffer zone nor the trees on Kensington Place can be considered in the total tree area. Thank you, John Sullivan, 13562 Kensington Place. Please make this email a part of the permanent record in this matter. 2 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:42 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington /Justus Please make this part of the permanent record in this matter, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan mailto :jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:12 PM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; jdorman @carmel.in.gov; bgrabow @carmel.in.gov; jdorman @carmel.in.gov; hirizarry@carmel.in.gov; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; slawson @carmel.in.gov; krider @carmel.in.gov; sstromquist @carmel.in.gov; swestermeier @carmel.in.gov; (ewilfong @carmel.in.gov) Subject: FW: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington /Justus I did not ask that you do this but please make this email a part of the permanent record in this proceeding. Thank you, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan mailto :jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:01 AM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; jdorman @carmel.in.gov; bgrabow @carmeLin.gov; jhagan @carmel.in.gov; hirizarry@carmel.in.gov; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; slawson @carmel.in.gov; sstromquist @carmel.in.gov; swestermeier @carmel.in.gov; (ewilfong @carmel.in.gov) Cc: 'Sully 'Anne and Lee'; 'Bev John 'Chris'; 'Cindy and Gary'; Dave and Pat'; 'Debbie'; 'Eric and Evie 'Fran 'Jan'; 'Jeanie 'MJ 'Penny 'Sharon'; 'Susan 'Virginia John' Subject: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington /Justus I attended the subcommittee meeting earlier this evening. The process is what it is but incorrect statements made by Justus should be corrected. This email is an attempt to do so. 1. Justus stated that the height of the building would be four stories. This is not correct. The height of the building directly in back of our house is 5 stories plus a 10 foot parapet. The basement will be a walkout basement with 4 stories on top of it and then a 10 foot parapet on top of that. At 12 feet a level, we will be looking at 60 feet of building plus 10 feet of parapet which is a 70 feet high building less than 80 feet from our backdoor. This is a 7 story building. By the way, the height of the parapet increased from 6 feet when Justus was at our house to 10 feet at the meeting earlier tonight. The ordinances cannot permit this. 2. Justus stated that when they were in our house, that vegetation would prevent those on the west side of Kensington from seeing their apartment project. The vegetation will exist from about April through October but not .through late fail or winter'. The Blare from the windows on the :back sickk. of the prn ect could cause :us to see the glare in the early morning and would completely block the sunset. F1 April through October, we can see Meridian Street from the back of our house. 3. This 7 story building will cast a shadow over all properties on the west side of Kensington Pl. even including the trees. The forest behind the building will not have sunlight past three o'clock or so in the afternoon. The trees and other vegetation will die. The family of 5 deer will no longer be able to live in our backyard. 4. Not only will the trees die because of lack of sunlight, they will die because Justus will cut them down as close to the buffer line as possible. The percentage of trees was miscalculated by Justus, Justus included a calculation that the acreage is 7.29 and not 7.19. The 7.29 includes the buffer zone and it should not. Justus stated at the meeting that they were not bound by the buffer zone between our properties. 5. Justus complains that they have put so much money into this project that they will be damaged if they cannot complete the project as requested. My wife wrote an email stating that in her belief that the value of our subdivision would be reduced by almost $2M in value because of the proximity of the Justus project. Kensington was here before Justus purchased the property behind us. 1 6. Traffic study a traffic study should be ordered either by you or by the Council. 1 can't reasonably imagine that this project can or will proceed using a five year old traffic study. There is no one in the world that would believe this to be reasonable other than the City and Justus. Starting at 3PM or so, westbound traffic on Smokey Row is backed up all the way to the entrance of Kensington. We will have aged people and at least three roundabouts that will move traffic quicker. So why would we need a new traffic study. Let's use one that was in use when Carmel High was smaller and before the roundabouts. 7. We have lived here for less than two years. Justus stated that everyone who moved to Kensington since 1990 knew that there would be a project to the west of Kensington. That is part true but no one here could possibly believe that such a project as is now being considered would be developed. Kensington did know there would be a 2 story office building but no more that that. 8. And last but not least. Justus stated earlier this evening that we refused to meet with them over this project after they had come to us offering a meeting. About a week before we received the notice of the original hearing, Justus did come to our development and talk to a few members. The President of the Association resigned because he had a business situation which required short -term extensive travelling. What Justus did not state is that they approached the City about a year before they met with us and did not bring us into that conversation or negotiations. Justus filed this petition at the first of the year and did not consult us at that time earlier. Only after they received approval of the City did they contact us. Should Justus now be able credibly state that we would not meet with them? Thank you, John Sullivan, 13562 Kensington Place, Carmel, IN. 815 -8374 2 Conn; Angelina V From: John Sullivan ijfsullivanjr@earthUnk.net] Sent TueadayJuno21.20114:42PM To: Hancock, Ram ona B; Conn, Angehna V Subject: FW: Home va[ues in Kensington Place Please make this part of the original record in this matter, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan [mailto:jfsulIivanjr@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:51 PM To: 'ldierckman@carmel.in.gov'; 'jdurman@carmel.in.guv'; /herabow@carmel.in.gov'; ''hagan@carmel'in'gov'; 'hirizarrv@carmel'in'gov'; 'nkestner@cormel.in'gov'; 'slawson@carmel.in.gov'; 'krider@carmel'in'gnv'; 'sstromquist@carmel.in.gov'; 'swestermeier@carmel.in.gov'; 'ewil armel,in'gov'; 'mmcbride@carmel.in.gov'; 'mhollibauah@carmel.in.gov' Subject: RE: Home values in Kensington Place It appears only a few of you received this email last week, so I am resending. Thank you, Debbie Staples Kensington Place From: Debbie Staples [mailto:dIstaples@earthlink'netl Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 3:58 PM To: ^Idierckman@carmel.in.gov'; 'jdorman@carmeI.in'gov'; 'bgrabuv@carmel.in.gov'; armel.in.gov`; 'hirizarrv@carmel.in.guv'; 'nkestner@carmel.in-gov'; 'slaws 'in.gov'; 'krider@carmel.in.gov'; 'sstromquist@carmel.in.0uv`; 'swestermeier@carmel.in.gov'; 'ewilfong@carmel.in'gov'; 'mmcbride@carmel.in.gov'; 'm.hollibauuh@carmel.in.gov' Subject: Home values in Kensington Place Dear Planning Commission, As of now, three of the sixteen homes in Kensington Place are for sale. There were no For Sale" signs in front of any residence two months ago. I worry that the sudden appearance of for sale signs is due to the pending Justus apartment project. As a new Kensington resident, I am very concerned about both the value of our homes and the value of the lots now for sale. I can imagine the value of our homes will be reduced by twenty to thirty percent. The value of the lots very probably would be reduced by fifty percent. Obviously, this reduction will reduce Carmel's tax basis of our assessed value and any tax base increase as a result of the Justus apartments would be offset by the decrease in value of the Kensington houses and lots. Assuming that our homes have an average of $350 and the four lots have an average value of $75,000, the total loss in value of our subdivision 1 would be $1,830,000. Here's the breakdown of that conclusion: No. units/ value each Gross value reduction 30/50% Projected value 16 homes at $350,000 5,600,000 1,680,000 3,920,000 4 lots at $75,000 300,000 150,000 150,000 Total values 5,900,000 1,830,000 4,070,000 This $1,830,000 reduction in value of the Kensington neighborhood, which could equal $105,000 per home, is economically devastating to all Kensington residents. Most of our residents are older and will not be able to sustain or recover from such a loss. I ask that this email be part of the permanent records in this proceeding. Thank you, Debbie Staples Kensington Place 2 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:32 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: St. Vincent partners with Carmel senior living development I The Indianapolis Star indystar.com Please make this part of the permanent record in this matter. John Sullivan From: John Sullivan mailto :ifsullivanir @earthlink.netl Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 8:53 PM To: 'jadams @carmel.in.gov'; Dierckman, Leo (Leo.Dierckman@opco.com); jdorman{alcarmel.in.gov; bgrabow carmel.in.gov; jhagan@carmel.in.gov; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; slawson @carmel.in.gov; krider@carmel.in.gov; sstromauist@carmel.in.gov; swestermeier carmel.in.gov; (ewilfong (&carmel.in.gov) Subject: St. Vincent partners with Carmel senior living development I The Indianapolis Star I indystar.com The attachment is from the Indy Star. This is a real Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility. The Justus project behind Kensington is not. They are both in Carmel and they are less than two miles apart. Please vote no. Thanks, John Sullivan http: /www.indystar.com/ apps /pbcs.dll /article ?AID= 2011106130372 1 St. Vincent partners with Carmel senior living development I The Indianapolis Star I indys... Page 1 of 4 CLASSIFIEDS: JOBS CARS HOMES APARTMENTS DATING STAR CLASSIFIEDS DEALS PLACE AN AD SUBSCRIBE TODD News Communities Sports Business Entertainer Sign up Log in FEATURED: Deals.lndy Green.Indy Metromix MomsLikeMe Deal Chicken I I I ADVI Vincent partners with r Q r living 11:40 AM, Jun. 14, 2011 1 Comments Written by CARMEL A senior living community coming to Twiner i Star report Carmel by 2013 will partner with an Indianapolis- t Facebook based hospital group, St. Vincent Health has FILED UNDER announced. Share Communities Carmel The Barrington of Carmel, proposed at 1400 S. Email Guilford Road, has been planned since 2009, but St. Print Vincent's involvement was formally announced today after being revealed on Monday. Details were A AA released today in a stews conference at The x http /twww.i Palladium. The partnership is expected to create more than 340 jobs. St. Vincent Health clinicians will provide health care at below- market rates within Related Links The Barrington, said a news release from Release: St. Vincent, senior living site announce the Indianapolis -based healthcare group. 1 partnership Construction on the $130 million development was set to begin by this year, ADS BY PULSE 360 Get Listed Here the companies said in 2009. t Indiana 4, Refinance at 2.3% 2 http:/ /www.indystar.com/apps /pbcs.d11 /article ?AID 2011106130372 6/21/2011 St. Vincent partners with Carmel senior living development 1 The Indianapolis Star 1 indys... Page 2 of 4 160,000 Indiana Mortgage $659/mo. 2.7% apr. Get a LATEST BUSINESS NEWS: Check Free Quote! Lendgo.com /mortgage IndyStar.com's business page for a roundup 4 of Indianapolis -area business and financial New Policy in Indiana Drivers with no DUIs may be eligible for $9 per week car news. 5 insurance. www.litestylejournai.com "This 18 -acre, 320,000- square -foot life care 4 900% Penny Stock Gains community is currently being developed at Alerts On Stocks That Make Huge Potential. Free 116th Street on Guilford Road, and will Sign Up include 134 independent livin g 56 assisted Premiumpennypicks.com p living, living, 26 dedicated memory support and 48 nE skilled nursing care residences," the release of said. Carmel -based Mayflower Communities Inc., the nonprofit developer 1 of the senior living community, has partnered with Greystone Communities Inc. of Irving, Texas, on the Barrington project. View Comments 1 Share your thoughts F� fa fir TOP VIDEO PICKS YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN SPONSORED LINKS what's this? t s Lawyer: Several other people While taking PCP, people may s t saw missing student experience what superpower? (College Health Guru) Ta ;',7)7!grZ Bar where Lauren Spierer was i last seen is under investigation Do you support Obama's re- scenes of the the sthe election? (Ne�ntsmax.com) Be d t sc Weekends Best: Theater l May 31 2011 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Police saying little about case of Screening r ffir'� °r �AD�"'ttak) Test r r t t missing IU student +3r r i (E ,rerydayH tth.coan) Palladium must ask Carmel to Senator Introduces Electronic Au,.: increase its subsidy Surveillance Reform Bill (PCWorld) Mr. Basketball 2011 Cody Herman Cain Doesn't Want to be Zeller Apr 9. 2011 Called "African American" (Black Voices) http /www.indystar.com/ apps /pbcs.dll article ?AID 20111.06130372 6/21/2011 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:37 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Home values in Kensington Place Please make this part of the permanent record, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan mailto :1fsullivanlr@earthlink.net1 Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 5:10 PM To: jadams@carmel.in.gov Subject: FW: Home values in Kensington Place Mr. Adams, this is the second of the emails. John Sullivan From: John Sullivan r mailto :1fsullivanjr@aearthlink.netl Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:51 PM To: 'ldierckman@carmel.in.gov'; 'idorman @carmel.in.gov'; 'bgrabow@carmel.in.gov'; 'jhagan@carmel.in.gov'; 'hirizarry@carmel.in.gov'; 'nkestner@carmel.in.gov'; 'slawson@carmel.in.gov'; 'krider@carmel.in.gov'; 'sstromquist@carmel.in.gov'; 'swestermeier@carmel.in.gov'; 'ewilfong@carmel.in.gov'; 'mmcbride@carmel.in.gov'; 'mhollibaugh@carmel.in.gov' Subject: RE: Home values in Kensington Place It appears only a few of you received this email last week, so I am resending. Thank you, Debbie Staples Kensington Place From: Debbie Staples fmailto .:dlstaplesfdearthlink.net1 Sent.: Sunday, May 01, 2011 3:58 PM To '?r, ier T a'3i acme .in. ov`; ''do manOcarme1.'n.g v bgrabow@Carmel in gov' jhaga @Carmel in gov' hirizar°ry@carmei in gov' 'nkestner@carmel.in.gov'; 'slawson@carmel.in.gov'; 'krider@carmel.in.gov'; 'sstromquist@carmel.in.gov'; 'swestermeier @carmel.in.gov'; 'ewilfong@carmel.in.gov'; 'mmcbride@carmel.in.gov'; 'm.hollibaugh @carmel.in.gov' Subject: Home values in Kensington Place Dear Planning Commission, As of now, three of the sixteen homes in Kensington Place are for sale. There were no "For Sale" signs in front of any residence two months ago. I worry that the sudden appearance of for sale signs is due to the pending Justus apartment project. 1. As a new Kensington resident, I am very concerned about both the value of our homes and the value of the lots now for sale. I can imagine the value of our homes will be reduced by twenty to thirty percent. The value of the lots very probably would be reduced by fifty percent. Obviously, this reduction will reduce Carmel's tax basis of our assessed value and any tax base increase as a result of the Justus apartments would be offset by the decrease in value of the Kensington houses and lots. Assuming that our homes have an average of $350,000 and the four lots have an average value of $75,000, the total loss in value of our subdivision would be $1,830,000. Here's the breakdown of that conclusion: No. units/ value each Gross value reduction 30/50% Projected value 16 homes at $350,000 5,600,000 1,680,000 3,920,000 4 lots at $75,000 300,000 150,000 150,000 Total values 5,900,000 1,830,000 4,070,000 This $1,830,000 reduction in value of the Kensington neighborhood, which could equal $105,000 per home, is economically devastating to all Kensington residents. Most of our residents are older and will not be able to sustain or recover from such a loss. I ask that this email be part of the permanent records in this proceeding. Thank 'you, Debbie Staples Kensington Place 2 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:35 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Kensington Place/Woodland Terrace Please make this part of the permanent record in this matter, John Sullivan From: John.Sullivan mailto :jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 5:12 PM To: jadams @carmel.in.gov Subject: FW: Kensington .Place /Woodland Terrace Mr. Adams, last one. Thanks for your attention. John Sullivan From: John Sullivan mailto :jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:05 PM To: Idierckman @carmel.in.gov; jdorman @carmel.in.gov; bgrabow @carmeLin.gov; jhagan @carmel.in.gov; hirizarry@carmel.in.gov; nkestner @carmel.in.gov; slawson @carmel.in.gov; krider @carmel.in.gov; sstromquist @carmel.in.gov; swestermeier @carmel.in.gov; (ewilfong @carmel.in.gov) Cc: Anne Sullivan; "'Sully 'Anne and Lee'; 'Bev John 'Chris'; 'Cindy and Gary'; 'Dave and Pat'; 'Debbie'; 'Eric and Evie 'Fran 'Jan'; 'Jeanie 'MJ 'Penny 'Sharon'; 'Susan 'Virginia John' Subject: Kensington Place /Woodland Terrace Dear Members: I am an attorney and have been licensed to practice law in Indiana for 45 years. I continue to practice law with my office at P.O. Box 479, Carmel, IN. 46082 phone 815 -8374. During this period of time, I have been involved in numerous real estate transactions, including the sale of and the valuation of residential properties in central Indiana. In my law practice, I have also had business dealings with staff members of cities, plan commissions and councils regarding zoning, variances and the staff process in the areas in which Kensington and Woodland Terrace are now involved and all transactions necessary and incidental to the sale of residential properties and their values. I also reside at 13562 Kensington Place in Carmel with my wife. Our home is directly to the east of the proposed building in Woodland Terrance apartment project. It is my opinion that the staff and the Commission itself either have exceeded or will have exceeded their respective authorities if the Woodland Terrance petition is granted in any respect. The staff and the Commission have or would 3. hr.r'- P-;?�t <�`.e� .c��� ;rt <tx.:i.:'&�<';';� 1. Carmel City Ordinance 235,03 refers to certain uses being excluded in in the Meridian Overlay. In "Appendix A permitted use as a "Multiple Family Dwelling" is excluded by use of an `E Permitted use as a Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility" is prohibited by the use of a "Blank The Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility" is prohibited by the use of a "blank" in the Overlay column. A "Blank" equals "Prohibited "Blank" is defined in the "Appendix A" code as being prohibited in the Overlay Zones. 2. Woodland Terrace proposes to build the apartment part of their project first and then the nursing part of their project if needed. Justus wishes to do this is because apartment occupancy in the Carmel area exceed 90% occupancy. Assisted living type facilities in the Carmel area average no more than 50% occupancy. The present plan of Justus is very apparently to develop the easy part of this project first and the part which will necessitate licensing by the State of Indiana only if needed thereafter (no time is set out in their proposal). There are numerous projects now existing, being built or proposed in the Carmel area for the Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility category. It is more than conceivable that the nursing facility will 1 never take place. We are told that the City does not consider "need" for such a facility but Justus has stated in their own proposal that the nursing section will only be built if it is feasible, thus "needed The point of my argument is that Justus asks that the City believe them when they say that they will build the nursing facility if "feasible" or needed but that at the same time the City's position is that the City does not take "need" into consideration. Justus proposal relies on "need" but the City says it does not consider "need How can this be? It cannot. 3. The height of the apartment project will exceed 70 feet from the exposed ground floor basement to the top of the parapet which will be 10 feet high on top of the 4th floor of the building which in turn is on top of an exposed walk -out basement. Each floor, including the exposed, walk -out basement, will consume 12 feet which equals 60 feet for the 5 floors (including the exposed basement) plus the 10 foot parapet equals 70 feet exposed above ground level. This building will be as close as 85 feet to Kensington. This building will block out the setting sun for and its resulting light from Kensington. Afternoon sunlight will also be eliminated from that part of the forest that is not destroyed by the building of the Woodland Terrace building. Noise and sound of 200 plus residents, employees, guests, vehicle smell and noise, garbage smell and large truck (garbage and delivery truck) noise will all together change the lifestyle of those not only in Kensington but in the entire vicinity as well as causing the present forest to be eliminated. 4. There has been no traffic study made by the City or anyone else regarding Smokey Row Road to the best of my knowledge since October 27, 2008. It appears that the staff relies on this 2008 study which it states permits this project. The staff and this Commission cannot realistically rely on a study made prior to the roundabout at Range Line Road and Smokey Row Road and prior to the widening of Old Meridian as it approaches US 31. It is my information that the date of the study, October 27, 2008. The traffic study itself did not include the times at which the study was taken. This is apparently the same traffic study that was deemed inadequate in the most recent project for this adjacent land when it was decided in Hamilton Superior 3 on December 10, 2009 under Cause No. 29D03 0805 MI 565. 5. Our way of life in Kensington Place will be forever changed by Woodland Terrance. Not only will there be a 70 foot building in our direct view but the apartment project will eliminate our certification as a Wildlife Preserve (the only residential neighborhood to be so certified as such in the State of Indiana). 6. A greater area than the permitted 70% of trees will be eliminated in our forest. Justus should be required to have the forest surveyed so that no greater a percentage of trees is removed than may be legally permitted. The difference in the percentage apparently is a result of the buffer area between Kensington and Justus being considered by Justus in the total percentage trees, whereas neither the buffer zone nor the trees on Kensington Place can be considered in the total tree area. Thank you, John Sullivan, 13562 Kensington Place. Please make this email a part of the permanent record in this matter. 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Ufsullivanjr@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:37 PM To: Han000k, Ramona B; Conn, AnoeUnaV Subject: FW: PIan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington/Justus Please make this part of the permanent record. John Sullivan From: John Sullivan [mailto:jfsullivanjr@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 5:11 PM To: jadams@carmel.in.gov Subject: FW: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington/Justus Mr. Adams, this b the third emai|but|n�ayhoveanmthei John Sullivan From: John [mailto:jfsullivanjr@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:12 PM To: k1ienckman@carnel.in.gpv jd0nnan@carmeiin.gOv borabow@canneiin.guv; jdonnan@canneiin.gnv hirizarry@carmel.in.gov; nkestner@carmel.in.gov; slawson@carmeiin.gov| krider@carmel.in.gov; sstromquist@carmel.in.gov; in.gov (ewilfong@carmel.in.gov) Subject: FW: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensi ustus I did not ask that you do this but please make this email a part of the permanent record in this proceeding. Thank you, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan [maiKo njr@earthinh.neD Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:01 AM To: kJierckman@camneiin.gov jdorman@carmel.in.gov; bonabow@carme|.in.g0v;jhagan@carmeiin.gov hirizarry@carmel.in.gov; n .in.gov slawson@carmel.in.gov; S6tromqubt@carme|jn.gov; swestermeier@carme.in.gov; @carmeiin.gov\ Cc: "Sully"; 'Anne and Lee'; 'Bev John 'Chris'; 'Cindy and Gary'; 'Dave and Pat'; 'Debbie'; 'Eric and Evie 'Fran 9a,/; 'Jeanie 'M] 'Penny 'Sharon'; 'Susan'; 'Virginia John' Subject: Plan Commission Subcommittee hearing on Kensington/Justus 1 attended the subcommittee meeting ear!ier this evening. The process is what it is but incorrect statements rnade by Justus shoutd be corrected. This emait is an attempt to do so. 1. Justus stated that the height of the building woutd be four stories. This is not correct. The height of the bu8dhnrcU/ecdy6nhackofmurhonsejs5storiesp1usal0fnotparapet. The basement will beawalkout baserneat with 4 stories an top of t and then a 10 foot parapet on top af that. At 12 feet a evei, we will be looking at 60 feet of building ptus 10 feet of parapet which is a 70 feet high building less than 80 feet from our backdoor. This is a 7 story building. By the way, the height of the parapet iricreased from 6 feet when Justus was at our house to 10 feet at the meeting earlier tonight. The ordinances cannot permit this. 2. Justus stated that when they were in our house, that vegetation would prevent those on the west side of Kensington from seeing their apartment project. The vegetation will exist frorn about April through October but not through late falt or winter. The glare from the windows on the back side of the project could cause us to see the glare in the early morning and would completely block the sunset. From April through October, we can see Meridian Street from the back of our house. 3. This 7 story building will cast a shadow over all properties on the west side of Kensington Pl. even including the trees. The forest behind the building will not have sunlight past three o'clock or so in the afternoon. The trees and other vegetation will die. The family of 5 deer will no longer be able to tive in our backyard. 1 4. Not only will the trees die because of lack of sunlight, they will die because Justus will cut them down as close to the buffer line as possible. The percentage of trees was miscalculated by Justus. Justus included a calculation that the acreage is 7.29 and not 7.19. The 7.29 includes the buffer zone and it should not. Justus stated at the meeting that they were not bound by the buffer zone between our properties. 5. Justus complains that they have put so much money into this project that they will be damaged if they cannot complete the project as requested. My wife wrote an email stating that in her belief that the value of our subdivision would be reduced by almost $2M in value because of the proximity of the Justus project. Kensington was here before Justus purchased the property behind us. 6. Traffic study a traffic study should be ordered either by you or by the Council. I can't reasonably imagine that this project can or will proceed using a five year old traffic study. There is no one in the world that would believe this to be reasonable other than the City and Justus. Starting at 3PM or so, westbound traffic on Smokey Row is backed up all the way to the entrance of Kensington. We will have aged people and at least three roundabouts that will move traffic quicker. So why would we need a new traffic study. Let's use one that was in use when Carmel High was smaller and before the roundabouts. 7. We have lived here for less than two years. Justus stated that everyone who moved to Kensington since 1990 knew that there would be a project to the west of Kensington. That is part true but no one here could possibly believe that such a project as is now being considered would be developed. Kensington did know there would be a 2 story office building but no more that that. 8. And last but not least. Justus stated earlier this evening that we refused to meet with them over this project after they had come to us offering a meeting. About a week before we received the notice of the original hearing, Justus did come to our development and talk to a few members. The President of the Association resigned because he had a business situation which required short -term extensive travelling. What Justus did not state is that they approached the City about a year before they met with us and did not bring us into that conversation or negotiations. Justus filed this petition at the first of the year and did not consult us at that time earlier. Only after they received approval of the City did they contact us. Should Justus now be able credibly state that we would not meet with them? Thank you, John Sullivan, 13562 Kensington Place, Carmel, IN. 815 -8374 2 Conn, Angelina V From: John Sullivan [jfsullivanjr @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:38 PM To: Hancock, Ramona B; Conn, Angelina V Subject: FW: Kensington Place CPC presentation on April 19, 2011 Please make this part of the permanent record, John Sullivan From: John Sullivan fmailto :jfsullivanirCaearthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 5:08 PM To: iadams@carmel.in.gov Subject: FW: Kensington Place CPC presentation on April 19, 2011 Mr. Adams, my wife and I live in Kensington Place. I will send you three separate emails today which hopefully will clarify your decision. This is the first of the emails. If you or any of the PC members want to visit our house to personally see what we are opposing, please call me and we will make an appointment. Thank you, John Sullivan 815 -8374 From: John Sullivan fmailto :ifsullivanir(aearthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:06 PM To: 'Idierckman @carmel.in.gov'; 'jdorman @carmel.in.gov'; 'bgrabow @carmel.in.gov'; 'jhagan @carmel.in.gov'; 'hirizarry@carmel.in.gov'; 'nkestner @carmel.in.gov'; 'slawson @carmel.in.gov'; 'krider @carmel,in.gov'; 'sstromquist @carmel.in.gov'; 'swestermeier @carmel.in.gov'; ewilfong(acarmel.in Subject: Kensington Place CPC presentation on April 19, 2011 Thank you for your patience and attention last night. There were several matters that could not be fully addressed in the Kensington presentation. There is no question that the entire Justus property and at least ten Kensington Townhouses are in the Meridian Overlay. All are subject to Appendix A Schedule Of Uses, which is the controlling part of Article 1: Zoning Code, Chapter 17: B -6 Business District. Permitted Uses are set out in Section 17.01 which states: "17.01 Permitted Uses: See AppendixA: Schedule of Uses AppendixA is actually the controlling provision of the Permitted Use section as it sets out specifically what can what cannot be done. Page 1 of AppendixA, as it applies to Residential Uses, did not change from the 2006 and 2011 enactments so Appendix A, as it applies to Residential Uses, should be construed strictly. If the proposed Justus development is considered to be an apartment complex, which it is, this use is excluded (E) on Appendix A according to the coding just above the Meridian Overlay Section. It is an apartment complex because there are no licenses in effect for nursing and no license will be sought by Justus. As a sidepoint, there are apparently no licenses issued to any other Justus facility.. Regardless as to any alleged ambiguity in the Carmel Code as to a definition of CCRC, the definition by Indiana statutes require State licensing for nursing facilities contr of Ju'stus and this CPC and this Council. If the proposed Justus project is considered a Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility, then it is prohibited by the Ordinance. The coding section of the ordinance just above the Meridian Overlay and Old Meridian Zones is as follows: P Permitted SU Special Use A Accessory SE Special Exception "Blank" Prohibited E Excluded" Under the Overlay Zones section of Appendix A, there is a "Blank" where Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility and US 31 Meridian meet. According to the abbreviations used in the Appendix which is the centerpiece of the Ordinance, this use as a Nursing /Retirement /Convalescent Facility is prohibited. 1