Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #151 Bobbi DunneTo: Bric Butler, City of Carmel Plan Commission Administrative Assistant From: Bobbi Dunne Re: Docket Number PZ-2024-00173 PUD – Carmel Clay Cottages Date: November 16, 2024 Mr. Butler : I write in follow up to a notice of public hearing related to the application for the proposed PUD ordinance. The notice invited comments to be forwarded to you. We live in the Village of West Clay at 12504 Horsham Street, on a lot which abuts the eastern boundary of the real estate to be covered by the proposed PUD ordinance. We purchased this property in 2005 and while the two northern two parcels of the real estate have been undeveloped and basically used for agricultural purposes, we were aware that at some point in the future this property could be the subject of development. We have no general objection to its development for the original zoned status. However, in our wildest imagination we did not foresee that the City of Carmel would approve the development of what seems to be a high-density subdivision in the guise of a planned unit development. I will structure my questions and comments around Section 9.05(A) of City of Carmel Unified Development Ordinance which relates to Proposals to Adopt or Amend Planned Unit Development District Ordinances. I strongly believe the proposal in the application should not be approved and if approved, would violate most, if not all, of the requirements and decision criteria set forth in Section 9- 05(A) of the Unified Development Ordinance. First, I note that the notice of the application for the PUD ordinance indicates it was filed by Taylor Morrison Homes of Indiana LLC. Section 9.05(A) requires that a PUD proposal must be initiated by a petition signed by property owners who own all of the land to be included in the Planned Unit Development District. As of the date of this comment, I do not believe Taylor Morrison Homes of Indiana, LLC owns any of the land to be covered by the PUD. If the actual owners (currently Michael G. Stout, Shelley I. Stout, and 3 Knuckleheads, LLC) have joined and signed the application, then of course, this particular point about who is appropriate to file is moot. More importantly, Section 9.05(a)(3) sets out the decision criteria which both the Plan Commission and the Common Council are required to pay reasonable regard in considering the proposed PUD ordinance. Set out below are a listing of those criteria, and comments on why I believe the proposed PUD fails based on those criteria. a. The extent to which the PUD District Ordinance provides (1) a mixed-use development or (2) addresses unusual site conditions or surroundings; As far as I can tell the proposed PUD would consist almost entirely of residential lots, no mixed uses, no communal amenities, and the vast majority of the property other than the parcel on which the Stout residence lies has no unusual site conditions. The two northern parcels are flat agricultural land. b. The Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable, adopted planning studies or reports; I am not aware that there have been any particular studies or reports which indicate a high-density subdivision should be placed on this property or in West Carmel generally, nor do I think the Comprehensive Plan intimates that a high-density subdivision on this particular property which sits in a sea of less dense S-1 zoning classification is going to materially improve affordability in Carmel. c. The extent to which the proposal fulfills the general purposes of the Subdivision Control and Zoning Ordinances; This development would be an aberration in West Carmel. One may argue that the Village of West Clay is also an aberration in West Carmel, but when it was approved, it would have met all the relevant decision criteria for PUD approval. The new proposed development offers high density, which would be great for the developer, but no benefit for other residents of Carmel. d. Current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district and its surroundings; There is currently only one residential structure on the property (the southernmost parcel, which also includes a pond) and except for the Village of West Clay PUD, which does provide mixed use space and some higher density space, but also substantial other private and public amenities (none of which are proposed for requested PUD), the vast majority of surrounding subdivisions are S-1 with lower density requirements. e. The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted; I can certainly understand why the current property and proposed developer would think this proposal is desirable, but I don’t, and I don’t think that most of my neighbors in Village of West Clay or other surrounding subdivisions do either. The Village of West Clay has substantial commercial space, a library branch, trails, significant green space that are available to anyone, but this proposal offers nothing of the kind. In fact, it would significantly increase traffic congestion which is already a problem for this area. I recommend the City of Carmel consider purchase of the land for another park to serve West Clay residents. f. The conservation of property values throughout the City and the Township, and I have not been able to find documentation of the impact of how the proposed PUD would affect the value of my particular property but given the proposed home prices and quality of homes proposed, architectural standards and lack of landscape and greenspace it is not a stretch to conclude this have a significant negative impact on the home value for many neighborhoods surrounding this proposed development. More broadly, I think permitting a high-density residential development on these particular parcels would represent an enormous transfer of wealth from surrounding residents to the current owner and/ or proposed developer. Said another way, the value of surround properties (Village of West Clay and surrounding subdivisions) indirectly pulls up the value of the high-density homes that would be built under the proposed PUD, but it offers nothing in return except potential traffic and other problems that will be caused by high density use of this parcel of land. Responsible development and growth. While this proposed PUD would no doubt provide growth, for the reasons set forth above, I think it would be irresponsible, and indeed contrary to the letter and spirit of prior Plan Commission decisions. As already noted, the disadvantage to the residents of West Carmel outweighs the benefit to a smaller number of individuals. I note the relevant decision criteria set forth above are in the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive, implying that all (rather than some) of the above decision criteria should be considered by the Plan Commission. I believe the proposed PUD certainly violates requirement (a) above. That said, it is the Plan Commission’s job to weigh all the relevant factors. I submit that the proposed PUD offers nothing other than higher density, which though arguably desirable in the abstract for Carmel, it is not desirable in this particular instance. Thank you for your attention and consideration.