HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #48 Paul & Penny ZalePaul and Penny Zale
7219 Delmont Dr.
Carmel, IN 46033
June 26, 2023
Joe Shestak
City of Carmel Plan Commission
Carmel City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Mr. Shestak and Carmel Plan Commission,
We are writing to express our concerns regarding Docket PZ-2022-00172. Please document this as
public record for the planning commission meeting scheduled June 29, 2023.
We have been Northeastern Carmel residents for over twenty years. We moved to the Overlook Legacy
neighborhood just over two years ago for its rural, nature, peaceful, spacious, low traffic area from our
previous home two miles away near Hazel Dell Parkway. The proposed PUD will jeopardize this natural
residential look and feel we desired when choosing this area and neighborhood to build. We believe
that many of our neighbors feel the same way.
We are against using the proposed site for Conner Prairie’s commercial development. The desire for
Conner Prairie to commercially develop the land by changing the zoning from residential to what is
outlined in the PUD brings no value to the residents of Northeast Carmel. We hope the planning
commission and city council take to heart what the residents of Carmel, in particular Northeast Carmel,
want and value in their neighborhood.
If the Carmel City Council and Planning Commission desire to go against what the resident’s of the
immediate area desire, we implore our elected officials to REQUIRE the following changes and
clarifications:
1. Zones:
a. Zones 1 and 2 should be divided into separate parcels with the line dividing each that
runs dues West to East from Cherry Creek Boulevard roundabout to the White River.
b. Zone 1 should be used for the commercial type of development, consistent with the
146th street commercial corridor.
c. Zone 2 to remain residential or designated as a park to preserve the natural look and
feel the residents of the area invested their hard-earned money by purchasing homes
here.
2. Power Generating Plant (Small Scale) – This needs to be further defined to understand the
impact on our residential community. No commercial use, only demonstration/educational
use.
a. Small-Scale Wind Generation – This will not be consistent with the look and feel of the
residential community, the turbine will be tall, obtrusive, and not consistent with why
residents chose this part of Carmel. No wind generation if any portion extends above
roof heights (revise to 30’).
b. Small Scale Solar – Provisions need to be made to assure the community that screening
or landscaping will be placed to shield the view for those West of River Road. No
commercial use, only demonstration/educational use.
c. Public Service or Public Utility Small Scale – Again no commercial use, only for
demonstration/educational use.
d. Ideally, power generation would be subject to approval by the planning commission
once details are known.
3. Permitted Uses:
a. A clearer statement on the Professional office use being substituted by the hotel.
b. Eco-Lodging (hotel) should not be permitted in Zone 2 as this is too deep into the
residential area of the surrounding neighborhoods.
c. We question the allowance of more retail space in this corridor and how it competes
with the commercial retail space along 146th Street.
d. Overall, we believe the Planning Commission and City Council must evaluate all the
commercial uses planned in the PUD and if these benefit the City of Carmel and the
Northeast residents who live here that will be negatively affected the most.
4. Maximum Building Heights – Zone 2 should be excluded from the PUD as stated above and
Zone 1 needs to be more in line with the surrounding residential area of approximately 30’ or
lower.
5. Open Space Plan – 85% sounds wonderful, but please further define how this is measured and
how it will be adhered to in perpetuity.
6. Sub-dividing and waivers – Need to be removed from the PUD as there would be unknown or
unanticipated impacts to the residence of the area. THIS is CRITICAL. If not removed, maybe
add language preventing sale or other use by entities beyond Conner Prairie?
7. Lighting – This will need further review:
a. 3-foot candles seem excessive at night
b. Define process for the ability to raise to 6-foot candles for safety (need to define as
there are no safety concerns today).
c. Finally, no light fixtures pole or otherwise should be taller than 15’.
8. Traffic:
a. River Road is two lanes and not capable of handling the traffic this would create,
especially around Prairie Trace Elementary during the school year.
b. Moving the development to Zone 1 would help with this issue.
c. Widening River Road to the North is more achievable if needed.
d. Limiting the curb cuts to only 1 at Cherry Creek Boulevard would also alleviate traffic
around the school.
e. No Symphony on the Prairie overflow parking allowed this needs to be reflected in the
PUD.
f. Assurances in writing to control any event traffic on the west side of the river to not
impede normal traffic patterns on River Road, Cherry Creek Boulevard, or Community
Drive, in particular outside of standard 8a – 5p business hours.
9. Roofing Materials – TPO, highly suggest this is not allowed, it will not convey the feel of
“Contemporary Prairie Style Architecture”.
10. Suggestions – Use the flood plain for parking or structures on stilts to use the land more
efficiently to keep Zone 2 more park like and residential.
We ask the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate what is of value to their constituents in
this area and work to ensure that any potential development takes place with the community’s desires
represented and fulfilled by those we elect.
Sincerely,
Paul and Penny Zale