Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrance letters . . October 25, 2006 Dear Planning Commission, I know you will be reviewing the Clay Estates Proposal. There are two additional issues that need to be addressed along with all the others that we have brought to your attention. The developer's are trying to not follow the S2 setbacks for backyards. In their detail drawings for Lot 2 and 4 they are trying to treat the backyard as a side yard. By the definitions given in chapter 3 of "Frontage, Building", Frontage, Property" and "Yard, Front", the areas on the east and west side of the proposed properties are backyards and need to have at least setbacks of 20 feet. In their picture the setback isn't even quite 10 feet. Of course, this gives them less building area and gives even more reason why they should not be trying to squeeze three lots back along the southern part of the property. Also, if they are going to give 30 feet of tree preservation to the south end of the proposed building area, I as the owner directly behind lot #2 am requesting the same tree preservation area. I also would propose that within this 30 foot tree preservation area that the entire area is filled in with trees to act as a buffer between the neighborhoods. I have enclosed a revised landplot where I have put in red where the 20 foot setback should be and in black where the 30 foot tree preservation area would be for the east and west side. I am concerned about these developers trying to sell these lots incorrectly to buyers and ultimately affecting my property so that they can make a quick buck. The second issue is the drainage issue on the east side of the proposed building area that exists because of the addition with no gutters that was put on the S 1 property within 5 feet of the east property line after the Bayhill properties were completed. When the Bayhill properties were completed they had correct drainage at that time. I have enclosed pictures to show the current issue that occurs between our house and the one to the north of us because of this addition. The pool of water that you see is to the north of the lot behind the proposed lot #2. To go and build a custom house with higher pitched roofs is only going to add to this drainage problem. Even after the street is dry the area out in front our house and the one to the north of us continues to drain because of this drainage issue. It also has our sump pump going constantly when it rains. Nothing should be approved for these developers until they are going to present accurate and detailed information for the current homeowners of Bayhill and any existing drainage problems rectified before even considering any lot development. Thanky ou. . ~. " ,n\ / ~~~ ' '6 Maureen Mahoney 12562 Spring Violet Place Carmel, IN 46033 ~;Z~A,~ I v v I ~/ , / '4 L':.:~::.:'-.J e 126 If-) SHeet N 89'39'53" ~ ~.- 195.16' o I I 4 -N- I 50 100 I TREE CONSERVATION 25 GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 50' L51 0:::. <( i---~I N g. ~~I b eg. 20' ~I~I I~I I~I I I I N 89'39'53" E_J I -+OO:-ef)" - . I ~('"Z" v.I,.,.. ~ I ,/ h';l^x~ N 90'00'00" E I r,,;> V )<. , :~:' (;\1/" 133.83' I b I' z l(_~. --.., >/1 "/'0.'7 "..,.-..., 'V'~ l;~ ,r"J. 0 ~tC' ,/ Y ,~ - /' /, ^ ^ /, /'0 / /'<11 ; ~ ~; (, )<), ~~1:J '1/ t><~v,~V~\(j,:"',~,<-, >~ L5\ (J) ! o:::lfi;, '1.>-".)\ , ~6' ~~Y:)<^)/'.c.^<x!>'~ ~ i ~ ~~ /\1 Y '),/\ '-'J 0'0 70'-~J-' v< X X/')" ......1"< )~il . w' .\( 'X y. '< y, · & ~br. ~~ Vy^>/ x '< 1.( .-d. z ! 8:1 ~b >-- 'f.~'<'yyV>::;.) /;//2' ,ij<:'^S~" 'K<).;<./~<'1 (' >~I 2<( , ., "'1 ^ y ')( ^ Cb I' v <" J', r>t1 v y >" xl < ~;. ; W '1,-< "" " x '< x >' "1- ' ~ '" "')'1 ~,<x /, '< ~ _ ',^, > I ~I~: ~:I":S<Y>0~ i ~('X;<>(Y~~>)4 ~<y~~>)>< ,~~ ~I ~ WI f".( 'A[hJ';# '.4 :v, ~ i ~ x X X .c. ), )<0 W ~<\/ y ,( ,/ ~::3,' 0::: =' I,*, '23[r,331'<,SF>/\~ I ?"<)'LOT'U )<3(\/1 = (<y,).:OT~#< >\ >~Io... gl~ ~<' ~> ('-":>,~x>~<)<1 [>)\>15:420('~F""~ g :q. t X'1P;~~5<Y.tJ< >~.H::J - -1/ "X/'>"x'<)w/ '-<.>/xx>'>")O~~<>'Y'/"'x'>~IO::: ~l::t, f'X '>( ( J<. ~< >(/~ = I_ (<,<"l()<)\<)(),>,)~ P ~ r,<,)\D~<f'DE .~N rf@ '11 EL 8iN1b-v ><" /X'<>( xJJ5 [;; r<';--, X >~,,'<>;<v)<'" 0 ~ Cp,~,~./l>. .-.:..J. I ' l.^ ), v';: J<. < 10 . ?' ^ l( ^ '" /~ z L<'-'-;~-"'.\l.J 301;;:-r (/)1 r"" y' /'" Y >/ x 01" ~='"'=="=~~-.c..2.'-J __-.---~. -, \'0 ~ 1..J'l .', ^ / ~ 'y '" '''.:I' 1")--- --- --1 _-.' 1), '. ---r '/ \, " I l~\; v^' " ~c.,~~~.--oJ::>------------__,:-------:._-c. ~ ~ I 7'-::J\ Q" t s.~e... j \/3.'~ -~------- -----2' ~ __----.-----" ...::.. -. -- '_ c-.---_---.-- \ \. \ 'J"'- i ~ !S~~~~::+~~~ATIO~,~ ~~;::\t{- i . ~E 296.66 l~-- N 83'42'56 (LfL\,'l...A6 e~~r(.. ~~~vh-) .. LEGEND B'JILDABLE AREA ..... t-- t-- N t'1 LOT # 1 51880 SF TREl: PRESERVATION LINt MAKE PROVISIONS TO CONStRVE N t'1 (() o LO w ~ )6:r-.\- . ~Q~~ u..v~ Sr<. -\ \\Q.~l D-S ~" 'S).. b.;.'\.....'(\~_ , ArcI3-"~.-\- -==-- ~""" \dQ~\l {. '= Cannel Plan Commission Cannel Department of Community Services One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Dear Planning Committee, After reviewing the proposed plat of Clay Estates (126th street), the dry extended detention pond raises numerous concerns to current property owners in the adjacent Waterstone subdivision. Upon thorough research of the Dry detention pond, we found that the pond is ill advised for ultra urban development. During the last Bayhill homeowner's meeting, dry detention ponds display numerous limitations such as: - Ponds may become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding in an urban setting. - Habitat and vegetation destruction may occur during construction. - While wet ponds can increase property value, dry ponds can actually detract from the value of a home. - Extended detention ponds have only moderate pollutant removal capabilities when compared to other structural storm water practices, and are ineffective at removing soluble pollutants. - Maintenance and subsequent care of the pond is extensive. Areas such as, erosion, embankment structures, vegetation perimeter buffer, debris removal, seed/sod, sediment formations removal and, etc., require extensive maintenance activities. As homeowner's, we request that Clay Estates (Stein Investment Group) provide an alternative storm drainage collection solution to their proposal. We anticipate this proposal being presented to the planning commission and homeowner's prior to the public hearing meeting scheduled for September 19 at 6:00 p.m. We also request that each waiver be reviewed for the safety of our children and the protection of the current homeowners at the perimeter of the proposed property . We believe that Cannel will follow its strict guidelines in the development of this property. ~o./ . ~ ~~ 'C'~. ~ ~k Vicki Ingall 12558 Spring Violet Place Bayhill t RECEIVED SEP 27 2006 DOCS TERRIE COLE 4 i L19 \^iY'ISTOnG Way Cmmel. ii',] 46033 ;31 lJ 815-9796 September 19, 2006 Carmel Plan Commission RE: Docket number 06080007 PP: Clay Estates Dear Plan Commission Members, As a member of the Bayhill community which envelopes this property, I am writing to request that you consider certain aspects of this proposal for potential safety concerns and concern in maintaining consistent development within this area of the city. First. I respectfully request that you contemplate the request for waiver of internal sidewalks in the community. I want to make you cognizant of the fact that many children, in the past and presently, have used/use this property as a shortcut to and from the Bayhill neighborhood and the school. The new development will undoubtedly encourage such use. This situation might be remedied by requiring the developer to create a natural barrier to the new development. Also, please consider the fact that any middle school age children living in this development will need a route to walk to and from the school daily because they will live too close to school for bus pick up. Students will walk in the street to avoid wet shoes and pants if there is no sidewalk available to them. They often gather in a crowd to go places and students of this age are not always aware of their surroundings (the fact that they are walking in a street) and the dangers present. Secondly, I have a concern about the location of the property and the proposed drive. As I frequently travel this road, I am aware that the property sits at the rise of a hill and that traffic coming in either direction can be quiet congested at times. I request that the plan commission ascertain the best location for the entry to this proposed development and consider who many homes should be allowed in this area. Finally, as a homeowner in Carmel, I believe that the plan commission has a duty to maintain the beauty of the city. I ask you to be instrumental in this duty by holding the developer to standards of construction that meet or exceed the surrounding developments and by having the developer replace mature trees that will be destroyed during construction. Thank you very much for your service in this capacity. Sincerely, ,(/~ d ~ Terrie 1. Cole September 19, 2006 Carmel Plan Commission One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Proposed Clay Estates Docket Nos. 06080007PP, 06080008SW, 06080023SW, 06080024SW --- - Dear Plan Commission, We will be unable to attend the meeting on September 19. As residents of Bayhill for nearly 13 years, we are concerned for the neighbors bordering this proposed subdivision. We will have a partial view of these future homes. We would request this new subdivision to construct a cohesive, privacy fence along all Bayhill properties. Our neighborhood will have additional foot traffic from children and adults crossing into our neighbor's properties. This poses a concern for myself and others around me. At a minimum, we ask this developer to construct a privacy fence surrounding Clay Estates. I am also concerned with drainage and potential harm to surrounding properties. Carmel has high standards and I hope you will take special consideration in this proposed subdivision with regard to drainage, buffer requirements and proposed waivers. Sincerely, C-1~-~1;\..._ C:A'Li1CCU-----t/''{l Madan and Tan Chatterji 12432 Pebblepointe Pass Carmel, IN 46033 September 19,2006 Mary Dawn and John Krege 12443 Pebblepointe Pass Carmel, IN 46033 To The Carmel Planning Committee and Carmel Transportation Concerning: Traffic at Clay Middle School Entrance (east entrance) I am a concerned parent of a Clay Middle School Student and a homeowner of Bay hill. I am concerned the traffic coming three ways and also the present foot traffic with students crossing over 126th Street to enter the east entrance has become very dangerous. There is also a proposed private drive also entering into the intersection. I am proposing that this intersection be considered for a 4 way stop or blinking lights of red and yellow for each North/South and East/West lane. A passing lane might also be considered. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Dawn and John Krege ),(~~j~ .~ .;;, 12421 Pebblepointe Pass Carmel IN 46033 14th September 2006 Ms Ramona Hancock, Secretary, City of Carmel Plan Commission, Carmel Department of Community Services, One Civic Square, Carmel IN 46032 Dear Ms Hancock Re:DocketNos.06080007PP,06080008SVV,06080023SVV,06080024SVV,and 06080025SVV - Tuesday 19th Hearing Because I shall be in Europe on business on Tuesday 19th September and therefore unable to attend the Public Hearing, I am writing to express my serious concerns in relation to applications (referenced above) for developing a section of land, referred to as 'Clay Estates' located on 126th Street opposite Clay Junior High School and bordered by 126th Street to the North and the Bayhill neighborhood to the South, East and West. I should be grateful if you would bring my concerns to the attention of the Carmel Plan Commission. Apparently the Developer concerned would have the intention of retaining an existing home, referred to as Lot 1 on drawings of this 2.84 acre lot, and building new homes within an approximately 1.5 acre section to the south. Because of the awkward shape of this area, accommodating 3 large homes (we are told a price range of $500,000 - $800,000) presents a challenge in order to meet zoning requirements. I suspect that in order to render the project economically attractive from the Developer's standpoint he would need to construct 3 homes. This might prove totally impossible were he required to incorporate sidewalks hence, no doubt, the above referenced application for an internal sidewalk waiver. In these times of elevated safety consciousness, which the Carmel Plan Commission visibly champions, I have a real objection to the notion that such a fundamental provision for pedestrian safety could even be considered for waiver, and I would urge my Community Plan Commission to reject such an application. Other safety concerns arise, to my mind, in connection with access/speed of access of emergency vehicles in view of the proposed 20 foot wide drive (clearly narrow, hence the application to allow this to be a 'private' drive, again obviating their obligation to construct sidewalks for pedestrian safety). The intent is for this drive to end in a cul-de- sac, and from what can be judged from existing drawings the turning circle appears so woefully small compared to those in other neighborhoods, including Bayhill, that the insurability of these homes might well be called into question. Somewhat frightening is the application to waive acceleration/deceleration lanes at the entrance to this proposed neighborhood, as well as the associated 126th Street perimeter path, particularly since the .', entrance/exit is directly across from the very busy entrance to Clay Junior High School. A very large number of vehicles enter and leave the School, not only at the start and close of school, but also after hours which are busy times for sports teams etc, The waiver application poses a very real safety issue that warrants exhaustive research before it could conceivably be contemplated, I look to my Community Plan Commission to, once again, judge in favor of public safety by rejecting this waiver application. There is also a drainage concern that needs to be expressed. I view the existing provision for surface water run-off in connection with properties bordering 'Clay Estates' as barely adequate. Water naturally runs down the gradient from 126th Street and, on many occasions substantial amounts of storm water accumulate into the existing swale located within the properties of Bayhill homeowners on the south side of 'Clay Estates'. Furthermore, an existing standing water issue within my own property (Bayhill Lot 19) in the area of the south/west comer of 'Clay Estates', will surely be exacerbated by the erection of 3 additional large homes in the vicinity, as will the occasional inadequacy of the storm drain located within neighboring Bayhill Lot 18. As an aside, current drawings shared with concerned Bayhill homeowners depict the westerly 'Clay Estates' boundary line as, incorrectly, bisecting this particular storm drain. Since this is actually located some 10-12 feet into Bayhill Lot 18, this visualization does nothing other than to fuel more than a modicum of distrust around this entire proposal. The Developer has indicated that these existing drainage installations would likely be 'tapped' into as a means of disposal of the additional surface water run-off that his proposed construction would generate, along with a seemingly unattractive dry retention pond which appears out of keeping with such an urban setting. I am very concerned about these possibilities, and challenge whether appropriate investigations have been conducted to address the additional surface water. Finally, given there is currently such a plethora of home listings within Carmel in the price range targeted by this proposal, surely our community does not have a pressing need for this additional construction that will further fuel the threat of erosion of all our property values. Reaching the right decision therefore on this particular proposal, dependent as it is on the granting of waivers to normal requirements established in the interest of public safety will, hopefully, not engage the Plan Commission in prolonged debate. Yours sincerely, ~JtM~ -~ ( 5122 Wynstone Way Cannel, Indiana 46033 12 September, 2006 /' ~ ,/ RECE\\fED I 8EP 1, 2. 200& \ \ DOCS ;' \ / "" ,/ ' , '- '- ------------/ ' Cannel Plan Commission c/o the City of Carmel One Civic Square Cannel, Indiana 46032 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our concerns over the request for subdivision waivers by the Stein Investment Group relating to Docket Nos. 06080007PP, 06080008SW, 06080023SW, 06080024SW, and 06080025SW, with a common address of5313 126th Street East, Cannel, Indiana. While we're not thrilled at the possibility of an additional house or houses behind our own home, we'd acknowledge a landowner's right to use their land as they wish, assuming they followed the applicable zoning rules and regulations governing its potential use. That is not the case here, as in order to use the land per their plan (and realize the personal financial gain they hope to achieve), the Stein Investment Group requires four (significant) waivers in order to 'shoehorn' in enough properties to financially recoup what they hope will be a minimum investment in infrastructure (Private Drive vs. Road, no sidewalks, minimal landscaping, etc.) by virtue of the waivers they are requesting and what we believe is an inaccurate assessment of the (new) landscaping that will be required in the context of their drainage control plan to meet <iraIDage requirements. If there is one conclusion we've reached to date, it is that the Stein Investment Group has a marginal business plan, based on a marginal plot plan requiring several significant waivers, apparently involving marginal economics. And if the original plan is so marginal, we are very concerned with how the actual implementation and work will occur. We took the opportunity to attend the pre-meeting held by Stein Investment Group and their legal firm and other business partners on 7 September. Initially, we thought it was a positive gesture on their part. However, in retrospect, we now wonder about their motive(s). Based on their responses to a number of the questions, it seemed to us that their objective was to soften potential opposition through polite but vague verbal assurances, with no real desire to commit (in writing), to any of their answers. While they attempted to maintain a polite demeanor, we felt at times there was an underlying tone of condescension and a lack of candor. Our specific concerns are summarized as follows: Request to permit a Private Drive with no acceleration or deceleration lanes: The request for a Private Drive with no acceleration, deceleration, and passing lanes is inconsistent with the surrounding Bayhill neighborhood, as well as a number of other small scale neighborhoods in the area, including Carrington Estates, Timber Crest Bend, and Williams Ridge Estates. We believe to grant the Stein Investment Group's request for a Private Drive would pose an increased risk to public safety. Access for Fire and Emergency equipment would be more difficult by virtue of the Private Drive being narrower than a proper road. Further, inasmuch as the access to the property is intended to be directly across from the school, a true road would create a clearer traffic pattern, including right of ways. As a final comment in this section, the aerial photo with plot plan supplied on September 7t1t by Stein Investment Group described the access drive as "Chase Court", which was casually noted (verbally) by the lawyer to be an error. Something isn't quite right about that whole issue.... Request to waive internal sidewalks and the Derimeter oath on 126th Street: No internal sidewalks would mean pedestrians (including school children) would be walking on the proposed Private Drive, used by vehicular traffic for the proposed home sites. In addition to being inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, that adds an element of risk, most likely to any children either living in, or visiting the proposed homes. There is a great amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic tied to the school. Any proposed plan must comprehend that reality, and provide for a path/sidewalk on 126t1t Street for pedestrians (most likely children) to use. Drainae:e and LandscaDine:: In the aerial photo and plan layout provided by the Stein Investment Group on September 7t1t, it is clear that their plan to handle the runoff from their proposed project consists of a dry retention pond along the south or the property. Drainage in this area is already somewhat problematic, especially for my neighbors to my east. The issue of drainage needs to be very clearly understood and properly addressed. I'm not sure this plan is adequate. I'd be very concerned if the plan would result in any standing (stagnant) water, in light of what we know today about various mosquito borne diseases. The placement of this dry retention pond is also central to the Stein Investment Group's attempts [which we applaud] to maintain the mature (esp. evergreen) trees in that area of i i" "\ the property. We recognize [and are appreciative] that maintaining the mature evergreens could provide some privacy for us, as well as presumably make the lots more attractive for potential buyers for the same reason. Weare also aware that keeping the existing landscaping also further reduces the infrastructure costs from the Stein Investment Group perspective. Unfortunately, they have an error on their aerial plot plan that will most likely render their current (landscaping) plan moot. They have erroneously shown their property line up to our backyard fence (as shown by the yellow large dashed line on the aerial plot). Our property, based on a staked survey we had done when we purchased our home in 1997, actually extends north another (roughly) 20 feet beyond our privacy fence, and includes a drainage easement. So any Chase Court/Clay Estates drainage consideration would need to be backed up inside of their property. Based on my rough estimates, that would put the drainage area right through virtually all of the existing perimeter trees. Those mature trees that weren't immediately removed would most likely suffer some root damage either from the construction of the drainage area, or as a result of the drainage water in the coming years. To be perfectly clear, Chase Court (or Clay Estates as they are now referring to the development), does not have our permission to access our land, nor remove or damage any landscaping located on our property, including the easement within our property. Other Issues: We offer a few observations. As I said in the beginning, I think a landowner should have the right to use their property as they see fit, but they should have to follow the rules and regulations in place for that use. Clearly, that is not the case here. As we sat through the September 7fl1 meeting, we kept getting the feeling that the Stein Investment Group and their supporting representatives were being disingenuous on several points, including their commitment to drainage, landscaping, and their future plans for the existing home site on the property. We can appreciate the frustration they might have felt in response to an underlying ''not in my backyard" mentality that surfaced on occasion, but I truly felt that most of the neighborhood attendees stuck to the legitimate issues at hand. After all, it is the Stein Investment Group that is looking to change the rules to serve their own financial needs at the expense of the surrounding neighbors. As I mentioned in the beginning, as issues were raised, there were vague, verbal assurances offered by the Stein Investment Group and/or their representatives and business partners. When pressed on the possibility of written commitments reflecting their verbal assurances, the responses became condescending and more hostile. That, to us, spoke volumes. The unwillingness to commit, in writing, to their own verbal responses to some pretty reasonable requests set off alarms in our minds. ;11" i Since the September 7th meeting, we've had the opportunity to talk to others on their interactions with the Stein's. Those reports are troubling, too. According to two different neighbors, the younger Mr. Stein, indicated to them that his intention in buying the property was to have his father live in the existing home, and he planned to build a single home (for himself) in the south end of the property. The reaction of those he told was supportive, thinking how nice ofhim to plan to live near his father. Renting the existing home shortly after acquiring it, and bringing forth these development plans under consideration by the Plan Commission makes us wonder if there was ever a serious plan to execute what the younger Mr. Stein told neighbors. The poorly explained "Chase Court" nomenclature on the aerial plat plan provided at the September 7th meeting, and their vagueness regarding the existing home just add to the sense that the Stein Investment Group and their agents and business partners are not being forthright. Conclusion: Based on all the reasons above, the reouest for waivers should be denied. If the Stein Investment Group was to proceed to develop the property under all currently applicable rules and regulations with no waivers nor variances), then the issues of landscaping requirements and drainage would need to be thoroughly reviewed, commitments clearly documented, and fully implemented. Res ly, d"1 ~/Ld~ Luanne H. Dewey