HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #12 Dee Fox Letter#12
From: Dee Fox
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 7:54 AM
To: Shestak, Joe
Subject: Docket No. 18100001 PUD: 106th and Ditch PUD Rezone.
To Plan Commissioners,
I am strongly opposed to this rezone proposal,and ask you to vote against it. This site is in the heart of
the lowest density area of true estate lots in Carmel,and this proposed development does not fit in with
the surroundings. The rezone is not necessary,and this proposal does not meet the Decision Criteria for a
PUD. The proposal also does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan intent for this area.
This PUD rezone proposal for an increase in density to 1.6 u/a,and large houses on small lots would be a
poor fit with the existing area:
This property is totally surrounded by the lowest density, S-1 zoned estate properties in Carmel. The
adjacent large-lot subdivision densities range from about 0.2 u/a to about 0.6 u/a,with many multi-acre
estate properties closeby,and these densities are significantly less than the maximum S-1 zoned density of
1.0 u/a. The subject site could easily be developed according to its S-1 zoning,which at the maximum S-
1 density,would allow about 22 homes. Even this would still be much smaller lots and higher density
than the surroundings. There is no hardship on this property that would require a rezone.
This proposal does not meet the Decision Criteria for a PUD: (As you know,rezones to PUDs have been
commonly misused as a way to override the base zoning in order to allow higher density and smaller lots
in exchange for basic architectural improvements. Please don't allow this to continue.)
a. This proposal does not provide a mixed-use development,and there are no unusual site conditions or
surroundings to be addressed.
b. It does not meet the Comprehensive Plan Objectives specific to West Carmel and the Estate
Residential classification equivalent for S-1 zoning. (See details below)
c. It does not fulfill the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance for S-l/Residential zoning.
d. It does not fit the surroundings'current conditions and character. Only the residential use is
comparable to the surroundings, and that should be required and expected.
e. The most desirable use for which the land in this district is adapted has been established by the lowest
density S-1 Residential zoning and the existing,widespread area of large-lot and multi-acre estate
property development. Desire for increased financial gain should not enter into this determination.
f. Conservation of property values is accomplished by compatible,best-fit, S-1 development in this
area. Existing property values will not be helped by inserting denser development on smaller lots into an
area that is nothing like that.
g. Responsible development and growth is totally subjective, and therefore is not really a useful
criteria. Carmel government seems to now consider responsible development and growth to be rezones
for more lucrative intense,dense,commercial and mixed-use,urban-type development. In contrast,
existing single-family homeowners generally consider responsible development and growth to be
upholding the zoning they trusted to ensure low intensity,compatible,like-development near their homes.
This proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan intent for this area:
(You are aware that because SW Carmel wasn't annexed yet,it was not included in the Comp Plan Land
Classification Map even though it was zoned the same as, and would logically be classified in the Comp
Plan similarly to,NW Carmel. However,the Comp Plan page specific to West Carmel has always been
applied to all of West Carmel. The City has had 8 years since annexation,but has never made any effort
to include SW Cannel in the Land Classification Map. The DOCS has recently started using this
exclusion as justification for supporting more intense development proposals in SW Cannel,in spite of
the zoning, saying that the Comp Plan does not address this area. Can you help remedy this?)
The petitioner's statement of compliance with the Comp Plan contains little evidence,and parrots
common positions stated by the DOCS. It states that the Comp Plan does not address this area, since it is
excluded from the Land Classification Map! Also,that the proposed use is consistent with existing
neighboring uses,but the density of 1.6 u/a is greater than the S-1 standard of less than 1.0 unit/acre. The
Petitioner believes this "minor deviation"is acceptable due to enhanced architectural standards in the
PUD Ordinance. (Architecture in this area of SW Cannel is high quality,and prospective developers in
this area should be required to be capable of providing decent quality architecture without expecting to be
rewarded with large density increases,at the expense of the area residents.)
This proposal does not comply with the Comp Plan's:
* West Carmel Objective 1.1,to"Preserve the estate character of West Carmel by protecting large-lot
residential areas..."
* West Cannel Objective 2.1,to"Maintain and protect sub-areas in the City of Cannel for estate
character housing."
* Estate Residential Classification,
Purpose--"To establish and protect residential housing opportunities for people who desire a large
residential lot,enjoy secluded living,or prefer living integrally with nature,and who require minimal city
conveniences."
Density--less than 1.0 u/a.
Development Features--"The perception of substantial open space should exist from larger lots and
setbacks." (This proposal has smaller lots and setbacks,usually defended by the City as a way to create
more open space,but this proposal has only the minimum required amount of open space. There is no
usable Common Area internal to the development. It is just around the outer edges of the development.)
Development Standards:
* The 2 largest lots are about 3/4 acre. Most of the lots are between 1/3 and 1/2 acre. The Packet touts
the average lot size being above the S-1 minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.,but there are no examples anywhere
near that small in the surrounding area.
* Maximum lot coverage increased from 35%to 50%,with the minimum separation between houses
allowed to be only 10 feet.
This is very out of character for this area.
* If this development was in character with and compatible with its surroundings,the larger than usual
perimeter buffer yards would not be necessary.
Again,I urge you to turn down this proposal. It is an unnecessary rezone, a bad fit for the area,and
would likely lead to more of the same,doing harm to a very unique area. No amount of tweaking the
details would make much difference. It is the elephant in the room of the development plan itself that is
the problem.
Sincerely,
Dee Fox