Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #05 Erin Lindner Uber Shestak, Joe From: Shestak, Joe Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 5:50 PM To: Shestak, Joe Subject: FW: Property at 136 and Keystrone Letter#05 From: Lopez, Alexia K Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 5:40 PM To: Shestak, Joe Subject: FW: Property at 136 and Keystrone Here is another one. From: erin [mailto:efunk74©hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 5:18 PM To: Lopez, Alexia K Cc: Matthew Uber; carmel59acres Subject: Re: Property at 136 and Keystrone Dear Alexia, It has come to my attention that my letter, dated 10/13/18, is not on file. We were not made aware that it needed to be filed directly with you. I am including my original thoughts in the email below, however also updated the email to reflect current opinion. I would like to note that I did not receive any response from my correspondence in October. Thank you for your help in including my thoughts in your records. With Regard, Erin Uber Dear Carmel Commission Members: My husband, Matt, and I live at 3179 Driftwood Court. Our property directly faces the historic Hull property to our West as well as borders the adjacent "59 acres" currently discussed for development. When purchasing our home in 2010, we researched the zoning and possible uses for the adjoining acreage, as we were aware that at some point in the future, it would be desirable for development. In the meantime, we enjoyed the woods, foliage, and wildlife literally out our kitchen window. Our concern was heard as we joined our neighbors and community in protecting our home values and general integrity of the more "established" East Carmel "vibe", as we remonstrated against what was in our opinion, an inferior quality and plan of Beazer's proposed development last year. While we understand that ultimately their petition was withdrawn, we were proud in, and had confidence that, the city council as a whole (and residential planning committee) heard our concern and validated our efforts. As we continue progressing through this process, we are aware that, perhaps, the "R1" zoning that we were "hanging our hat on" 8 years ago, as we forecasted future neighbors, may not be as "iron clad" in demanding quality and building integrity as we had hoped. We understand that, perhaps, consideration of alternative zoning might possibly result in a higher quality, better regulated product in the end. We understand that, "this pass through" Old Town is offering a much different quality product in the neighborhood/single family dwelling section of the plan that has not previously been presented for this property. However, several points do continue to worry and resonate with my family and my "neighborhood family" as we continue through this process. 1. Matt and/or I have been to all but one planning /city council meeting over the course of the past 18 months while this parcel has been discussed. We are aware that the city is unconcerned with the effect density in this area will have on traffic. HOWEVER daily we have "real time" grievances on the amount of time (and amount of cars) we "battle" to work, school, etc. Too, it is important to remember that as Carmel forecasted development at the corner of 136 and Keystone both (currently underdeveloped) parcels were zoned as "R1", limiting potential density impact to city infrastructure. We have been advised that a transition from R-1 zoning to the proposed high density development would result in at least twice a many vehicles for that area. 2. We purchased our home with the expectation that at some point we MAY have several neighbors in our immediate side/back yard. It is a big stretch to then accept multi family homes offering dozens (or more) neighbors and unsightly huge structure "footprints" in our backyard. 3. Should the council, despite community concern, grant OldTown a change of zoning to a PUD it is CRUCIAL that it is as ironclad and detailed as possible to protect our current understanding (and understanding at time of purchase) of our properties. To date, Old Town as been respectful and receptive to our insight and partnership to "move this forward", however do understand that Mr. Moffett is working for the best benefit of his development. We ask that firm "barriers" of development on the North and East sides be defined in the PUD. We request reasonable, conservative and specific (35height restrictions that protect the "line of sight" view from many of our backyards. In the current renderings, the condo units, are for the most part, distanced from the neighboring communities which is appreciated, however we still have strong concerns regarding these units in mass, height and general number of units Previous plans indicated total height of 35 feet while updated renderings show 45 feet. Given that the single family homes will be adjacent to large, established lots, we request adequately sized lots as well. 4. Several council members have advised or "hinted" at a "worst case scenario" if, as collective neighbors, we continue to remonstrate/voice our concerns regarding development of this parcel As a collective group, can you share just what that may look like, as we struggle to understand how encouraging a reduction of land price (through the power fair market economics) won't make that land MORE viable for single family dwellings? Matt and I are believers in the integrity of public service (and our representation in you as such) as well as the power of a free market. While we certainly do not want to minimize Justin Moffitt's willingness to dialog with us, and offer an amazing single family dwelling, the bottom line is we do not know many of the aspects of the proposed multi family product, specifically the size, height, and scale of the condo product. Too, we have concerns regarding the marketability of this type of product in a "non-walkable" location, offering minimal community amenities, in a subpar, Keystone location at a premium price. While we understand that the city of Carmel may be in favor of multi home options for our empty nest population, we struggle to see, realistically, how this product would be desirable to the current Carmel retiree in a ranch in Mohawk Crossing or Woodland Springs, price, size and location and amenity considerations. We struggle to understand whom this size and price point will appeal to when neighboring communities offer similar products with either more varied amenities or a more desirable price. Too, we understand that within our OWN community there are several condo projects (with superior location) forecasted for the area. While a rebuttal of these questions may be that we do not have any evidence that such developments will not be desirable. I strongly contend that there is no evidence that such a development WILL be successful in the proposed location. Neither side is sure but we ,the adjacent neighbors bear significant risk, and that seems to be tied to providing the current land owners with a selling price the current zoning cannot support. We come back to ask the question,"Is this the best option for us?" as we consider potential future neighbors. And then, "Is this the best option for TODAY as we are being presented with multifamily products in our RESIDENTIAL backyards -a necessity because a builder must utilize that density to make "good" on the land price and infrastructure of the development. It Has the City of Carmel considered financial participation in the round-about development (in hopes to eliminate the financial necessity for the condo product in entirity? 2 At the end, we are not "anti change-, or "anti-development". However we are wholeheartedly " pro quality, single family residential" -or as close as we can get...neighbors we anticipated sharing our backyards with many years ago. Respectfully submitted, Erin Lindner Uber From: erin <efunk74@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 7:36 PM To: swestermeier@carmel.in.gov; bgrabow@carmel.in.gov; apotasnik@carmel.in.gov;jadams@carmel.in.gov; mcasati@carmel.in.gov;jkirsh@carmel.in.gov; tkegley@carmel.in.gov; Icampbell@carmel.in.gov; nkestner@carmel.in.gov Cc: Matthew Uber; carmel59acres Subject: Property at 136 and Keystrone COPS( �COpY Dear Carmel Plan Commission Members, My husband, Matt, and I live at 3179 Driftwood Court. Our property directly faces the historic Hull property to our West as well as borders the adjacent "59 acres" currently discussed for development. When purchasing our home in 2010, we researched the zoning and possible uses for adjoining acreage, as we were aware that at some point in the future, it would be desirable for deve pm In the meantime, we enjoyed the woods, foliage, and wildlife literally outt_c?ur kitchen window. CO Our concern was heard as we joined our neighbors and"community in protecting our home values and general integrity of the more "established" East Carmel "vibe", as we remonstrated against what was in our opinion, an inferior quality and plan of Beazer's proposed development last year. While we understand that ultimately their petition was withdrawn, we wer- • sud in,and had confiden - hat, the city council as a whole (and residential planning committee) heard Gurr • ern and validated -Crr e� . s. As we continue progressing through this process, - . aware that, perhaps, e "4'1" zoning that we were "hanging our hat on" 8 years ago, as we forecasted future neighbors, may not be as "iron clad" in demanding quality and building integrity as we had hoped. We understand that, perhaps consideration of alternative zoning might possibly result in a higher quality, better regulated product in the end. We understand that, "this pass through" Old Town is offering a much different quality product in the neighborhood/single family dwelling section of the plan that has not previously been presented for this property. However, several points do continue to worry and resonate with my roily nd my "neighborhood family" as we continue through trOs grpcess. COPY 1. Matt and/or I have been to all but one planning /city council meeting over the course of the past 18 months while this parcel has been discussed. We are aware that the city is unconcerned with the effect density in this area will have on traffic. HOWEVER daily we have "real time" grievances on the amount of time (and amount of cars) we "battle" to work, school, etc. Too, it is important to remember that as Carmel forecasted development at the corner of 136 and Ke stone both (currently underdeveloped) parcels were zoned as "R1", limiting potential density impact t• city i rastructure. COPY` 2. We purchased our home with the expectation i at . some point we MAY h several neighbors in our immediate side/back yard. It is a big stretch to then accept multi family homes offering dozens (or more) neighbors and unsightly huge structure "footprints" in our backyard. COI's( COPY 3