HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #003 Mary Gerbracht
Butler, Bric
From:Mary Gerbracht <gerbracht.mary@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 28, 2024 2:13 PM
To:Butler, Bric
Subject:Stout farm project
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello Bric,
Please share the letter below with the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
Hello members of the planning commission,
I recently attended the meeting at the Village of West Clay with the developer for the proposed Clay
Cottages on Towne Rd. I have many concerns about this project.
I am not anti development and anticipate this land will be built on. I attended a Housing Task Force
meeting and watched all the videos and understand Carmel feels there is need for “missing middle”
housing. What I ask is that any approved development on the Stout parcel fit into the surrounding single
family home neighborhoods and not be an anomaly.
My biggest concern is not the size of the homes. I understand first time homeowners and those
downsizing want smaller homes. Our first home was 1800 SF. What I find appalling is the high density
with maximum lot coverage of 75-90% by concrete (reference: PUD ordinance filed with Carmel dated 9-
18-24, pages 8-9-10). When I asked for clarification at the meeting, the speaker acted like he didn’t know
that and would “have to get back” to me. I found this disingenuous. The neighborhood as planned has
little green space, yards, or common areas. It appears that most of the open space is devoted to the
required drainage pond. It is my definition of a "concrete jungle”.
If built, I anticipate many of these properties will be purchased by investors and Clay Cottages turned
into a de facto build-to-rent neighborhood, which we vociferously opposed just 6 months ago. As an HOA
President, I know that deterrents to rentals can be built into the CC&Rs. Very disappointing the developer
didn’t think about this either.
When we moved from high density Southern California to west Carmel 11 years ago, a big reason was the
appeal of the large homesites, parks, and lack of commercial development. I have heard Director
Mestetsky say that he believes the high density portion of Carmel should be roughly east of US 31 and
west of Keystone, and that the east and west neighborhoods are our “suburbs” and should remain so. It
would be nice if residents considering a move to Carmel could actual rely on the Carmel Comprehensive
Plan (12/22) which describes the West Neighborhoods with a typical maximum building coverage of 50%
of the land. I don’t appreciate these developers trying to far exceed that.
1
Finally, the designation of R4 is completely inappropriate for this site. My neighborhood, which is across
the street from the parcel, consists of 4-6 bedrooms homes at a density of 1 home per acre. Recent sales
are in the $850K-1.3M range. It is certainly not “marginally standard housing” and should not have R4
zoning across the street. The definition, from the Carmel UDO:
" multiple-family development on small lots in distinctly urbanized areas. The intent of this district is to
protect and conserve existing residential development, particularly in locations featuring marginally
standard housing and facing potential change from original uses, and to preserve natural features, and
encourage open spaceresidential land-use patterns"
For all these reasons, I hope you will require significant changes to the zoning and density of this project
as proposed before it can be approved.
Thank you.
Mary Gerbracht
Laurel Lakes
2