HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #35 Jill Meisenheimer & Dee Fox Shestak, Joe
From: Shestak,Joe
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Shestak,Joe
Subject: FW: Proposals for 12/4/18 PC Committee meetings, and others.
Letter#35 for Docket No. 18100001 PUD
From: Dee Fox [mailto: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.
2. 106th & Ditch PUD Rezone (Docket No. 18100001 PUD):
* At last count, there were 33 letters from the public in the Laser fiche file, all opposed to this proposal. Topics
listed in order of greatest concern first: increased density, decreased property values, poor fit for the area, maintain
zoning, unwanted connection to Crooked Stick Lane, traffic, safety, save trees, water drainage, creek/wildlife,
walking path is behind house, schools.
* If compatible density and lot size don't matter, then why does zoning exist? The City could increase the
current buffer requirements, and adopt residential architectural standards, so that rezones would not be needed in
order to get those basics. Protective zoning and area compatibility should not be trade-bait for anything, and
especially not for basic acceptable architecture.
* A developer bet Dee a cup of coffee that there was no way this proposal would be approved for that
location.
i
* Large houses on small lots do not fit the claim of being for those who want to downsize: Minimum 3000 sf
homes, excluding mandatory full basement and 3-car garage, on 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots which would still require yard
maintenance.
* At the hearing, the petitioner said that proposing the stub street to the adjacent NE estate property was because of
the expectation that it would be similarly subdivided. Approval of this proposal could lead to such a domino effect,
which would ruin the character of this unique area. This is the wrong location for this proposal, or for any proposal
on less than 1 acre lots.
* Do Carmel officials believe that developments routinely being built to just the required minimum standards (or
less) constitutes "quality" development? Allowing only 10'between houses in this estate area is especially out-of-
line.
* This development has no amenities. (If a perimeter trail is claimed to be an amenity,then so is a street or a
sidewalk.) The open space is minimal, and is all located around the perimeter,with none interior to the
development. This proposal is truly unremarkable. It does not merit a rezone to a PUD.
* The height limit for all residential zones S-1 through R-5 is 35 feet. Why is the petitioner seeking to raise that to
45 feet for this development that is supposedly for downsizers? Did we miss an Ordinance section requiring
mandatory"widow's walks" on each house?
Thank you,
Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox
2