The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRemonstrance Letters March 1, 1994 Carmel Planning Commission One Carmel Square Carmel,IN 46032 Dear Commissioners: I am a homeowner that will be adversely impacted by the proposed development of"cluster homes"by Davis Homes around the Twin Lakes Golf Course in Clay Township. Other communities have had to deal with developers'proposals that do not keep with the spirit of the approved Development Plan. I suggest that you use the following contact as a resource. The City of Canton,Michigan has been dealing with the"cluster home"issue for the past three years. They have large areas of farm ground that is being developed and certain developers were using the cluster option as a loophole to evade the intent of the planning ordinance. The Planning Services Department wrote an issues report and placed a moratorium on additional cluster development until a new ordinance could be written to ensure the original intent of the city's plan. I spoke with Jeff Goulet of the Canton Planning Services Department. He said that he would be happy to discuss their approach with one of Carmel's city planners. He can be contacted at: Jeff Goulet 1150 South Canton Center Road Canton,MI 48188 (313)397-5390 I oppose the Davis plan as it was presented to the Commission on February 15, 1994. The density of the proposed housing and the disregard for the surrounding communities are definitely not what I expected when my wife and I moved into Cannel. I appreciate your help in protecting the equity we have placed in our home and the investment that we have all made in the Carmel community. Sincerely, Daniel L.Rimstidt 3106 Towne Drive Carmel,IN 46032 (317)872-1270 March 1, 1994 Carmel Planning Commission One Carmel Square Carmel,IN 46032 Dear Commissioners: I am a homeowner that will be adversely impacted by the proposed development of"cluster homes"by Davis Homes around the Twin Lakes Golf Course in Clay Township. Other communities have had to deal with developers'proposals that do not keep with the spirit of the approved Development Plan. I suggest that you use the following contact as a resource. The City of Canton,Michigan has been dealing with the"cluster home"issue for the past three years. They have large areas of farm ground that is being developed and certain developers were using the cluster option as a loophole to evade the intent of the planning ordinance. The Planning Services Department wrote an issues report and placed a moratorium on additional cluster development until a new ordinance could be written to ensure the original intent of the city's plan. I spoke with Jeff Goulet of the Canton Planning Services Department. He said that he would be happy to discuss their approach with one of Carmel's city planners. He can be contacted at: Jeff Goulet 1150 South Canton Center Road Canton,MI 48188 (313)397-5390 I oppose the Davis plan as it was presented to the Commission on February 15, 1994. The density of the proposed housing and the disregard for the surrounding communities are definitely not what I expected when my wife and I moved into Carmel. I appreciate your help in protecting the equity we have placed in our home and the investment that we have all made in the Carmel community. Sincerely, 0-'7/ 4/. Daniel L.Rimstidt 3106 Towne Drive Carmel,IN 46032 (317)872-1270 05-12-1994 James P. & Rande L. Kaufman 9805 Greentree Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Ramona Hancock Secretary One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Proposed Davis Development We would like to take this opportunity to express our views on the Davis Development proposed in our area. We are totally opposed to these homes being built as proposed for a number of reasons. First, the infrastructure of this area is totally unable to handle any additional traffic these homes would infuse into the area. Our only exit from our home is from Greentree Drive onto 96th Street. During peak traffic times, a wait to get on 96th Street making a right turn has been as long as five minutes. However, if the avenue to work is a left turn, the time is increased dramatically as well as having the danger of an accident doing so. Even the intersection of 96th and Michigan Road is unable to handle more vehicles. The traffic attempting to make a left turn, even with an arrow light, backs up all the way to Shelborne Road both in the mornings and the afternoons. This also prompts individuals to attempt left turns from the through lane greatly increasing the danger of accidents. The traffic is so bad on 96th Street when ITT lets out for the afternoon, a police officer is necessary to direct traffic. When additional traffic is infused into this traffic pattern, 96th Street will become one of the highest rated traffic hazard areas in Marion and Hamilton Counties. We have already seen serious accidents in this area; need they be more frequent? To correct this situation and to handle the additional traffic would necessitate widening the entire length of 96th Street from Township Line Road to Michigan Road. At the present time, Township Line Road is virtually impassable due to its deteriorating condition and due to construction already in progress, Shelborne Road is not far behind. We see nothing indicating anyone's readiness to accept the great expense let alone action to correct these conditions. In addition to the cost of the road itself; the cost of redoing drainage ditches and utilities has to be considered. Secondly, the fire and police protection in this area is minimal at best for the homes and businesses as they are. With the influx of the number of homes proposed by Davis Homes, additional fire and police would be necessary. Also, with homes placed as close together as is proposed, there is no question a fire in one would spread to others before the situation could be brought under Page 3 Ramona Hancock Secretary RE: Proposed Davis Development Additionally and on a more personal note than the above reasons, if Davis Development is allowed to develop the property behind my house, the 38 acres directly off 96th Street and to the east of the existing homes on the east side of the golf course, there will be at least SEVEN homes butting up to our back yard. This means we will have seven different homes to look at and deal with their different landscaping, children, dogs and water problems. A lesser density of homes is the only viable option. Additionally and still on a personal note, it does not appear Davis Homes will respect us and our property in their building efforts. They have already caused damage to our yard and shrubbery by driving over our property to gain access to the 38 acre field instead of gaining access from 96th Street or further up Greentree Drive where access is immediate. We were assured by the driver of the vehicle the damage would be repaired in Mid-March. Not one attempt has been made to repair the damage nor contact us about it. If this is a sample of the type of people who will be building SEVEN houses along our property line, we absolutely want no part of the development at all. We are asking you take these objections into consideration when contemplating your decision about the Davis Development at your next Carmel Planning Commission meeting. We will be there in person to answer any questions not addressed in this letter. Thank you very much for your attention to this letter and our feelings. James P. Kaufma�rrJ� � �s Rande L. Kaufman f',4*< .0 3-7/ . y� t'� January 17, 1994 Area Plan Commission of Carmel ) /)/ Carmel City Hall F` 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Members of the Plan Commission: I received two notices about A planned Cluster House Development in our area, and a nitice of pubiLe hearing which is foeket # 5.94-PF . After review of the information thet is av>>ilable to me, it is obvious to me thrtt Lhis area would be cIT.22A3J harmed by by a Cluster House Development. 1. Cluster House would not fit with the quality of housing that is around it. 2. The high density wuei]d throw a burden on the School. 3. It would compound the traffic problems, since there hes been very little increase in the aapacit;' of the roads during the lust ten years, while the popu1 tinn of the area has increased already. 4. This t,'pe of housing does not equally share the prrden of taxes per person. I had a long conversation with Dorotha and Francis Osborneon Saturday 1/15/94 and they are of this same opinion. They have owned the property next to ere for about 40 yearn. GnPorturntely he will not be able to attend with me as we talked aboAt, because Ur. Osborn died suddenly of a heart attack ebowt 8:00ark 1/17/94. Please convey the contents of this letter to the Members of the Plan Commission, since we will not be at the meeting to be held 7:00 Tuesday 1/18/94. Sincerely, 4oha 0. Allen 2'74 2620 W 96th St. Indianapolis, TN 46266 Hamilton County TOTkL P.01 S 7 i- a4-00 a I 0 RDI 'T[NIITrl: IT 1' tizI,1ivApous .` I Ronald Houck " c/o Ramona Hancock ane I Civic Square Carmel Indiana 46032 i% 571-2400 571.-2426 (fax) lyY SCIIOOL OF Nasty.) January 18, .1994 Dear Mr. Houck, The purpose of this letter is to address.the Davis Developmentro al entitled 'The Links" which is planned for the 140 acre parcel of land located est of Shelbourne and north of West 96th Street. I have recently moYed to the Ashbrook development which is located on Shelbourne Rd. from the Castleton area. One of the p C T selected to live in this area was the qualitygyPeary reasons designed to avoid "overdevelopment" and to preserve ve the rural which the sowere Clay county. By proposing 340 home sites in fewer than half the number of acrestheDavis Development company appears to bel large rapidly built development. If approved,Panning to overurbanize the area with one tremendous pressure upon the infrastructureof the looeaell community,lopmentDula no pr doubt place existing real estate and the tax base, and disgruntle the registered voters and local e business owners in the area. The Davis Development company no doubt views the proposed-project as extremely Iucrative through being able to demand a premium price for their product in such a desirable location. As the planners of the present and future City of Carmel I urge you to closely scrutinize the Links proposal for its feasibility costs and benefits to current andresidents. the area, and its to preserve the quality of the community of Carmel by nresisting the Castell tiolore you to n"of f p our beautiful community. I believe that Davis or another developer has the resources to f develop a community on the proposed land which cane i the area which first attracted me to the Carmel. I look foreword rd to�your characteristics this issue and please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. DE?ltaltiM OF NIIIZG OFAf}Ut75 irij, erely, F lit • 1111 Monts D n°E .s" _ INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA5, _ -46202-5107 Robert Topp;`R.N., Ph.D. ' ilk 317-274-2035 E;x:317-274-2996 /y. ?6.6-1/ �c-rj ��ervz' C./7''e- /(_ � a so$ i �? . 7 "4- 7/aVicer - ^ � e , r - Z"tc, z‘<es, la_ 7- ��cep✓ Q �` �2 Lir., v 1 April 13, 1994 Jay Dorman 759 Whitehall Place Carmel, IN 46033 Dear Jay, As I 'm sure you know I do not feel the Linkside project is an appropriate usage of the land surrounding twin lakes golf club. Listed below are the reasons I feel we should vote this project down. -- I strongly oppose the linkside project. I feel that as a commission we not only have the right but are required to deny this proposal . My initial thought was that this proposed project met the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. Upon further review I find that it does not meet either criteria. I hope I don' t bore you with the following excerpts . In part, paragraph 33 . 11 Of the zoning ordinance states "included in the review and approval of the cluster housing development shall be the compatibility of said cluster housing development with adjacent land uses . " Paragraph 33 . 12 States that where the requirements of this section differ from requirements in other sections that these provisions shall control . In addition, paragraph 33 . 0 . 1 States in part that a cluster development encourages an alternate and efficient utilization of the land with regard to compatibility with the surrounding uses and neighborhoods, through ingenuity and originality. I do not feel that this is an ingenious or original use of the land. It is merely trying to maximize the usage of the parcel. Thirty eight acres of this proposal are zoned s-1, this is the area for the proposed manor homes . This area will stretch to the max the 2 . 4 units per acre limit. The Merrriam report recommends a "blending in" of neighborhoods which is obviously not being done here. The traffic study shows that an additional 3150 trips per day will result from this proposed project. The 20 year plan has no provision for any improvement in 96th street. Traffic today is untenable and the project will only worsen the entire traffic flow. What will the traffic flow be with the improvements suggested by the developer? I suspect that no improvements will be shown. In closing these following points need to be considered: Inadequate infrastructure - the roads simply cannot handle the traffic. This proposal is not the highest and best use of the land. Orchard Park school cannot handle the additional children. Creekside development is a far cry from where we are. All in all this is a proposal which does not meet the letter and definitely not the spirit of the law. We as commission are obligated to deny this docket number 5-94 p.p. named lakeside. I hope these reasons give you the ammunition you need to vote this project down. Like you I don' t want to be a part of a "rubber stamp" commission so you can count on my no vote. Thanks for your time and I hope I can count on you. Sincerely, David A. Cremeans INDIANA UNIVERSITY PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS J ERS, i Ronald Houck si '�, c/o Ramona Hancock 4°4c4'' 1 Civic Square Cannel Indiana 46032 571-2400 571-2426 (fax) SCHOOL OF NURSING January 18, 1994 Dear Mr. Houck, The purpose of this letter is to address the Davis Development proposal entitled "The Links" which is planned for the 140 acre parcel of land located east of Shelbourne and north of West 96th Street. I have recently moved to the Ashbrook development which is located on Shelbourne Rd. from the Castleton area. One of the primary reasons I selected to live in this area was the quality planning by which the developments were designed to avoid "overdevelopment" and to preserve the rural atmosphere of south west Clay county. By proposing 340 home sites in fewer than half the number of acres the Davis Development company appears to be planning to overurbanize the area with one large rapidly built development. If approved, this development would no doubt place tremendous pressure upon the infrastructure of the local community, depreciate the existing real estate and the tax base, and disgruntle the registered voters and local business owners in the area. The Davis Development company no doubt views the proposed project as extremely lucrative through being able to demand a premium price for their product in such a desirable location. As the planners of the present and future City of Carmel I urge you to closely scrutinize the Links proposal for its feasibility in the area, and its costs and benefits to current and potential future residents. I also implore you to attempt to preserve the quality of the community of Cannel by resisting the "Casteltonization" of our beautiful community. I believe that Davis or another developer has the resources to develop a community on the proposed land which can preserve the fine characteristics of the area which first attracted me to the Cannel. I look foreword to your decision on this issue and please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. DEPARTMENT OF NURSING OF ADULTS . cerely, 1111 MIDDLE DRIVE `1 INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA —' 46202-5107 Robert Topp, R.N., Ph.D.V 317-274-2035 FAx:317-274-2996 ' o . �S�OG� BRIDLEBOU 'E �QQ 00 EXECI <4,4' Es, I WALNUT WALNUT CREEK CREEK CT DR N • I `Spry t cl! WALNUT �g cm Y CREEK 1 c 3 W W 1 WOODS c I W , W 0 > 0 4 EIL r Foal) i 7 W A�ti'�NALLY � .� z = W •O V\ . W ESIERN C ANNAL Y D• e'i5 W 1 4lF DR Z + TOWNS �i' PE CARWlNION WA 3 '¢ C 'L -`5 - 1OWNE SHBROO *E ; ; = ' LIrvKSt DE LAKE ,..p2 i NCS g2aoR Twin Lakes NORT 1 ," Golf Club G. (Private) r- 0AUGUSTA ST W 7' p.I •�'FF 95kIl a = II i- _ GFYEENTREE L cc sl = co % cc Q- o q O Q. 9W d 96th P - � : y W oosr .. . AMILTON' CW ....z - •, ._ 1 • - �. ;r. � ... _ � . 4b5 --. . 15scc DENSITY CALCULATIONS SUBDIVISION NAME TOTAL LOTS ACREAGE DENSITY ASHBROOKE 1 & 2 81 46.76 1.73 ANNALLY DOWNS 1 & 2 62 41.55 1.49 GREENTREE A & B 50 38.69 1.29 GREENTREE SEC. 3 30 16.74 1.79 HUNTERSFIELD (FUTURE) 58 41.50 1.40 SPRING ARBOR 64 30.35 2.11 TOWNE LAKE 34 42.71 0.80 LINKSIDE VILLAGES SECTION 109 33.52 3.25 MANOR SECTION 92 39.20 2.35 ESTATE SECTION 133 66.30 2.01 334 139.02 2.40 '// 11nWALL.Y / Yd l- 7, /,ll9 \/ Y kWKvac TW�� ZDEs-TAATEE S -C / LAKE , ED di) AsN3ReoKE >-----t ZLID I-INKS fbr /„Iesjbe A IIILLIA6ES manlo2 Nd (a.:1)_.( 510eml& GIY < 1eE > E d- 05-12-1994 James P. & Rande L. Kaufman 9805 Greentree Drive Carmel, IN 46032 Richard Klar 10842 N. Central Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46280 RE: Proposed Davis Development We would like to take this opportunity to express our views on the Davis Development proposed in our area. We are totally opposed to these homes being built as proposed for a number of reasons. First, the infrastructure of this area is totally unable to handle any additional traffic these homes would infuse into the area. Our only exit from our home is from Greentree Drive onto 96th Street. During peak traffic times, a wait to get on 96th Street making a right turn has been as long as five minutes. However, if the avenue to work is a left turn, the time is increased dramatically as well as having the danger of an accident doing so. Even the intersection of 96th and Michigan Road is unable to handle more vehicles. The traffic attempting to make a left turn, even with an arrow light, backs up all the way to Shelborne Road both in the mornings and the afternoons. This also prompts individuals to attempt left turns from the through lane greatly increasing the danger of accidents. The traffic is so bad on 96th Street when ITT lets out for the afternoon, a police officer is necessary to direct traffic. When additional traffic is infused into this traffic pattern, 96th Street will become one of the highest rated traffic hazard areas in Marion and Hamilton Counties. We have already seen serious accidents in this area; need they be more frequent? To correct this situation and to handle the additional traffic would necessitate widening the entire length of 96th Street from Township Line Road to Michigan Road. At the present time, Township Line Road is virtually impassable due to its deteriorating condition and due to construction already in progress, Shelborne Road is not far behind. We see nothing indicating anyone's readiness to accept the great expense let alone action to correct these conditions. In addition to the cost of the road itself; the cost of redoing drainage ditches and utilities has to be considered. Secondly, the fire and police protection in this area is minimal at best for the homes and businesses as they are. With the influx of the number of homes proposed by Davis Homes, additional fire and police would be necessary. Also, with homes placed as close together as is proposed, there is no question a fire in one would spread to others before the situation could be brought under Page 2 Richard Klar RE: Proposed Davis Development control. This would increase the costs of not only fighting the fires but the costs to the insurance companies and homeowners after the fire. These costs are passed onto all homeowners in the area whether they live in the congested developments or not. Thirdly, the water table is so high in this area, all present homes have significant problems with drainage. The drainage not only presents a problem in our septic systems areas but in other areas as well. Our neighbors' and our sump pumps run a great deal of the time even in reasonably dry weather just to keep our basements and crawl spaces dry. This water has to go somewhere and with no storm sewers in the area the water either is drained to low spots in yards or down the street gutters to the creek. Even with building holding ponds as is proposed, excess water from strong storms and heavy rains will create a greater problem with all the more water being pumped out of the ground to where ever. We feel this additional water will become standing water in areas around our homes which we have been able to control to a point and create a health hazard by breeding more mosquitoes than are already present. For the county and the township to control this problem would also be costly. It would necessitate the installation of storm sewers and sanitary sewers throughout the area of the existing homes as well as the new areas. The size of the sewer lines necessary to accommodate this and the additional amount of influx into the treatment plants would be extremely costly to the county and township as well as the existing and prospective homeowners. Another consideration in objecting to the Davis Development in the concentration proposed is the Carmel-Clay School system. The school system is nearly running at capacity now. Some grades are over crowded. An influx of this many homes will generate a significant increase in the number of children going to the schools. This increase will necessitate the need for additional school rooms, teachers, buses and more than likely new school buildings. All of these items are costly to the county and the township. There is not sufficient time to provide the necessary accommodations for these additional children. Another concern we have is the value of our property. All of the homes in this area are custom built homes commonly referred to as "stick homes" which means the homes are of a better quality than those of a mass produced development such as Davis Development is proposing. The standard guide for both real estate and insurance purposes is the Marshall & Swift Residential Construction Guide. This guide grades homes by the type of construction and amenities. The homes presently in this area are considered in the above average category. The homes Davis Development is proposing are considered in the below average category. What that means is they are mass produced from standard plans and do not have the amenities of the homes already in existence. What it also means is it takes a much larger home to come to the same value as the existing homes are. When mortgage companies look as comparable homes in the immediate market are for value, the existing homes will be valued at a lower dollar figure than they are now because they will be compared to the dollar value and quality of the homes in the immediate area, the Davis Development. We will lose value in our homes that we have worked so hard to accumulate. Page 3 Richard Klar RE: Proposed Davis Development Additionally and on a more personal note than the above reasons, if Davis Development is allowed to develop the property behind my house, the 38 acres directly off 96th Street and to the east of the existing homes on the east side of the golf course, there will be at least SEVEN homes butting up to our back yard. This means we will have seven different homes to look at and deal with their different landscaping, children, dogs and water problems. A lesser density of homes is the only viable option. Additionally and still on a personal note, it does not appear Davis Homes will respect us and our property in their building efforts. They have already caused damage to our yard and shrubbery by driving over our property to gain access to the 38 acre field instead of gaining access from 96th Street or further up Greentree Drive where access is immediate. We were assured by the driver of the vehicle the damage would be repaired in Mid-March. Not one attempt has been made to repair the damage nor contact us about it. If this is a sample of the type of people who will be building SEVEN houses along our property line, we absolutely want no part of the development at all. We are asking you take these objections into consideration when contemplating your decision about the Davis Development at your next Carmel Planning Commission meeting. We will be there in person to answer any questions not addressed in this letter. Thank you very much for your attention to this letter and our feelings. James P. Kaufman Rande L. Kaufman Jay Dorman President Of The Carmel Plan Commission 759 Whitehall Place Carmel , In 46032 Dear Jay, This letter is in reference to the proposed Davis Development located around the Twin Lakes Golf Course. As a member of this community, my husband and I along with many others in our area are opposed to this development. This development is not in the best interest of our neighborhood . There are several issues which need to be mentioned and considered : Traffic - Roads will not and are not able to handle the peak traffic now. With the proposed additional homes it would be even worse . Every family owns at least 2 vehicles that are driven daily. Schools - Our schools are overcrowded now . They cannot handle additional children . Drainage - We have serious drainage problems and this would only increase our problems . Community - We want our community to remain a single family home community of less density per acre, than is now planned . Children - There are several very small children that play in the streets and do not understand what a car can do to them. Homes - If these are allowed in this area they will be a detriment to our property value . Davis Homes - These are well know for their lack of quality . Finally , with the crime rate being what it is today, there will not be enough fire and police protection for this many homes and families. I am sure if this were the neighborhood in which you and your family lived , you would have the same concerns and would not want the Plan Commission to consider this . Your job as Plan Commissioner' s is to vote for what the public wants not what the developers want and the amount of revenue this will bring in . (Reference: Know Your Government, Edition 1989 ) We urgently ask that you to vote a "NO" to this project at your next meeting on May 17 , 1994. • Respectfully Yours Mr. & Mrs. Carl Lichte CC : David Cremeans Sue Dillion Ronald Houck John Kennelly Richard Klar Alan Klineman Norman Meighen Max Moore Barbara Myers Salim Najjar James O' Neal Jeanne Reid Luci Snyder Paul Spranger Sharon Clark Gordon Byers Ramona Hancock I May 12, 1994 Richard J. Klar 10842 N. Central Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46280 Dear Mr. Klar, As residents of Greentree Estates, we are against the current proposed development of "Link Side" in southwest Clay. We feel this is an abuse of the cluster ordinance. Very little of the area set aside for community use is useable, which is a goal of the cluster ordinance. The proposed density is certainly not compatible with existing development in this area. If this development were approved, it would lead to increased congestion on 96th Street, which is only two lanes and overcrowded conditions at Orchard Park Elementary School and other Carmel Clay Schools. We would like for you to seriously consider keeping this neighborhood a single family home community of less density per acre. Sin rely, c/ if (7 , -4441 Tim and Lois Barry May 12, 1994 Mr. Richard Klar 10842 North Central Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46280 Dear Mr. Klar: As residents of Carmel, we are grateful to you for your service on the Carmel Plan Commission. We realize it is not an easy task. We reside on the Twin Lakes golf course and strongly object to the planned housing development by Davis Builders surrounding the course and our existing housing area. We oppose the density of homes in the proposed plan for several reasons. The type of home to be built will attract first-time home owners with children who will be tempted to use the golf course as their playground, which puts their safety at risk and golfers in jeopard of liability suits as a result. Children are wonderful, and they and their families deserve to buy their homes in an area which will give them more for their dollars invested than this development can. The idea of developing homesites around a golf course surely is tempting to any developer. Unfortunately, the owner of the land surrounding the golf course has continued over the years to ask a preposterous price for it, and no developer can afford to put homes on reasonable size lots and still make a profit. The commercial property north and south of 96th Street along Michigan Road, and along west 96th Street for that matter, has developed at a rapid rate over the last ten years. This has caused the traffic to multiply to the point where it is tedious getting around the area at peak times without considerable delay. Adding hundreds of additional automobiles in this general area as a result of this proposed development will only create staggering traffic and safety problems. We have been told by the City of Carmel that there are no plans to widen 96th Street over the next six years. We hope you will take very seriously your decision on this particular issue. It will affect the citizens of this area for many years to come. Thanks for your commitment. Yours sincerely, l ASSOCIATES INC. 4630 W1 ST. STREET INDIANAPOLIS, IN. 46168 311- 1909519 Mr. and Mrs. Ray Stair 9810 Greentree Drive Carmel, IN 46032 May 11, 1994 Mr. Richard Klar 10842 N. Central Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46280 Dear Mr. Klar: We are homeowners in the Twin Lakes area of Cannel. We believe that the proposed Davis Development is not in the best interests of our neighborhood for the following reasons: Traffic - Roads will not and are not able to handle the peak traffic now. With the proposed additional homes, it would be even worse. Schools are overcrowded now. They cannot handle additional children. We want our community to remain a single family home community of less density per acre. The Davis Development would benefit from the current "Cluster Option" which we are opposed to in our neighborhood. We have serious drainage problems and this would only increase our problems. Please recognize that we strongly object to the development of the Davis Community in our neighborhood. Sincerely, ttl Mr. and Mrs. Ray Stair Date: May 10, 1994 From: Robert F. and Constance L. Wiley 9835 Greentree Drive Carmel , Indiana 46032 Subject: Planned Davis Development To: Carmel Plan Commission Members The purpose of this letter is to urge your disapproval of the planned Davis development bounded by 96th St, 106th St, Shelborne Rd, and Towne Rd. Although we know further development in this area is inevitable, we urge you to disapprove the development plan being presented by Davis. We are in favor of further development. But it should add value and be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. The Davis planned development does not. The planned Davis development results in congestion inconsistent and incompatible with the rest of the area. Davis is proposing a high density project under the cluster housing option in order to make a reasonable profit. The land owners are asking a very high, if not unreasonable, price for their parcels of land. Davis owns options to purchase those land parcels. In order for Davis to predict a reasonable profit from their investment, they must plan and propose dense housing where they can achieve a high revenue per acre. Homes with lot sizes consistent with the existing homes would not result in as much revenue on a per acre basis. We feel it is unfair that the present home owners be asked to sacrifice the quality of their neighborhood in order that the developer and undeveloped land owners obtain their desired profits. We understand that some members of the plan commission feel they must approve the proposed development because it meets all requirements of the zoning laws. We strongly disagree with this position. If proposed developments only needed to be within the zoning requirements, there would be little need for a planning commission. We feel it is the planning commission's responsibility to represent the community and individual neighborhoods in assuring all development projects are in the best interests of all parties impacted besides being within technical zoning requirements. The planning commission's role includes judging the intangible merits that can't be reduced to technical specifications. We appreciate your careful consideration of the above. Thank you, At .t J • May 12, 1994 Mr. Richard J. Klar 10842 North Central A venue Indianapolis, IN 46280 Dear Mr. Klar: / am writing to you as a resident of Greentree Estates because of my strong opposition to the housing development Davis Construction has proposed at 96th Street and Shelbourne Road. I urge you to give heartfelt consideration and thought before you vote in its favor. This area already has a problem with traffic before and after normal business hours and reasonably heavy traffic at other times. Major improvements need to be made to accommodate any added traffic in this area, and we have been told that this in not going to happen for many years down the road. To blindly put people at risk for their safety is irresponsible. Somewhere in the future, the older man who owns all that property (or his heirs) will be willing to sell it for a reasonable price so that a developer can build homes with less density and still realize a profit. To jam all those small homes into that area would be unattractive and unfair to the surrounding property owners who saved their money to move to Carmel to enjoy the spaciousness of the area. Hamilton County has a reputation for maintaining nicer and more attractive homesites. We are very hopeful that you will be willing to preserve and uphold the continued expectations of homeowners in all areas of Carmel. Thanks for your consideration of a matter that is of utmost importance. Respectfully yours, • FRAGILE WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "LINKSIDE' ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING THE TWIN LAKES GOLF CLUB. (PLANNING COMMINSSION DOCKET NO. 5-94-PP) NAME ADDRESS or f - Q 3 2 C 1\2.Wtdio,J WifArY ;%�,t� I 1 � ! 37 I9 60 Z e,4A.�.cJ�.� (,(J - _ _I 1 v _ R 37( Car-winioi (-Z)nc, 6- _1-C377, u) wI- � 4' Y7d / C A 1,,,A ,-e a LO�y — Alil,�:,� ..4 �i`liac 376P) ar W in (Ur\ ljat is ,A ' .37'12_. CA-rid;h;or( Gd, i.' , 'ELL._ 37Val earw ilk;b�n _ _ 10 PI . , -,,,,, .,zo ,a),Rii,,, ,,,,___ A Mo T ide-w'r >7 r : 37s-2 eaV„, ;t,‘Ok% wgy aItir. , ... E - - , 07c2 C.2etre-014 4.o41 u/4 ir a_ 37ff3 CA-r2,v,Aii,„/ N • ip-' I 1 ��.` �\ U Airf i , . ,� 3 7: -/ 41,,L,i.,,-/ -vil-L, /1, 1 �, , i . 3 7 (AskA,,,p7,-rvi,eq\____ W, �- -- 7,5-}it, - (o-t�� ,. rI :.- CJ� X3'1 772$ avx,c_Afro; , i 0 q 0 -1 --r?e ( -),4-A-e-k- (AA- . ..!.i. .l �_ .. G t_. . . .14.-J Ait....."....t__I ,.-, gr.. L cc,t:4 1 , c( c-,– ,i 1 1 t 313 a -r- c 'a A �7t • I OU-17 c02 .1 d7, , �� -- -- 1 � � .s /�� v `y� ? l3'�S /t��il�r I_ L'.2.-19(--OA; ti) (1:iiity,- ic-i 1 (,,S I -41--ii),_11,- __-f , sc)«<- -1 --- 115 .1--x14164% etcii.1^ ` e�,+,, 'l ( �1�, 3-1- 77 �C ---, C� . i/% OW il Gt, V I WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "LINKSIDE" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING THE TWIN LAKES GOLF CLUB. (PLANNING COMMINSSION DOCKET NO. 5-94-PP) NAME ADDRESS / C _S / �; .� ..4-&__.:_,, D3 0<� 432 a P� G -E'�J,..771 fie- ��' �9 dull -Q 6011- (. /b 3%0 eo.si 7}r army/ /IV (3- A.0 /037.2- ,3a -�. )04 C ,wP c-A r. . 1 1��f A^- /0 36 S`& 1,.e_ 1Q41 . 04(.1.'4,t ) J-K ,A„^„... 377 1p RidJ CPJ G! C frt_ /' `. , cuvp 4- '',4,te, g(,,bt +-cam- a )7a, j_2,/,.,„ 3 7c-)(2 Pt, n) e r rc;c k C( , (-Arp,e I i_TJ',/ ?` s l') n > (rril'j Cf^ (Th://*-*11 S 1 , '� '�- osi c: P_z rte": _c .il 'irl-J1)---7-- �� r.�- ,„...„ /��. ! l O i9-=Gt1/Ni Lel✓ y�j -d [fi'K,-??gC 1✓i!, -!)-&ZJ 1 May 10, 1994 1994 Carmel Plan Commission Dear Carmel Planning Commission Member: Please vote NO to the proposed Davis Development between 96th Street and 106 Street just east of Shelborne Road. The density of these homes should be at least 1/2 acre. The reason for my objection is: Traffic - Traffic on these roads are at a peak now. Schools - Our schools cannot handle additional children. Drainage - These homes would only add to our serious drain- age problems. Density - As I mentioned above, there should not be more than two (2) homes per acre. I live very close to this area, and know how it would affect me and my neighbors. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Marilyn Tomlinson 9659 Elm Drive Carmel , Indiana 46032 • MAY 12. .1,>4 MR, RICHARD J, l(LAR 10E142 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE INDIANAPOLIS, IN 462j0 DEAR MR. KLAR; AM WRITING TO YOU ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF GREENTREE ESTATES WHO VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WHICH DAVIS CONSTRUCTION HAS PUT BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD, To ADD SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE TRAVELING DAILY IN AN ALREADY CONGESTED AREA SEEMS VERY UNWISE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO PLANS TO WIDEN OR IMPROVE 96TH STREET OR ANY OF THE AFFECTED INTERSECTIONS, IT IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE TRYING TO GET ONTO 16TH MORNINGS AND AFTERNOONS, AND THAT PROBLEM CAN DO NOTHING BUT MULTIPLY AS THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES ON MICHIGAN ROAD AND 96TH STREET, WE REOUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE, AS A MEMBER OF THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION, IN HELPING US PREVENT ANOTHER CASTLETON DISASTER BY VOTING AGAINST THIS PETITION, WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THE DAVIS COMPANY I'M SURE THEY ARE ALL NICE PEOPLE, WE DO OBJECT TO SO MANY SMALL HOMES BEING PLACED ON SUCH SMALL PARCELS OF LAND, IN TEN YEARS I'T WILL LOOK LIKE A SWM, THE PLAN COMMISSION IS AN IMPORTANT ENTITY IN EVERY RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY, WE HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER THIS MATTER CAREFULLY AND 'THOUGHTFULLY, YOURS TRULY, >ALyt_e_ t DEVELOPMENT, L.P. MEMORANDUM Date: January 12 , 1994 To: Jim Nelson 3021 East 98th Street, Suite 220 Indianapolis, IN 46280 From: Chris White Re: Linkside Dear Jim: The following is a summary of the dates in which Davis Development met with the surrounding property owners of the Linkside project in an effort to inform them of our proposed development and to obtain comments from the adjoining parcel owners. In September of 1993, we started meeting with Mr. Ken Brown, the owner of the Twin Lakes Golf Course to discuss potential imprnvnment'a, snrh as tho rrnct-ruction of drainago panda on tho Twin Lakes Golf Course property which would benefit both their existing course and our proposed development. Those negotiations proceeded on for approximately 60 days before we reached a final agreement on the proposed improvements to be completed by Davis and by the Twin Lakes Golf Course Ownership. On November 4, 1993, we presented the project to the Twin Lakes Golf Course membership during a joint meeting with Ken Brown where he presented the new master plan for the golf course. The project seemed to be well r000ivod by tho mambership. There were no major concerns expressed by any of the membership or members who live in the Greentree subdivision immediately surrounding the project. On November 17, 1993, we presented the project to the Greentree Section 2 subdivision which is located southwest of the existing golf clubhouse. Again, this group had no major concerns expressed over the proposed development. On November 18, 1993, we presented the project to the Greentree subdivision located southeast of the clubhouse. The major concern expressed by this group was the proximity of the homes and density of the homes in the area surrounding their subdivision in the Manor Series area. 3755 Fast 32nd Street, Suite 120, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (317) 595-2900 FAX (317) 595-2930 Jim Nelson January 12, 1994 Page 2 On November 30 , 1993 , we met with the homeowners in the Annally Downs subdivision. Again, there were no major concerns expressed. There was a minor concern about the connecting streets into their subdivision which is required by ordinance, and some concern over the existing drainage problems along the south property line of the Annally Downs subdivision which we agreed to investigate and incorporate into our subdivision. On December 2 , 1993, we met with the people in Ashbrooke subdivision. There were approximately four homeowners who showed up at this meeting and expressed objection to having the smaller Village Series lots directly across from them. The owner of the lot on the corner of the entrance to Ashbrooke expressed concern over the visibility of the Village Series homes from his lot. We agreed to meet with him again after we finalized our landscaping and signage plan to review that further with him. That meeting took place on January 11th where we presented him with the revised layout of the project and the revised landscape plan for the entrance to be located directly across the street from him. At each meeting we asked homeowners to sign their name and address to a sheet if they would be interested in a follow-up letter which we would send out when revisions to the plan were made. These letters were sent to each of them on January 6, 1994 . Tn aridition, on January 7 , 1994 , I iaaued lattorc to tho throo property owners directly adjacent to our parcels which were not located within the limits of the surrounding subdivisions we had previously presented the project to. These homeowners include Mark & Sue Enoch who are located at 9825 Shelbourne Road which is the exception within the Village Series area, Daniel and Donna Rimstidt who live on the lot in Towne Lake directly adjacent to our Estate Series, and John and Rebecca Iron who live iu Lhe exception parcel located on 96th within the Manor Series area. From approximately the middle of November until the public hearing, we displayed the exhibits for this project showing the proposed site location, aerial views, conceptual plan, and pictures of the types of homes to be constructed within each of the three different communities within the project at the clubhouse of Twin Lakes. We have fielded many phone calls from various property homeowners who have called in asking for more information about this project. Ronald Houck c/a Ramona Hancock 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 571-2400 571-2426 (fax) "LINKSIDE" February 15, 1994 Dear Mr. Houck, I again would like to express my points of view regarding the Davis Development entitled "The Links" which is planned for the 140 acre parcel of land located east of Melbourne and north of West 96th Street. Having lived in Cannel for just over two months I have had the opportunity to enjoy our community. Some of the most pleasing aspects of Carmel include the spaciousness and "home town" appeal of the new housing developments. This characteristic can be attributed to the excellent work of the City of Cannel's Planning Committee. Through your foresight you have produced a beautiful community which appeals to those of us wanting to escape the over-development and over crowding of Indianapolis. I congratulate you in your previous efforts. I would also caution you that "The Links" development appears to be contrary to the years of fine planning that your committee has engaged in. This community proposes placing 340 dwellings on just 140 acres of land (less than .42 acres per dwelling). This proposal appears to allot very little room for green space and public recreation areas. In addition this proposal will pose a tremendous challenge to the infrastructure of the local community. Currently the 96th Street and Michigan Road (Rt. 421) interchange is extremely congested with traffic at rush hour and on the weekends. The addition of 340 more families to the area will no doubt result in traffic gridlock on the local roads during rush hour. I strongly urge you to reject the current Davis Development proposal. I am confident that Davis or another developer can generate a housing plan for the land which is more amenable to the overall blueprint of "our" hometown of Carmel. I eagerly await your decision on this issue and feel free to contact me if I can be of any other assistance. Sincere Robert Topp, R.N : 10407 Trewithen Cannel. IN 46032 •-/C--5"�'Y � /727C-CC--/ � G4.6'611 -7 ._' —Q( 7 77 • /.? Vce ;15 c-2 z-L3' e ,‘7/iL z.-.2/ 2t L� �C G41._ iLO 7e,„' fJ CLG.%r� ,[ i..---- �-z- iy-c , -�c--rpc. re GV cmc--t it- • 7 • • c:gmf she WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE Ems" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAME ADDRESS 5-re-VE-0 M afrr Flc'Up 98146 (orvuAfl&L De. /t')„k cF/af-,() 4 j cIBLIS ree,-,r e 6 2 , Car,nx, jV . 7.Z- „,y) g 4/,-t--2 g4 q.0•( .ZLe . - d'i,„u4, t(e/L Fliti,,,:„ r7v 6R(i_ 4.) T ? /i /0,� M "ILA // 1 gid- �Wi� fe i/o 6 37 4.4,-)144_ tt) ir 0 3 -7 4,,.2.__ ----6,,,,t,&,....017t_e_ i_74 0 <3„)_______ i . I . ,,,,,- . ,„, „:, , , ,. ::!::-.,,.,,,,,,,:.: -.-: „;_ ,:: „,,,.,,x,:„ ,._ .p r x • P • k c ;‘e WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE " ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. I/ NAME ADDRESS - 62 3 s 2 C--4412-w riVion/ w /4' , ug n7ci c_€ u vz-0/ 6771 3 7 7 y k//r /7O/v e,U L. Poo/c_ /0.10v ('�..e6vriv/71.J• fit t - 41'j AV • WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE GREENS" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. I/ / NAME ADDRESS g,Ac Miz.ste,e7, a3ebe P)- ►'l�- i y'�3 g Czn?k re__ • 0 WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE GREENS' ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAME • ADDRESS H9-1=CLAsk \--)5 F LEkkc 983G- r•i>tz2A\dtlsz_zTin,, est ' WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE GREENS" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAME ` ADDRESS .467C96 G__- 114-e-- .f70‘0Z- Colgraii'n ion_ 1114/, CI ,ne/ -Z-IV 74-i e4,4e4t. ,�,�� Z7,,A V. `- /3 l r !� � c)(ra41 ,-e pr eaont ( X63z 3/3S" f77t a a„..,...e, q ,, z i -rsrf7 (igiq (._ le ....E. bit___e AealEzifi:1632, Y I WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE GREENS" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAMEiit ' ADDRESS Alc.“ A ,i-,05_7-3,,,, Z 0_.e5 , 67t) 9SO& ( i - a--/-7 ---N ...,„ . 9c--f-- / . -, ' . 2-t. ac_,-„„e--, i i Ni. 1,21/z..5- kfx i52,E/' ya/® 7,t1'i,e/7,e4-� 2e, C',e,f4e. ty • I WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE GREENS" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAME ADDRESS t AQ( ?O � ,. , /� WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE GREENS" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAME ADDRESS LJ.L -• C-B�`,,'L.^--0- 3 //1 ayvit, G 'w& C.,,t,itt-) .r.,, 11, j/ I 2a/D , r j14 , ja074.4.,e___ , f� ,. /(07 1.h. ) i / 4i ii 310 --) 6,,,,,,Liz, °,.7_4_,_„.," i , / 3/2' / / / CfilA741 . /3/1a.te.4 X alLeZe...Cr> _?1,17D , i ,61...,.• ,/etALI-4.0--(— t., ,,, ilr :- . I., ._ t:' ' ' - — - I • ilt tt-e-' i - 1 : µ it ciiiiiiiii/64 WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAME ADDRESS . "o 1 t'-► J - fib` o 51 N CizC Attaav 3400 w. 767A. fir i 1111 c:,,t,ii*s - WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "THE ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. Ili NAME ADDRESS fr iOrT/E 7 EL6Nel 97.2E 6/25,=,J-pr- 4 32-0 rzi, Zr ., lai Tom' 4 4" .4 tL w _ .2>v , j9 — - _ 3.9>, am Li- J - , -7 - H. /4,.///i. J17 ,/4��i 1-.,./ # �/ ' 1 d' / a;,ii.,d 1 ' -_.;"1-1 " �� _ / . ..-,.e ...._./ &Ile- /j I--t&Lyt-, •_/ ' r4 ) / / L C :i / - , /t55",4. . �:: I4 f6Fe (151Je s ___Ze5 'ege01------- 10505- 1-64.e .25 giv -- F e } t ,-'max,. C WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS wLINK,SIDE' ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING TWIN LAKE GOLF CLUB. NAME ADDRESS wi4 ;ao u c ( _77 z 75iC - 0 ,)777-- .� _ E WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "LINKSIDE" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING THE TWIN LAKES GOLF CLUB. (PLANNING COMMINSSION DOCKET NO. 5-94-PP) NAME ADDRESS Wil. A 1 -�� i/��'� / '5 ,)'S' 0i /J t .LL/", / / 14 C,l ,si ;1r (-lint, az Cr.i:l .10.- ss,; Ro.LkDr, Land 1 ni I l c..," 4 WctL:.c Las:-A-4-1, /03 ? f .r ti )CFLt-s.411 ,G, Li. . . z;(.1 r. t1.(- -e,,.:.. /Q 5— l.o.n . �za u-t e; .J , 1 - 1 ,ti.„, 37•it: Ptle,7J EfL/LAC4 (!ild4 r ri: `'-c.,•-,,c,_ '' iY�-, 3 -7 l r .\ , ` j t C ( . ,re I i \, J /LWJCL*'I �L%t-z/ 3"J to S ee,sci-.'ra LA. G E clt n"--t �--_ .24.. Q14 ..- ^� inc../A-) ` r� �1 379c.: l (;)- iiv; ',If), .fin ,� .1 L •,'/ 4 ri r �.,! 1 /�rl i!a _Z "`ik L� t^7 - /�t��.�Y/�+{' / �l 'f .,...a.„ ,,G;�--e'^ \ " �'___� ' �1-:!' j 7 y7 / :---cam tiz .a r• ).- . ( c�., <.._„ i' `-3 / --� /rc ,,,,.-4,--,,/ ;51 _ ;r-t.u�^-'C-..r '�'r -:" 4/1 Xl/ 'w /),:i 1 ,�`.:V�1.'- � `.i,, _ ..«r-'' -/i^ "2":)` WE OPPOSE THE CLUSTER HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSED AS "LINKSIDE" ON THE TRACT SURROUNDING THE TWIN LAKES GOLF CLUB. (PLANNING COMMINSSION DOCKET NO. 5-94-PP) NAME ADDRESS r i /' 0 s 1 :7 ( 6-La-- 1 M— ( wltiiJv �, h I u -.(11:,%,_ `,, ,.. 0T (A 3-77 q Ca coli, c/.1 ;t,r, L( 01, /-- 377, Ca' ,ci �►-v cz) -� v ,37 / C.."- t. iA ,as L7 R.y c_. ;l it‘i /l-01 4 37Cp) Car win r:O(\ O i, / /. ' .37 Lz_ C_Ac.L/;•7;o n 0 / #. ''.;4L-0 ..E-e- ___ :37Lia eart4);ik; iit, _ AL i, e , 3/30 CA..n. ..... ..- L.✓ 41"/(V/t.f? ♦ , 673 o Ca/lkl c, a / I I 3 s Z ca„,.. ,,,,,.,,,. A),, 3 732— 412C__A-72,,,/c t r.4 4)' . /01, O - 1L vi-- L t' J1:4271,-.4 - -PJ-- .--j 7 57 6...444,--4-2--v7,--e...-",__ <\\--_",._) ? ,--, • (c -tom. t :\--,L.4-,-; Lit ki /y.s,_/ 1 7e 1j),j, i{i ( i L1-1 I Ls :.ilk i_ I CZ11--- I .1V.1.1,r,L I ,,_ --.7-".k--'1. -)------'_ �..�G�. 1--_a. k; '3'7 fit'(. Z‘_cYt, ,- ttc '<L 7 11- NAZ - J)L-i'17 741,A00_-->, v . / t ..1,,.L! - -- ( 1 );:: 1O); -- �.L --)-1•'C uC ._ .'�_ ,-3-7---) 3 (Cwt_L: `k -� i . _ L C X r '� ��-'•'• '---- /-- _t