HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #40 Dee Fox
Butler, Bric
From:Dee Fox <dasfox2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 30, 2024 4:05 PM
To:Butler, Bric
Cc:Dee Fox
Subject:For Oct. 1, 2024 Plan Commission Committee meeting, RE Towne 146 PUD Rezone
proposal.
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Bric,
Please forward my email below to all Plan Commissioners ahead of the Oct. 1 meeting, and add it to the
Laserfiche file of Public Correspondence.
Thank you!
Dee Fox
West Carmel
To Plan Commissioners,
I realize that there will be more new information coming at the Oct. 1 Committee meeting, but I would
like to share some thoughts about the Towne 146 PUD Rezone proposal as it stands now.
The recent removal of the unneeded, unwanted commercial component of this proposal is a huge
improvement, which also freed up some needed greenspace. But more work on this site plan is still
needed. Having read all the letters from the public, I believe that Commissioners can now best improve
this proposal by standing firm with the surrounding neighbors on the following very important issues:
1) Preservation of entire Woodlands/Ecosystem on the south and southeast boundaries, including
preserving the wetlands within that treed area. This is an ever-more scarce, functioning ecosystem with
mature trees that provide environmental and health benefits, and habitat for wildlife that is being driven
away due to over development. It needs to stay intact. Planting spaced-out young street trees does not
even come close to providing equivalent benefits.
* From Letter #10 (so true): "Destruction of nature when there is an alternative is seriously
problematic and a reflection of progress without conscience."
2) No shared "Super Pond". Create an independent retention pond.
* Thank you to the Petitioner for providing 2 possible site plan maps: One showing a shared pond, and
one showing an independent pond. However, I ask Commissioners to please keep in mind that you are
under no obligation to accept either of those plans for this rezone request.
* The map that shows an independent pond:
~ Surely it is possible to plan a retention pond and surrounding homes in such a way that the existing,
relatively small area of mature trees/wetlands in one corner can be fully preserved. "Where there's a will,
there's a way." Also, could the independent pond be made any smaller?
~ If the provided map showing one possible independent pond location is favored, then I submit that in
order to not lose more tree preservation area, the southernmost two Area A (yellow) lots that run along
1
the east border should be removed. This would also slightly lower the density to about 5 u/a, closer to
the now precedent-setting 4.6 u/a Ambleside density (even though that slight reduction is still 5 times the
zoned S-1/Residential density).
3) Prohibition of, or at least severe restrictions on, Rental of these homes (whether by investors or by
individual homeowners).
* Until reading the public's letters, I was not aware of any "Build for Rent" model. Is that part of this
proposal? Please do not allow that!
I also agree with the Department Report, that monotony mitigation standards need to be improved to
further reduce monotony of the homes and townhouses (via distinguishable variety in colors and
elevations). Also, that front porches should be required to be a minimum of 6 feet deep, to be usable.
Some other aspects of this Towne 146 PUD Rezone proposal that I like:
* It provides some needed for-sale, smaller, single-family detached "ranch houses", as well as some
for-sale, smaller, 2-story houses with a first-floor bedroom. The conceptual Character Images of the
fronts look nice.
* It has some usable greenspace.
* For downsizers, 2-story Townhouses are definitely preferable to the usual 3-story Townhouses with no
elevator.
* The PUD Ordinance prohibits Short-Term Residential Rentals.
* The PUD Ordinance requires at least one shade tree be planted in each front yard.
Some other aspects of this Towne 146 PUD Rezone proposal that I do not like:
* Houses are so crowded together: Can have only 6' side yard setbacks.
* Townhomes far outnumber the houses in this proposal. Would like to see fewer townhomes and more
of the starter/downsizer type of houses.
* The Plan Commission may grant an applicant a Zoning Waiver of the provisions of this Towne 146 PUD
Ordinance, up to a maximum 35% of the specified standard. I know this is standard language in every
PUD, but I and many others think that 35% is too much. Any chance of getting that number lowered?
Please prioritize the needs and well-being of the existing residents in the areas surrounding this rezone
proposal site, and thank you for your time to consider my comments.
Dee Fox
West Carmel
2