Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #28 fourth submission from Jill Meisenheimer/Dee Fox Shestak, Joe From: Shestak, Joe Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 12:21 PM To: Shestak, Joe Subject: FW: Proposals for 12/4/18 PC Committee meetings, and others. Letter#28 for Docket No. 18010004 Z From: Dee Fox [ma ilto:dasfox2009©gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 12:03 PM To: Shestak, Joe Subject: Proposals for 12/4/18 PC Committee meetings, and others. Hi Joe, Please distribute this email to all of the Plan Commissioners, ahead of the 12/4/18 Committee meetings. Thank you! Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox Date: November 29, 2018 To: Plan Commissioners, via Joe Shestak From: Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox Re: Proposals to be discussed at the 12/4/18 Committee meetings, and others. Hello Commissioners, This is not our usual email about facts that don't support a development proposal. However,we would hope that those facts would be important to making decisions about proposals. We have emailed those facts previously,regarding most of these proposals, especially about the Westbridge PUD Rezone and the 106th&Ditch PUD Rezone. These two rezone proposals are not supported by the facts, are poor fits for their location, and are strongly opposed by area neighbors. This has been true for so many development proposals, yet in our combined 20 years of trying to get the City to enforce our zoning and to preserve the character of West Carmel, we can only recall one time when an obviously misfit rezone proposal in West Carmel was denied. It is clear to us that what is being done to West Carmel has little to do with planning and zoning facts. So below, are some miscellaneous thoughts and questions that have come up in our discussions about the recent steady stream of poor-fit development proposals for this area. Residential Committee (12/4/18): 1. Westbridge PUD Rezone (Docket No. 18010004 Z): * Who thinks that it is good planning to have 2 multi-acre, single-family estate properties look out at 41 three-story townhouses, claimed to be a "transition" between those properties and a few well-buffered, one-story office buildings? If accepted, a true "transition" would then be needed between the large single-family properties and the townhouses. * The Plan Commission could,but has not been willing to,require a reduction in number or height of the inappropriate townhouses. After the last Committee meeting, neighbors asked the developer why those couldn't at least be a more compatible 2 stories. He replied that he had already signed an agreement with a builder who only builds 3-story townhouses, not 2-story. Why should this be relevant to Plan Commissioners or neighbors? The developer must have been pretty confident he would get what he wanted, since he did that long before even knowing if the rezone would be approved. The Plan Commission could and should require that those townhouses be reduced to 2 stories. 1 * If they remain 3 stories,they should be reduced in number with more separation between buildings. Given the stated target demographic of empty nesters, they should also be required to have elevators and Universal Design options. * All of the above points are far more important and significant to the neighbors and buyers than "more brick". * Assuming buyers could be found for the 2 estate properties who want a view of a large mass of townhouses (3 stories can't be landscape buffered away), what will prevent those estate properties from later being divided up into small parcels? We hope that you will think about the issues raised above. Thank you, Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox Email secured by Check Point 2