HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0903; Andy CrookFrom: Andy Crook [walkingo@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:29 AM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc: Sharp, Rick; Hollibaugh, Mike P; cwic2
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update
The field for comments did not allow enough space for the comments I want to include in the record. Below is our feedback on the Plan:
Development in our part of northwest Clay Township has been extensive since we bought our property in 1987. The comprehensive plan was not followed when developments like Saddle
Creek were approved. The base density for S1 was 1.0 units/per acre. Saddle Creek has a density of 1.84 units per acre. This established a new baseline for subsequent developments
in our part of the township, culminating with the approval of the Village of Clay West. One can pick and choose which developments to include to calculate the average density
in our area, but, excluding the Village of Clay West, the density average is around 1.5 units per acre. This would include development north of 131st street. Westwood Estates,
which borders our property on the north, has a density of 1.5 units, based on the recorded secondary plat map.
Based on what has actually be approved and developed, we support a higher density for S1 zoning. The current draft shows the density range for low intensity suburban residential
of 1.0-1.9 units per acre. We feel a reasonable upper limit for the new S1 zoning of 1.5 units per acre fits with what has actually happened in our area. We also support this
new upper limit for the purpose of attracting development of smaller tracts of land, like ours, that have been “leap frogged” by the development of larger tracts of land. “Fill
in” developers need to have higher densities to make development of smaller tracts work financially.
We DO NOT support the planned areas for suburban residential zoning in northwest Clay. High density development should be restricted to core areas. The current draft of the
land use plan has too much of a patch work nature. There is absolutely no logical reason for the draft designation for suburban residential (2.0-4.9 units per acre) next to our
property. This strip, east of Towne Road between 136th and 141st, is not surrounded by high density development. We support the proposed S1 density of up to 1.5 units per acre
for this land. If the new suburban residential were to be approved next to our property, it would cripple our ability to sell. We are having enough challenges as it is. There
is no logical reason for this high density designation next to us, or in our area.
Also, we feel the plan should include requirements on utility service providers. If Carmel wants to be a world class city, it should not allow second class utility stations, particularly
substations. The Duke substation next to us is a prime example of what should not be allowed to be done. It is unsightly, weedy, and an eye sore that de-values the area. This
is unacceptable to us, and the City needs to put requirements to prevent utilities from doing what they want.
I personally made these comments at the August 19th Plan Commission meeting.
Andrew W. Crook
Walking O Brand Leadership Consulting Services
2288 West 136th Street
Carmel, IN 46032
Office: 317-501-1278
Home: 317-844-9216
Fax 317-846-2991
E-Mail: walkingo@sbcglobal.net