HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #9 from Jill Meisenheimer
Motz, Lisa
From:Jill Meisenheimer <jmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:48 PM
To:Keesling, Rachel M; Motz, Lisa
Subject:To Plan Commission and Department of Community Service
Attachments:Jill Meisenheimer.vcf
Importance:High
To: Plan Commission and Department of Community Service
From: Jill H. Meisenheimer, CCRZ/Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning
RE: Please ask our questions. Revisiting the Plan Commission vote on Albany Place PUD
Lisa,
Can you share this email with the DOCS staff and with Plan Commissioners. Thank you.
Jill H. Meisenheimer
live,
Carmel is proud of its many awards for being a city where people want to work, and play. How does the
Albany Place PUD, a proposal for a subdivision of large expensive houses on small lots stuffed into a grid of
streets and cul-de-sacs without even a space for neighbors to gather and build community, contribute to the
quality of Carmel being a great place to live?
I appreciate being able to share my concerns through letters and public comments at the Plan Commission
meeting and committee meetings. But when neighbor’s questions are not asked directly to the developer I feel
invisible. I do not like being invisible, but this is not about me.
Just because a proposal is legal and allowed does not mean it should be accepted. Just because the developer
has made 15 changes does not mean they cannot be asked to make more changes. Neighbors have the right to
share their concerns and to have them addressed. Developers have the right to say OK or no thanks, or to come
up with an alternative. The Plan Commission and City Council have the right to ask for improvements or vote
against a proposal.
Why should the Albany Place proposal be approved as a PUD?
The Albany Place PUD is not a special subdivision. It proposes 51 large expensive houses on 1/3 acres lots and
that is all. A subdivision could and should be a neighborhood that is more than just houses on streets; it should
be welcoming to families.
During the Plan Commission process of 2 hearings and 2 subdivision committee meetings on Albany Place the
Plan Commission received letters from multiple people questioning why the petitioner should be approved for a
PUD. The elephant in the room was that the PUD asked for increased density without providing anything
but never once did
special in return. And yes, there was much discussion about the requirements for a PUD,
the PC or DOCS,during their public hearing or Subdivision committee meeting, directly ask the
petitioner to reduce the density by withdrawing 2 to 5 lots.
Where are reasonable, usable gathering places?
Several letters and public comments asked for a reasonable usable gathering place for the neighborhood, not
even a club house, swimming pool or tennis courts, just a green space for the neighbors to gather for a picnic,
1
and for the kids to kick a ball or run around. The Trails at Hayden Run, the subdivision next to Albany Place,
has both green space and a neighborhood playground.
The petitioner said that they provided more open space than S1 requirements, but they count the wetlands and
pond as their open space! Yes, the petitioner did add a path around the wetlands and add grass to that perimeter
of the wetlands. Yes the petitioner did add additional paths to the subdivision (which led to more paths and cul-
de-sacs, but not to any place to gather). Yes, Plan Commissioner Joshua Kirsh responded to my request for
but never once did the PC or
usable green space saying that a subdivision gives tax money for our parks,
DOCS during a public hearing or committee meeting ask the petitioner to add a gathering space for
community interaction inside this subdivision.
In our empty nester zero lot community of 47 homes we have 3 open spaces where we can gather. This month
our
we held our annual neighborhood picnic in one of gathering spaces to welcome new neighbors and catch up
with “old neighbors.”
My 8 year old granddaughter asks why I go to the Plan Commission meetings and what happens when I go to
them. To my surprise when I told her about the Albany Place PUD she said with enthusiasm, “I’ll build them a
playground!” Even an 8 year old understands that a planned neighborhood needs a place for children and
families to gather and play.
Where is the winter screening?
st
Several letters and public comments asked for an evergreen screen along 141 and Shelborne. Yes, the
but never once did the PC or DOCS during a
petitioner did add many more trees to the interior of the PUD,
public hearing or committee meeting directly ask the petitioner to add evergreen trees in screening along
those busy streets.
Albany Place is surrounded on 3 sides by large homes or undeveloped land ripe for development with
continually increasing density. With the current zoning at risk to create PUDs throughout Carmel it would set a
precedent for the owners of the land next to the Albany Place PUD (and beyond) to propose a PUD with even
higher density for mixed use development or for no good reason at all.
Providing evergreens now would allow trees to begin to grow now so that residents of this subdivision could at
least be partially screened from possible increased density and/or mixed use development next to them.
At our Williams Mill subdivision entrance on Spring Mill Road we have both a wall and some evergreens. This
provides some screening from the original S1 land directly across the street from us, which has since been
rezoned as a 60 acres mixed use PUD including a big box grocery store. Yes, The Bridges has some
landscaping around its perimeter, but it does not screen us from the giant Market District. We do not want all
the customers from The Bridges looking into our neighborhood. And we do not want to have to see all of the
commercial developments across the street from us.
At the September 15, 2015 Plan Commission meeting a Plan Commissioner said that there is a difference of
opinion as to how land should be developed. The current ordinances are ineffective in defining a PUD. It
seemed obvious to most of the members of the Plan Commission that the PUD language is confusing and the S1
But if it is legal for a petitioner to ask for a PUD only to be able to
zoning standards are not adequate.
increase the density, at the very least the repeated questions from the public that are written and/or
spoken should be addressed directly to the petitioner during a public meeting.
Before the final Plan Commission vote on the Albany Place PUD…
Joshua Kirsh said that the Albany Place PUD is a good project; he did not want to kill the project to make a
point. Joshua suggested renaming a PUD to PSD, Planned Suburban Development. But changing the name,
2
does not change the elephant in the living room. And Joshua asked for a private discussion with the
Commissioners before the vote.
John Adams said, “I don’t like the process…it endangers future projects.”
Woody Rider said, “I don’t like the process, but it is legal, don’t punish the petitioner.”
But should the Plan Commission and city be punishing the neighbors who live near the proposed development
and the people who will be moving into the proposed development? Are ulterior motives trumping common
sense? How can Carmel balance the zoning process? What is the role of the Plan Commission in deciding this?
What makes a project good? If developers know they can come and change 15 pieces of their proposal so that
they can be approved…does that make it a good project?
The Plan Commission vote is over for the Albany Place PUD (3 votes opposed, 6 approved), but questions from
neighbors remain. I hope that the City Council will ask the petitioner to decrease the density, add a gathering
st
space, and provide a winter screen with evergreens along 141 and Shelborne.
Jill H. Meisenheimer
CCRZ/Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning
jmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com
844-3920
3