HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #30 fifth submission from Jill Meisenheimer/Dee Fox
Shestak, Joe
From:Shestak, Joe
Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2019 12:10 PM
To:Shestak, Joe
Subject:FW: For Plan Commissioners: 1/15/19 meetings (West Bridge PUD)
Letter #30 fifth submission from Jill Meisenheimer/Dee Fox
From: Dee Fox \[mailto:dasfox2009@gmail.com\]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Shestak, Joe
Subject: For Plan Commissioners: 1/15/19 meeting (West Bridge PUD)
Date: 1/10/19
To: Plan Commissioners
From: Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox
RE: Plan Commission on 1/15/19:
West Bridge PUD Rezone, Docket No. 18010004 Z
Hello Commissioners,
The below comments are made without knowing what the up-to-date Department Reports on these two proposals will
say, since those reports always come out after the public email deadline.
West Bridge PUD Rezone:
1) We expect that this proposal will be approved at the 1/15/19 meeting, more or less "as is". So, we ask the
Committee to at least address the following before sending this on for the full vote:
a. Preliminary Natural Resource Assessment from Packet for 1/15/19 (TAB 6):
* This recent report by V3 Companies contains information that this site is within the range of the federally
endangered Indiana bat and threatened northern long-eared bat. "V3 noted that several potential bat habitat trees were
observed on-SITE…"
Our Request: Please ensure in writing and by site supervision that these trees are not removed, and that this bat
habitat is protected.
(Note from Dee: When I moved to SW Carmel 20 years ago, seeing groups of bats above our neighborhood in the
evenings was a common sight. For many years now, I have seen very few bats in or near our neighborhood. Carmel
has sacrificed a lot of mature trees to development, and needs to do better.)
* The report also says that the site contains two small wetlands, Crooked Creek, and a tributary. "Any impacts to
these features will require permitting through the IDEM and USACE."
Our Request: The City and developer should try to protect these wetlands and waterways, rather than just seeking
permits to go ahead with the potential development impacts on those natural features.
b. The Two Single-Family Lots of Roughly Two and Three Acres:
Our Request: Please ensure in writing in this Ordinance that neither of those properties can be subdivided in the
future.
(If no intent for subdividing, then what is the purpose for including the PUD Ordinance Section 4.1.B. that says for
the Detached Single-Family Area, "Minimum Lot Area: one acre"?)
c. The Three-Story Townhouses:
1
Our Request: Change the PUD Ordinance Section 4.2.K. that says "Minimum Height: Three stories", so that it says
"Maximum" instead. No sense leaving a loophole for those townhouses to get even taller.
2) The West Bridge proposal and process have been very frustrating and discouraging in far too many ways to
enumerate here, but we would like Commissioners to be aware of our top three picks:
* This property could easily have been developed as zoned, but instead, established homeowners' lives will be
affected by a rezone development that does not fit the zoning, Comp Plan intent, or surroundings that they
trusted. Again. Development here has become all about money, and trading away this area's unique standards and
character in order for the City to get its desired architecture enhancements and increased density/tax revenue.
* Inserting the intensity of 41 three-story townhouses in this location is not a "transition" and is not necessary or
justified. However, nothing the adjacent neighbors, area residents, or even the Commissioner that lives in the area
said in that regard made any difference at all. Again.
(When neighbors asked, the developer would not even reduce the townhouse height to two stories. He already had an
agreement with a builder that only builds three-story townhouses, before even having an approval for a rezone and
this development plan. This shows just how sure developers are that the City is going to approve their proposals for
significantly increased intensity, in spite of opposition from area residents.)
* The plans for this development have been allowed to keep changing in major ways over the past year, mostly
behind the scenes and out of the public eye. The plan that the public was allowed to speak about 7 months ago at the
only public hearing (6/19/18) is very different from the plan that is likely going to be approved. We believe that this
proposal should have been dismissed until all the necessary homework was done and a mostly final plan, in need of
only minor adjustments, was ready for submittal for the approval process. At the very least, there should have been
another public hearing for such a significantly changed proposal. This is a new twist in the process, that we certainly
don't want to see join the "Again" list.
Sincerely,
Jill H. Meisenheimer and Dee Fox
2