HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #24 from Kevin Ball
From:Chavez, Nathan
To:Chavez, Nathan
Subject:FW: Westbridge District PUD- Letter #24
Date:Monday, October 01, 2018 10:19:08 AM
Attachments:Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan.pdf
Areas Excluded From Zone Classification Map.pdf
Letter #24
18010004 Z
West Bridge PUD
From: Kevin Ball \[mailto:planwithkevin@gmail.com\]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 11:57 PM
To: Lopez, Alexia K
Cc: bshen@indy.rr.com; ohunt@cas-indiana.com; britthutchison@gmail.com; Tom@solupay.com;
sarahwmalito@gmail.com
Subject: Westbridge District PUD
Towhomitmayconcern:
Theboardhasbeencc'onthisemail.
First,pleaseallowmetointroducemyself.IamKevinBallandhavespentmycareerin
finance.IcertainlyhavenoissuewiththedeveloperasIhavenevermethimanddonot
opposethefactheismakingalivingandlikelydoesqualitywork.Ihaveamuch
larger concernwiththeissuesIwillbrieflydiscussbelowandthesuspectrepresentationof
Mr.TomBehringerhaduponourcommunitywhomrepresentedhimselfasPresidentofour
associationinthefirstmeetingwithCarmelandnevermentionedawordtothecommunityat
largeuntilafewdaysbeforethefirstmeeting,includinghisboard.Forthatweareignorant.I
amcertainwecancometoakindresolution,yetthefacthasbeenexposedbythewordsof
Mr.Behringerthatbringsmeandmanyresidentsconcern.Mr.Behringerhasbeenin
discussion,accordingtohisrecollection,foroverayearpriortoJuneofthisyear.
Unfortunately,wejustbecomeawareofthesame.Therefore,Iaskforgivenessforour
ignorancetotheprocessandtothissubmissionbeforethedeadlinetomorrow.Giventhe
currentpoliticalenvironment,pleaseunderstandthisisnotintendedtoinvokeanylastmin
dropsonyou.WecareaboutCarmelwithoutregardtopoliticalaffiliation.
WedohaveanassociationmeetingscheduledforOctober4th,yetthathappenstobe2days
afteryoumeet.ForthatIamsorry.ThisisthefirstsinceourlastoneinJanuaryandallowed
fortheproper2weeksnoticeaccordingtotheboard.
So,forsomeoftheissueswehaveconcernwithaftertalkingwithmanyconcernedresidents.
IamcertainIwillnotaddressthemallnordoItakeoppositiontoaqualitydevelopmentofthe
propertyinquestionwithareputabledeveloperwhichIsuspectMr.Greenandthecorporation
wouldbe.Itakequestionwiththeactualdevelopmentproposed.I,also,don'ttake issuewith
thecurrentownersastheyaregoodpeople.
First,wehavedrainageissues.Itakethewordsofdeveloper:
"We will likely pursue developing the site with the majority of the legal drain remaining as an
open ditch and relocating the ditch to allow for lesser easement widths where allowable". I will
attach a photo that will allow the City Planning Commission to understand that we have an issue. I
understand the developer may have performed a very detailed drainage study and environmental
study (which I can not collaborate), yet mother nature has shown us what our cooperation in being
annexed into Carmel may have caused. Massive flooding adjacent to the proposed project has
existed in the last 40 days.
When you introduce a lot of cement, concrete or other barriers to drainage, you will have issues.
We find it very important that the Carmel Compressive Plan excluded our area in the last
comprehensive plan. The reason Carmel excluded us I can not explain, but the repercussions to
innocent citizens is measurable. What it clear is the intent of the planning council and that includes
properties adjacent. Yet, we were not included in such a study? I have attached the area not
included. For that, I will provide the following and ask for pause:
1.) We are zoned S2 and low intensity residential. Two other sides are zoned as S1, one as S2 along
with one as Employment node. This new project of high density residential on @ 6.75 Acres does
not fit to those promises. The city has not suggested such a development adjacent to the prominent
zoning classifications anywhere else in the community.
2.) From my understanding, we agreed to an employment node and regional vitality node to the
west of our development after we were annexed. We ended up allowing for such a development in
the best of Carmel. Yet, today we are faced with getting surrounded by zoning classifications that
we never agreed to? It is disturbing.
3.) The best fits as defined by City of Carmel Council will provide for best success. They include
Parks/Rec, Estate residential, Low intensity residential and suburban residential. See attached. High
density PUD is not included in any of the options including conditional fits except for one side of the
development.
4.) We have 36 townhomes with 100+ likely people/road ingress on less than 7 acres total that
include two small retention ponds next to commercial areas and no road egress being proposed.
We have a 50 ft wide pipeline easement that doesn't allow for proper fencing to avoid trespassing or
the view that a 40 foot roofline will expose to potential buyers in the neighborhood as they wonder
down to look at our common area that includes a pool, tennis court and basketball court.
We have many adjacent properties along with our common property to the development that
includes a pool, tennis court and basketball court. The city of Carmel planning commission has done
a wonderful job and duty of considering the gradual zoning changes (s1 to s2 etc...), I have
confidence along with many concerned residents they will do the same here.
I genially appreciate your consideration and have confidence you will consider the issues/facts above
in making a recommendation to delay, at a minimum, or deny to allow the residents to voice the
thoughts and come to a reasonable conclusion with the developer. He has an option to purchase on
this property, he didn't buy it for a reason. I am certain he would be open to discussion with us as a
whole.
If we have flooding issues in Ashbrooke, homes selling under market value and trespassing, we are
placed in a damaged situation. The homes that sell in that section of our community will directly
impact all 119 residents. Carmel is not trying to heal themselves in one arm while poisoning
themselves in the other.
On behalf of concerned residents and respectively,
Molly and Kevin Ball
Ashbrooke