Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0929; CWIC2To: CCC Plan Special Committee From: CWIC2 Date: September 30, 2008 Re: Part 3 Land Classification Map, page 45. Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: 1. Land south of 116th between Michigan Rd & Shelborne Rd. Proposed as Suburban Residential, with density between 2.0 to 4.9 two subdivisions: a. Includes homes with acreage as well as two subdivisions with very low densities—Brandywine (0.61 u/a) and Woodhaven (0.77 u/a). Each was built when lots were required to be a minimum of 1 acre and the expectation was 1 acre lots for the area. The expectation for large lots was reinforced with the 2020 Comp Plan. b. Directly east of Brandywine is Bridleborne at a density of 0.40 u/a and English Oaks with 1.26 u/a. To the south is a church and then a fire station on the corner. While these uses are different from the surrounding developments, their abundance of green space and low intensity of use is much more compatible than a subdivision with a 4.9 density. c. The highest density in the entire quadrant is Weston at 2.14, barely over the Suburban Residential category. But that is misleading: Weston has several sections, each with very different densities. As part of its approval under the 1st Cluster Ordinance, it was required to “transition” its density, lowering the u/a as it went eastward. Weston Village, the section farthest west, abuts the commercial area. It is the densest section, above 2.14. Weston Park, the section between Weston Village and Brandywine, is less dense with houses abutting Brandywine on 1/3 acre lots. North of Brandywine is Weston Ridge, with ½ acre lots. It is appropriate to include the section of Weston closest to the commercial area in Suburban Residential, but not appropriate to include the rest of this quadrant. This quadrant should be divided into different zoning classifications that more appropriately fit what currently exists. (Marilyn: “I have a personal stake in this. I live in Brandywine on a 1 acre lot. I would never have bought and built in an area zoned for even a 2.0 u/a.”) d. Between 96th and 106th west of Shelborne are single family estate lots abutting 106th St. and two subdivisions with densities of 1.76 and 2.13. An argument could perhaps be made that this section is more appropriately zoned Low Intensity Suburban Residential, with a density of 1.0 to 1.9. That is more compatible with the Estate Residential category to its east. 2. West of Towne Road abutting the Village of WestClay is the Fortune Property, now platted as Trillium at a density of 1.76. The approved density clearly fits the Low Intensity Suburban Residential category. Why isn’t it labeled as such? The ground is still bare so this category could easily result in Adams & Marshall vacating that approved plan and returning with a new plan at 4.9 u/a that would then legally have to be approved. This classification violates the promises of containing the VWC’s density within its property and no more transitioning. City Council upheld this promise when they approved the project only after lowering the density to 1.76. This is just completely inappropriate. 3. Northwest corner of Towne Road & 131st (Guerrero Property). We’ve had this fight before—you know the issues. As part of its approval, the VWC was promised to be the exception in the area and was promised to be contained. Zoning this as Suburban Residential violates the promises and should not be done. 4. East side of Towne Rd from about 136th to 141st. Every surrounding subdivision has a density of less than 1.42 with an average of 1.33. Suburban Residential would almost quadruple the density. Where’s the compatibility? How would you like to own a home that now backs up to this drastic change from what was expected. 5. Two locations along 146th St. Density of adjoining subdivisions averages approx. 1.48 u/a. The proposed density is about 3.5 times as high. Where is the compatibility? Land Classification Map, page 45, Low Intensity Suburban Residential 1. Carmel west of Springmill Rd. currently averages approx. 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages approx. 1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a. 2. Reducing the top density to 1.5 u/a is helpful, but the intent is in conflict with the plan for incentives. With a zoned density of 1.5 u/a, any development of any quality could be developed at 1.5 u/a. Incentives would not have any value, since they only work if the developer gains something he otherwise could not do. If the density is 1.5 u/a but density is used as an incentive, it can be expected that some developments would end up closer to the 1.9, even though that supposedly is not the intent. 3. Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential. Estate Residential is in keeping with the character of the area, in keeping with the current zoning that people believed they were getting when they invested in their homes, and in keeping with what the vast majority of the residents in the area strongly desire Land Classification Map, page 45. Community Vitality Node 1. The VWC area with this classification is not compatible with the surrounding area that currently fits Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Community Vitality Node is not listed as an appropriate adjacent classification. 2. The VWC area with this classification has a lot of acres with no buildings. This invites Brenwick to return with a new ordinance using the new classification. The only limit on the commercial intensity is “the maximum building envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site parking requirements.” We do not believe the City really wants a Merchants Square or West Carmel Center (examples cited) at this location. Area residents do not. This area is a red-hot button issue for area residents and increasing the intensity will heat the flames for many residents. 3. This classification would also permit residential density up to 10 u/a, surrounded by homes at a much, much lower density. 4. If this classification remains, the to-be-expected increase in intensity of use would result in pressure to change intensity of use on surrounding land. 5. “Location” for Community Vitality Node says it is most appropriate near major thoroughfares. Michigan Rd is a major thoroughfare and is designed for the truck traffic that a large commercial area requires. Towne Road is not planned to become a Michigan Rd and the required truck traffic would change the quality of life for those near Town Road and for those driving through on their way to and from their homes in the area. 6. Since the Community Vitality Node would allow this area to become much more intense than ever planned, this land does not fit this category. While the approved plan may be larger than the next lower classification, Neighborhood Service Node, reclassifying it to NSN would be much less apt to result in Brenwick asking for a new plan that changes what has already been approved. Neighborhood Service Node is also much more in keeping with the approval it was granted and promises made by City Council to not allow this area affect surrounding properties. Land Classification Map, page 45. VWC’s Urban Residential CWIC2 support’s Dee Fox’s comment—inadvertently omitted in our submission. Undeveloped land remains so Brenwick could return with a new ordinance requesting much higher density, using this classification as the intent of the new Comp Plan. Part 4: Transportation Plan, page 50-62 CWIC2 acknowledges that the needs of residents that live along thoroughfares must be balanced against the needs of the greater community for efficient and effective traffic movement. We support connectivity as a guiding principle and roadways constructed to handle the traffic demand. We support the bike lanes since we know all too well how much one bike rider can back up traffic on the current roadways. Gridlock benefits no one. We do ask that you do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected neighbors. Please consider carefully the following: 1. Can the medians required for trees be reduced while still maintaining healthy trees? Perhaps some good street trees require less space. 2. Are side paths to take 10 feet each side of the roads or is this for both? (Totaling the numbers in the illustrations does not come to the right-of-way numbers). We support side paths and do not wish them to be too narrow, but neither do we wish them to be “expansive.” Ten foot each side seems much beyond what is needed. 3. There is right-of-way extending some distance past the paths. Please explain the use of this right-of-way. Can this be reasonably reduced? 4. Areas where homes and neighborhoods were established before the existing Thoroughfare Plan was developed usually lack the needed right-of-way. Those residents would sometimes have to give up significant pieces of their yard. We ask that the proposed Plan be sensitive to this and make every reasonable accommodation to treat the road in context with its surroundings. For example: Keystone, Hazel Dell, 116th St., and Towne Road are all classified as Primary Parkway. Obviously Keystone is of a different magnitude than Hazel Dell, and Carmel West is different in character from Carmel East. Transportation Plan Map – page 63 There is a description for Residential Parkway 2-lane and Residential Parkway 4-lane, but these are not distinguished on the map. Please identify where each is planned. Part 4: Transportation Plan – page 75 The map identifies an “Enhanced Sidewalk,” but where is the descriptor of what that is?