Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Correspondence
Tingley, Connie S From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:02 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: FW: Update Blackwell Park- Neighborhood Meeting Report This is what he sent out. No attachments,just the update in the body of the report. Christine Barton-Holmes, LEED AP Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317 571 2424 317 571 2426 fax E Please consider the environment before printing From: Justin Moffett [mailto:justinmoffett @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:30 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Holmes, Christine B; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Rider, Kevin D Subject: Update: Blackwell Park- Neighborhood Meeting Report I wanted to give the staff an update on my interaction with the old town neighbors to the Blackwell property. Last night I met with a group of about 12-15 neighbors who have lead the remonstrance group to discuss trying to come to agreement on the project details. I pointed out at the beginning of the meeting that we felt like we had made a tremendous amount of concessions up front rather than "playing poker" with the neighbors. I believe they started to understand that and gave me credit for what we had done to date with commitments regarding architecture, planning of the green space, buffer landscape, etc... At the end of the meeting the neighbors agreed that they would be supportive of our petition at the BZA if we would be willing to move one lot from the west side of 3rd Ave NE to the east side. This would allow for all lots to be 58' to 65' in width. This would also give us the ability to put a 10' buffer strip on the north side of the property to protect that land owner. We were not asked by the neighbors to cut our density. The net result is that the proposed park area will go from .6 acres to .4 acres, but the neighbors expressed that they didn't care about that space. They felt that an increased lot width would result in greater diversity in housing possibilities and would allow for more main level square footage that might attract an older buyer,which they thought would be desirable. This does not change our commitment to work towards tree preservation where possible with the planning staff. We intend to deliver revised drawings to the planning staff on Wednesday of this week. Thanks, Justin From: Hollibaugh, Mike P [mailto:MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:49 PM To: justinmoffett©aol.com; Holmes, Christine B; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Rider, Kevin D Subject: RE: Blackwell Park- Neighborhood Meeting Report From: justinmoffett©aol.com [mailto:justinmoffett @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 12:09 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Holmes, Christine B; Conn, Angelina V Cc: Rider, Kevin D Subject: Re: Blackwell Park- Neighborhood Meeting Report Response to Mike's comments below: Thanks Justin, no need to follow-up, unless you are bored and needing something to do Mike 1) Traffic problems. This issue will not be made better by the addition of 13 homes, but there is a root problem that won't go away by pointing fingers at our project. I think there is potential to form a neighborhood action group (hate the term committee)that seeks to ease congestion in the neighborhood through implementation of new traffic control devices and enforcement of existing rules. I would be glad to assist in this process, but please recognize that my property rights won't be restricted because of the existing problem. How do we work together on this one? Personally, I don't like the hammerhead. Dead-ends in Old Town are out of character for the area, and don't work well. Traffic would be better distributed if Third Ae. NE connected at both ends...such as by curving over to 2" Ave. NE...of course the neighbors would not like that either... Justin's Reply: I don't like hammerheads either. However, there is an empty lot at the end of the hammerhead on 5th Street and it is my belief that the family that owns the lot will be selling their property in the next 10 years +1-. If Bill Greenwood sells the open lot, how do we extend a street? We all agree that it would be out of place for Old Town to install a big culdesac ball so having a hammerhead was, in my thinking, a short term solution and not a 20 or 50 year plan. Can this issue be resolved at Plan Commission and not be determine at the BZA level? This is important, but wasn't going to be a Dept. issue at BZA... 2) Architecture. I probably bored them with how many times I explained this to the group. I am submitting myself to architectural standards and controls that I don't have to commit to in seeking these BZA variances beca use they are the only process by which the city can request and enforce architectural standards. We would ask you for this commitment as a condition of approval...so, you are already ahead of the game... 3) 3) Scale of the Homes. I understand that the massing of the homes is important to neighbors and we need to be careful with how we size the homes. I would ask you consider going one step further, by introducing one or two larger lots, 55 and/or 60,that would allow a slightly larger home...and, introduce a couple of smaller, bungalow size homes (1-story or 1.5)...that would allow for more diversity, as old town is, and, offer little more affordability... Justin's Reply: I can't lose my density or the numbers just don't work. We are proposing to have three 60' lots on the east side of 3rd Ave NE, one 65' lot on the west side, and six 50 ' lots. Is this enough diversity? I can assure you that if I make more large lots and have fewer total lots the idea of affordability will go out the window all together. This is more than l was figuring given the size of the project. Thank you. 2 4) Drainage. Again, the city won't restrict my property rights because of the problems the school has caused. Our civil engineer will be charged with making the drainage better on the site and surrounding area or we won't be given construction permits. That issue is pretty simple and straightforward. Except, I think we need to understand what impacts stormwater retention will have on the preservation of existing woodlands...those two issues don't always support each other... Justin's Reply: Agreed. This was an issue that I felt like people became more comfortable with as the meeting went on. They started to see that there's a possibility some of the existing drainage problems may go away with the installation of a storm water system. There is a natural basin that does not have many trees and it=2 Ois our intention to install our dentention facility in that area which there seemed to be little disagreement with from the neighbors. 5) Green Space. I heard loud and clear that the neighbors want to see as much green space as possible, no pond, no playground and heavy vegetation. Have you offered them any changes to address this? Justin's Reply: The neighbors did acknowledge that they liked that I was willing to save green space at all. There is no requirement in the ordinance for me to do this, so they like that were committing to having approx. 20%to 25% of the site in greenspace. Prior to our meeting I had committed to all of their requests (no wet pond, no playground,vegetative storm water handling). One group of neighbors asked me to get rid of some of the greenspace and make the lots bigger and another group asked for the opposite and it seemed like it made the most sense to keep it as planned .. I understand completely Thanks, Justin Justin W. Moffett Uptown Partners, LLC 255 3rd Ave NE Carmel, IN 46032 317.966.2023 phone 317.580.9596 fax iustinmoffett @aol.com The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! 3 Friends of Old Town c% Mrs. Laura Corry 340 Second Avenue NE, Carmel, IN 46032 jcorry@indy.rr.com May 11, 2009 ~ Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ~ P ~,~D c% Connie Tingley, Secretary o RAGE` ~ Carmel City Hall o+ One Civic Square ~ DpGS Carmel, IN 46032 ~ J, Dear Board Members: RE: Justin Moffett Proposal -Blackwell Property -BZA Meeting 4/27/09 The Friends of Old Town gave a remonstrance to Justin Moffett's proposal for the Balckwell Property at the April 27, 2009 BZA meeting. We would like to formally request the opportunity to present additional information to the BZA regarding this proposal at your May 18, 2009 meeting. The specific areas we would like to address include 1) current lot sizes throughout Old Town and the abutting area to the west of the Blackwell Property, 2) communication between Justin Moffett and Friends of Old Town, and 3) concerns regarding drainage in the proposed development area. We respectfully request the opportunity to present these issues at the public meeting and also have the enclosed documents included in the file. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Laura Corry, Spokesperson for Friends of Old Town Friends of Old Town c% Laura Corry 340 Second Avenue NE, Carmel, IN 46032 jcorry@indy.rr.com May 11, 2009 Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals Carmel City Hall One Civic Sqyare Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Board Members: RE: Communications with Justin Moffett re. Blackwell Property It was suggested at your April 27, 2009 BZA meeting that the Friends of Old Town meet with Mr. Moffett and try to come to some compromise regarding the above mentioned development. Friends of Old Town DID meet with Mr. Moffett formally on two occasions and several times informally. The first formal meeting took place on April 6, 2009 at the Carmel Library (minutes attached) with Mr. Moffett and three representatives from Friends of Old Town (Kevin Lavelle, Debra Kunce, and Clete Kunce). Friends of Old Town deliberately arranged for a small group to meet with Mr. Moffett in order for him to be more comfortable. We thought the large group meeting would be intimidating to Mr. Moffett. The large Friends of Old Town group DID meet with Mr. Moffett on April 18, 2009 at the Carmel Christian Church, 463 East Main Street. Mr. Moffett presented his proposal to the group at this meeting which was similar to the proposal he presented to BZA at the April 27, 2009 meeting. Various concerns by neighbors were brought up at the meeting and discussed. The meeting lasted more than two hours. Both meetings were cordial. Another meeting is planned for this evening in an attempt to reach some compromise that will be beneficial to both parties. Sinc rely, PM ~"p- ^ryP ~(~t RECEIVED Laura Corry ~ Spokesperson for Friends of Old Town ~, ypY 11 2U~ _ DOCS Meeting Memorandum P~ ~ w~ O Old Town Carmel Blackwell Woods c ~~p~\~2~ ~~~'S e MEETING DATE: April 06, 2009 REPORT DATE: April 08, 2009 PROJECT: Old Town Blackwell Development (3~d Avenue NE & 3~d Street NE) LOCATION: Carmel Library (Meeting Room H) ATTENDEES: Justin Moffett OwnerlDeveloper (Uptown Partners) Kevin Lavelle Home Owner/Neighbor Debra Kunce Home OwnerlNeighbor Clete Kunce Home Owner/Neighbor (writer) The following represents the writers understanding of the content of the conversations. The purpose of the conversations was the following: I. For neighbor representatives to listen to Mr. Moffett to gain additional information regarding the proposed development. 2. For Mr. Moffett to gain insight to the neighbor's concerns of the proposed development. General Discussions (commenced at 7~OOpm1: Mr. Moffett started the discussion with a brief history of how and why the proposed development transpired. The bullet points of that conversation are as follows: a. Justin has had his eye on this property for some time and asked Chris Blackwell to contact him if he ever wanted to sell the property. b. Chris Blackwell's mother passed away recently (in the last twelve months). c. Chris has decided to sell the property (with the exception of the house and associated lot on the NE corner of 2^^ Avenue NE and 3~d Street NE to which Chris has no immediate plans of selling). d. Justin has the first right of refusal on the property and has yet to close, but the closing is scheduled. e. The property to be developed comprises of 5 already platted lots. Three fronting 2^d Avenue NE and two with their side yards abutting 3~^ Street NE and their eventual front yards to,be on the proposed 3~d Avenue NE extension (as part of the new development), and the un-platted area known as Blackwell woods. f. The un-platted area in Blackwell woods comprises approximately 2.2 acres. g. The proposed development would create 8 new platted lots on the 2.2 acres, bringing the total number of single family lots to a coral of 13 lots (5 platted & 8 un-platted). h. The proposed Blackwell Park green space on the lowest part of the property comprises approximately fl3 of the total development (approx. .67 acres). i. The variances sought by Justin for reduced lot width, side yard and front yard setbacks, and minimum lot coverage pertain to this un-platted parcel only; as the other 5 parcels are f j. Justin's family lives in Old Town and Justin's thoughts were that he wanted to purchase the property and develop the land in an appropriate way as opposed to another developer buying the property and maximizing lots (as opposed to saving "green" space for the neighborhood). 2. Mr. Moffett pointed out that this un-platted parcel is not in the historic overlay district, and he has no obligation to follow the overlay architectural standards. 3. Justin talked to Carmel zoning staff and asked their preferences on an appropriate "common ground" for development of the un-platted parcel. 4. Staff's recommendation was to be consistent with existing platted lots in the contiguous old town neighborhoods (50' wide interior lots and 65' wide corner lots). This matches the lot widths preferred in the overlay standards. Staff also recommended leaving approximately 113 of the development to not be developed for housing and to give this green space back to the neighborhood. ~Mr. Moffett admitted that because of the speed of the real estate transaction, he has not (((~NN4~~ performed all of his due diligence. He still has questions to answer and is open to ideas from the neighbors. Once he receives approval and re-platting, t~ drainage calculations, engineering, housing design, etc. wi I be performed. ~-~ b. Justin conveyed that he is committed to have the development adhere to the Carmel overlay district architectural and zoning standards for all parcels. 7. Justin additionally verbally committed co the group that all parcels will be developed as single family residences. Mr. Moffett did mention that he needs to have a minimum of 8 (eight) tots on the un-platted parcel to make his "numbers" work. He reminded the group that if he does not get the minimum 8 lots on the un-platted parcels, that he would be forced to possibly develop the 3 platted lots on 2^d Avenue NE as multi-family (duplexes), which he is allowed under the current zoning of those lots. 9. Justin wants rear yard Garages (not facing the street if at all possible). The lots are proposed to be 50' wide, with 5' minimum side yards with an aggregate total side yard setback requirement of !5' total width. He is proposing the anticipated average home width would be 32' - 35'. 10. Justin is also committed to improving the alleys to provide access to the proposed rear yard Garages. Garages would then be accessed from the alley. He mentioned the possibility of utilizing pervious pavement to reduce storm water run-off of the proposed development, if the City of Carmel will accept this method of storm water management. I I. Justin is developing this parcel as a "minor" sub-division and those rules as it applies to storm water retentionldetention. A minor subdivision is a development of 5 acres or less. 12. Storm water retentionldetention is anticipated by Justin to be a "dry" basin or bowl at the lowest elevation of the woods. It would be planted with the proper vegetation for this type of environment. The bowl would hold water in heavy rains and snow melt-off, and then be released into the city's piped water management system which eventually discharges into Cool Creek. Justin indicated that he does not want a "pond" that provides full detention (water constantly in the pond). 13. As a result of Justin developing this area as a minor subdivision, this would require him to establish a Home Owners Association (HOA) for this development. This HOA would then be responsible for the maintenance of the common areas (woods, etc.). The City of Carmel would be responsible for the road. 14. Justin's engineers would design the new 3~d Avenue NE road extension to meet the City's standards, which would match the width and sidewalk of the existing stretch of 3rd Avenue NE. I5. Justin also mentioned that the end of 3~" Ave. NE in the development would be designed as a hammer-head as indicated on the Site Plans he has provided (in lieu of a "circular" cul-de-sac). 2 16. The hammer-head design conforms to Carmel's standards and is designed to accommodate a fire truck, and based on the fire truck's turning radius performing a "Y" turn. IB. Justin also suggested that he could possibly provide a slight curve to the West in the new 3~d Ave. NE extension (affecting lot no's. I through 4) to save more trees and eliminate having to "fill" where the existing grade s[arts co fall away to the Eas[. This is why he is requesting the lot size variance of reduction from 10,000 square feet to 6500 square feet. The average depth of lot is 145'. So, if you multiply 50' min. lot width by 145', which equates to 7,250 square feet for the average lot to be developed per the variance requests. In ocher words, if you maintain a 50' width you could reduce the lot length to 130', which would allow the road to "curve" approximately IS' to the West. Justin quizzed the group if this would make the neighbors happy (curving the street to save more trees). The neighborhood representatives responded that it may be more preferable to maintain the City "grid" system o1 streets already established, and all lot depths the same. This would also require Mr. Moffett to have to "fill" a portion of the lower area to maintain a straight roadlstreec. 19. The neighbor's asked if Mr. Moffett would provide and install landscape buffers between the neighbors to the North and East of the development. He responded that the Platting standards have landscape buffer requirements, but would be willing to talk to the neighbors, if the platting standards do not satisfy the neighbors. 20. The neighbors asked about the design of the homes..."what will they look like"? Mr. Moffett had two exterior front (street) elevation examples. His intent is to have the homes have a "cottage" feel. Both examples had front porches with lap and shake style siding. Both were two story examples. One was a bungalow style, while the other was a "plain" colonial. The neighbors preferred the bungalow style when asked by Justin. The bungalow had more detail, relief with the front porch with tapered wood columns and wood bracket details. The other example had a very flat" front elevation, with very little stylization. 21. Justin also explained that he is planning on having 3 different floor plans for the development. Each floor plan will have three different "elevation" packages. This means that there is the potential that there could possibly be 9 (nine) dif(erentfront (street) elevations. The neighbors asked if every house in the new development could have a different front elevation. Justin feels he can vary the three elevations per unit to achieve enough variety. The neighbors expressed their concern of houses being too alike, even with the variations. The neighbors felt that the streetscape created by these new houses should make every attempt to be as unique and as varied as possible co stay within the context of the existing housing stock present in Old Town. We feel these new homes should have as much character and charm as ossible. `~' 22. The target market or t ese new homes according to Justin is the upcoming young professional working couple with 2.1 children. 23. The price point for these homes is intended to be in the $350,000 range, This price point coupled with the density of the development will make Justin's development Performs numbers work to make a successful Project for Mr. Moffett. 24. Mr. Moffett is going to team up with a local custom home builder. The builder is "Heartwood Homes"/langston. Heartwood has a home designer on staff that will develop the three "models". 25. It is Justin's intent co not build all the homes at once, but instead he will pick one of the lots and build a model for people to view prior to purchase. 26. Justin was puzzled as to why the neighbors were opposing the development, and was curious why no one attempted to contact him prior to initiating the petition. Justin expressed that from his standpoint the density is less than what he is allowed co develop, and he is preserving green space (proposed Blackwell Park). 27. His questions to the neighbors were as follows: a. Are the neighbors just completely against any kind of development? Nd b. Do the neighbors want more green space?yE.S c. What are the specific issues as they pertain to density? d. Is it lot area? 28. Our responses were as follows: a. Some of the neighboring community is against any kind of development, but we believe that most neighbors understand that this is private property, and it can and probably will be developed. The neighbors desire the property to be developed in an appropriate way, consistent with the character and charm of Old Town. bO. The neighbor's are generally okay with the green space, but have concerns that it could be detrimental to the neighborhood if it becomes a detention pond, which could pose safety issues to kids in the area, and do not want the Park to be a mosquito infested pond. The neighbors feel the development is too dense compared to the surrounding homes. d. The neighbors feel the lots as proposed are coo small and do not meet current property sizes or current zoning requirements. e. The neighbors generally feel the lot coverage should match the zoning requirements. f. The representing neighborhood group felt that lot width of al! the issues may be the most contentious. We suggested the allowed 65' wide lots be considered. An idea was presented to make all of the un-platted lots to be 60' wide, while still utilizing the alleys and rear loaded Garages accessed off the improved alley. It was suggested that maybe Justin could add one more 60' wide lot on the East side of the development to match the other two proposed lots (lots 7 & 8). This would place 3 lots on the East side of the road. Then, Justin could hopefully arrange 5 lots on the West side of the street with all those lots being 60' wide. This would still give him the 8 lots he needs and desires to make his numbers work. We also suggested possibly moving the newly proposed alley running west from new 3~^ Ave. farther North, but we did like the fact that this proposed alley visually breaks up the streetscape, which is consistent with the surrounding areas. 29. Justin asked if there could be a "common ground" approach with the neighbor's. 30. Justin also asked if it would be productive to meet the entire neighborhood group. Subsequent to the meeting the representative group decided it would be good to let all of the neighbors have the opportunity to engage in a productive dialog with Justin. Action Items for Next Meeting I. Justin will investigate what the landscape buffer requirements are from the platting standards. Z. Justin will consider making the exteriors as varied as possible. 3. Justin will look at a new layout utilizing 60'-0" wide lots for the 8 desired un-platted lots. 4. Justin will consider enlarging lot size from his requested 6,500 square feet, especially if he does not "bend" the new street to the West, and if he can make the 60' wide lots work in the development. ~/ 5. The neighbors will contact Justin to schedule a forum for Justin to meet The friends of Old Town. Meeting adjourned at 8:45pm Please contact the writer (Clete Kunce at ckuri~rl~hzus-~i_ch eom or 501.6021- cell) of these meeting minutes within 3 business days of receipt with any corrections, or to report any discrepancies or inaccuracies contained herein, otherwise this report shall stand as reported and written. Attachments: NIA Cc: All listed + distribution to Friends of Old Town 3001400 2"d Ave. NE (west) 310 90' 340 15 8' 350 61.9 (51.9' + 10') 410 103.8 (51.9 + 51.9) 430 77.8 440 88.2 Ttl. lt. width 597.7 Ave. lt. width 96.61 % dwell. +70' 83.3 500/600 2"d Ave NE (west) 516 96.2 530 100.0 (48.1 + 51.9) 540 103.8 (51.9 + 51.9) 620 51.9 630 51.9 640 103.8 (51.9 + 51.9) 660 103.8 (51.9 + 51.9) 670 103.8 (51.9 + 51.9) Ttl. lt. width 715.2 Ave. lt. width 89.4 dwell. +70' 75% 500/600 2"d Ave. NE (east) 671 77.8 661 77.8 (51.9 + 25.9) 655 69.1 (51.9 + 172) 651 86.4 631 103.8 (51.9 + 51.9) 611 51.9 545 51.9 531 51.9 525 48.1 0 48.1 = 96.2 511 48.1 Ttl. lt. width 714.9 Ave. lt. width 64.9 % dwell. +70 50% 93 homes In Studv-%include dbl It 60 homes 70'+ lot 65% 53 homes 80'+ lot 57% 47 homes 90'+ lot 51% 40 homes 100'+ lot 43% 33 homes -70' lot 35% 13 homes 51.9' lot 25% 4 homes 50' lot 4% LOT SIZES 3001400 15f Ave (west) Rn 300/400 15t Ave (east) 440 132 3 ST. NORTH 311 66' 420 66 321 96' (48 + 48) 410 66 Audubon/Sylvan Drive ' 331 96' (48 + 48) 340 132 (66+66) 120 204.7 401 90 320 66 134 285.3' ' 42 l 65.7 (51.9 +13.8) 310 6b` . 144 120 431 103.8 Ttl. lot width 528 154 120' 441 62.9 Ave. lot width 88' 155 243' 145 231' Ttl. ]t. width Ave. lt. width 580.4 82.91 % dwell +70', 33% ' ~ ~: 137 157' % dwell +70' S7% ',' ~_'` 700151 Ave (eastj~. : "'~ : `' 135 102.3' . . • __~ ..,~ .w 741 170 119 148.6' ' 500/6001st Ave (east) 721 65 120 109.5 671 103.8 711 102 132 103.3' 651 51.9 Ttl lot width 337 135 125.2' 645 102 Ave lot width 112.3 125 157.3 641 103.8 (51.9 +51.9) % dwell. +7p' 67% Ttl lt. width 2,107.2 Ave. lt. width 162.09' 611 51.9 7`h St. NE dwell. over 100' 100% 541 51.9 130 85 300/400 2"d Ave (east) 535 51.9 210 495 531 48.1 Ttl. lot width 580 Blackwell Current Owner 521 96.2 (48 + 48) Ave Lot width 290 311 361.9 (48,66,48,48,48,51.9,52) Ttl. lot width 713.4 % dwell +70' 100% 411 51.9 Ave. It. width 71.34 421 51.9 % dwell +70' 40% m 5 St. NE 431 51.9 301 107' 441 62.9 500/600/700 15` Ave (west) 311 214.3 (107.3 + 107} Ttl. lt. width 580.5 740 50 240 77.5 Ave. It width 116.1 730 50 Ttl. It width 398.8 dwell +70 20% 720 87 Ave. lt. width 132.93 300/400 2O Ave (east) 710 70 % dwell. over 100' 66% 670 132 Moffett Contract Owner 660 89.5 Burnett Court 311 210 (48+66 +48-+-48) 650 76 511 118.5 0 151.9 (48+51.9+52) 640 50 521 119 411 51.9 630 50 531 119 421 51.9 620 66 530 119 431 51.9 600 66 520 119 441 62.9 540 54 510 1 18.5 Ttl. lt. width 580.5 520 92.5 Total lt. width 713 Ave. It width 72.56 510 81.2 Ave. It width 118.83 dwell +70 20% Ttl. lt. width 1,014.2 % dwell +100' 100% Ave. It width 72.44 Single platted lots: % dwell +70' S0% *Red Denotes Double Lots 44 homes 70'+ lot 47% **Lot Width Data from Hamilton 39 homes 80'+ lot 420% County Online Mailroom 32 homes 90 + lot 34 /o 28 homes 100'+ lot 30% i {. BLACK~d4lEC,L PARK CO~IT`E~T' GU113E 1: ~_ } ,~ ,~; ~,: ~' `~ ~-"~f ~~f ~ s. .~ r ~r '~' 1 t y r r 1.. . x ~ ~, i ., _. °. ~~ RECENED May 5, 2009 MAY - 7 ZW9 To: Board of Zoning Appeals ~ DQCS RE: Blackwell Property Rezone I would like to share with you a compilation of comments from a couple of ema~ that I sent Laura Corry following your preliminary meeting on August 27`" regarding the Blackwell property rezone. She had commented on taking offense at Justin's reference to a "mob mentality" among the neighbors. I also include additional and enmeshed thoughts I have regarding the property changes. Hi Laura! First I want to commend you on your tireless efforts on this project, and the Herculean job you had to do to balance the time required for those efforts, AND balancing your exhausting schedule of taking care of a young child, a teenager, a husband, and a house. Bravo!! For Justin to say the neighborhood had a "mob mentality" might be a little too harsh, but unfortunately there is a large grain of truth in that statement. There is a rule of order for the procedures required. to bring together two opposing views regarding any project or idea. First, both sides must meet to hear exactly what the project or idea consists of. That is followed by a period of questions, then answers, an additional discussion, etc. and even rebuttal. Justin should have been included in the very first meeting. His absence from that meeting, and most of the following meetings stifled decades long procedures that allow fact and idea gathering, discussion, and even healthy disagreement regarding a controversial project or idea. His absence, sadly, did make it an adversarial process. __ In our original. meeting, we were told-that some~of his requestshad already been - explored by those deciding how to develop Old Town Carmel. It was pointed out that the set back requirements and especially the percent of property than can be built on had been violated by many of the current homeowners in Old Town. Several people at that meeting agreed that they had far exceeded those numbers. We were even told that if some of our homes burned to the ground we would probably not get permission to rebuild at our previous footage! A quick walk of our neighborhood certainly bears that out. The home across from me on 5"' street owned by Jenny Chastain is in flagrant violation of those current requirements. And yet a continuous stream of visitors come by. applauding her on her various projects. As stated, Justin should have been invited to our first meeting. He could have given his presentation, been asked to leave so we could discuss what he told us, and then invited back for additional questions or comments. He should also have been invited to any future meetings. I am also confused about the number of people who signed the petition. Since a very small percentage of the neighbors attended the meetings, I do not see how the 100 people who signed it could have had a good understanding what they were protesting. Many of the signers had to have been renters, and I do not know morally how much right they have to weigh in on this project. Most grievous to me was the personal assault on Justin and his family members at the first meeting. People were speculating about a family member living in one of the Triplet's basement, and questioning Justin's character and integrity. This type of gossipy, slanderous behavior is uncalled for. Because we disagree with some one does not excuse slanderous words or unfounded and unwarranted character bashing. How much would we know about someone from out of town offering the same proposal? I tried to point that out, but was quickly and rudely dismissed. I know Carmel must make changes in Old Town. Some people actually consider us the slum area of Carmel! Rather than fight these necessary changes, we should work with people like Justin (with his families history of old Carmel roots), rather than strangers who do not know our history or care about Old Town. I also have a little bit of a difference of opinion than many of my neighbors. I welcome new homes in our neighborhood, and even replacement homes for some of our neighbors who may wish to sell their homes in the future. We do have some lovely older homes in our neighborhood, but many of our homes are not so lovely, and do not fit the new downtown image or plans for future development. I do not want ordinance, etc. that would denote all our homes as historic, and thus put us under rigid or unrealistic standards. The Lavelle's have been big proponents of a more historic approach to our neighborhood, but I believe an older "historic" home was torn down in order that they could build their current lovely home. I would like to see our neighborhood growth and development be handled on a case by case decision regarding our Old Town neighborhood. Some of our very unhistoric homes would be well served by being torn down and replaced by more updated structures with designs that honor this neighborhood. We now have a literal hodge podge of style and design - I do not think we have a historic perspective in many cases, just old homes. I am also opposed to getting involved with the Historical Preservation people, or forming a Neighborhood Association. One comment that was made regarding a Neighborhood Association targeted plastic mail boxes. I donate to various charities. As a result, I receive a lot of mail. I looked for two years to find my current mailbox that easily holds all my mail - it is PLASTIC! I, too, am offended that Brent Westerfeld has no siding on his home. However, I am not willing to start a Neighborhood Association and all that would be entailed in that entity, in order to force Brent to put on siding. Since he is a lawyer, I suspect he would only keep us tied up in court! TO The BZA Council: I am as set in my ways as anyone, but I recognize change will come. I truly believe your council and the other planning committees are sincere in your desire to take us into the future within the new ideas and plans for downtown Carmel, and still honor our neighborhood. I also believe you honor the situation the neighborhood homeowners are in, and have a sincere desire to serve both sides of the issue fairly. I have lived here for nearly 40 years, and have seen fear, and an unwillingness to grow and modernize plunge the Carmel downtown area into periods plagued by several vacant buildings, unkempt homes, and even a period of a zealous police patrols. In my own neighborhood we had marijuana growing, a battered woman, and a killer hiding in a basement across the street from me! I know your desire is to preserve as much of the neighborhood as is feasible, and to control and direct any future changes and growth. I, for one, thank you! It has to be very difficult to balance all these things. Linda Westerfeld 441 Second Avenue NE Carmel, IN 46032 CC; Kevin Rider t.. ~ wCS1CLICld .Linda 3412nd Av .16032 •acmel, IN., , ,. . ~.' ~lr~.eP~ ~~ ~E68~a ~~sf~ _~._~ =spa r } ! : , ~ i,irt,el;,~Lnulf;,n,i:: ~,is~a:iu~n i:,~i~n,:;,fE:i: i,~ s Holmes, Christine B From: David Leazenby [david@davidleazenby.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 3:58 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Letter of Support Christine - I am writing to express my support for Justin's Moffet's request for variances in order to develop the Blackwell property. I met with Justin recently to discuss the details of the project and believe his proposal will be an asset to downtown Carmel. As a homeowner in the neighborhood who is concerned about the viability of businesses on Main Street, I believe it is appropriate to encourage further residents in the downtown area. More residents within walking distance of Main Street will promote a more healthy downtown. This will lead to higher property values and better quality of 1ife~for all residents. Please let the board know of my support. Thank you. David E. Leazenby Sent via: Mobile 317-294-5125 rage i of s Holmes, Christine B From: Clete Kunce [ckunce@haus-arch.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1:03 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Proposed Old Town Development known as Blackwell Park/3rd Avenue NE extension Dear Ms. Christine Barton-Holmes, Greetings, my name is Clete Kunce, and I, along with my wife are residents of Old Town and have owned and lived at the property located at 241 1st Avenue NE since the summer of 2000. I am writing you today in regards to the development listed in the subject line of this correspondence. A petition has circulated our neighborhood, and a good number of us in the neighborhood have informally met the developer Justin Moffett. With that being said I would like to "voice" my personal concerns regarding the proposed development for your consideration. To begin, I am not personally opposed to development, but want to ensure that development is done in an appropriate way for the right reasons. I really am concerned about these variances sliding through the system that could affect future development and neighborhood vitality, and possibly set a precedent for future development in Old Town. As you are probably aware Mr. Moffett has applied for four variances to go before the BZA. My overall concerns regarding the variances and proposed development are: • Density and lot width • Quality of the final home product (fitting in with the existing Old Town context and streetscape) • The idea of a "minor" subdivision being incorporated as a separate "pocket" within Old Town, and the established gridded street system • How drainage will be handled (wet pond at the lowest part of what is referred to as Blackwell Park on the Site Plan) The yet platted parcels (those involved in the variances) of the development are zoned R-2, while the platted parcels are zoned R-2 (2 lots) and R-3 (3 lots). The minimum lot width for an R-2 zoning requirement is 80' wide per the zoning ordinance. The minimum lot width for an R-3 zoning requirement is 60' wide, again per the ordinance. However, the petitioner is requesting SO' wide lots exceeding any parcel as currently zoned, as all surrounding parcels are zoned either R-2 or R-3. I understand density is the key for the developer, and it appears to me the controlling factor in platting these parcels will be controlled by the lot widths. Mr. Moffett will be limited in lot depth, due to the Street extension, and I think lot coverage, setbacks, etc. could be consistent with the overall lot size, and proportional to other zoning requirements. I am confident that 60' wide parcels (consistent with an R-3 zoning) could be accomplished in this development, including saving the green space and implementing the alleys for Garage access. I believe that in order to obtain a variance, the petitioner needs to display and convey the "hardship" caused by the zoning requirements. I do not see evidence of hardship on lot width for the developer, other than the financial gain and eventual profit of the developer, by making the development more dense (50' wide lot widths). I believe lot widths shall be not less than 60' to be consistent with the neighborhood zoning. I believe the developer should be held to the architectural standards as defined in Chapter 23D Old Town Overlay District Overlay,Zone regardless of the zoning variances, as part of these proposed parcels fall in the overlay, but more importantly all parcels are contiguous to the overlay standards. Therefore, to maintain the integrity, vitality, and connectivity talked about in the comprehensive plan and the overlay standards it is 4/20/2009 Page 2 of 3 imperative that the architectural standards be enforced. My preference would be that every street elevation for the single family dwellings be different...notjust paint...but varied in massing, materials, window placements, Porches, etc, as to not have a suburban model home feel. I am also concerned that these parcels will be developed as a minor subdivision, which is inconsistent with Old Town and the comprehensive plan. It appears to me that this pocket of 8 homes will be isolated and disconnected from the neighborhood in this scenario. They will have a Home Owners Association and a subdivision entrance sign and be responsible for maintenance of the public grounds? It seems the City would want to maintain these parcels as individual lots and let the City be responsible for road maintenance etc. Is there any way that Mr. Moffett could own the individual lots and sell them off that way? This way he could work with the City on maintaining the grid pattern of the street (3rd Avenue NE) to be someday extended North to 5th Street NE to continue the City grid street system? It seems a suburbia cul-de-sac and subdivision approach is in direct conflict with the petitioners desire for more density and a continuation of an urban development. In regards to drainage, again a suburb approach to storm water detention in the form of a pond appears foreign tome in this setting, and the developer needs to work with the City engineers to develop a safe non-pond situation in my opinion. In closing, My wife and I moved to Old Town for the charm, and the connectivity evident in Old Town. I, particularly wanted to live in Carmel, but vowed to never live on a cul-de-sac, as I feel they foster a disconnect within a community, along with increased traffic and restricted access. I grew up in a City that was platted into "blocks" on an orthogonal grid...just as Old Town, and wanted our daughter, along with us to be able to walk or ride our bikes "around" the neighborhood. We love that aspect of Old Town...we take walks around the neighborhood and interact with our neighbors...it is why we are here. I cannot envision myself walking into this "minor" subdivision for any reason, as it will be completely isolated from the rest of the Old Town community... isolating them from the good and the charm Old Town has to offer. I thank you for your time and am hopeful that you consider some of my points as discussions continue regarding this development. Best Regards, Clete and Deb Kunce 2411stAvenue NE Carmel, Indiana 4/20/2009 Members of Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals . We have been Carmel residence 31 years at the same address. There is an effort to get variances to build dense housing by Justin Moffett on the old Blackwell property. The present R-2 10,000 sq.ft. lots should remain in effect it is outside the Carmel overlay, dense housing does not fit with surrounding homes that borders his property. Because Mr. Moffett agrees to pay an exorbitant amdunt for the property should not be reason for variance changes or a hard ship case. Members of the board I hope you come out and invision this proposed development. To see what affect this would place upon my property and my daughters just west of mine next door. While you're looking at our property please look at the progress of 230 5th St NE, to see what I'm having to look at after the variance approval of July of 2007. I'm afraid decisions like these will rob us of equity of our properties. Mr. Moffetts project would look like a bunch of army barracks in a tight row. It wouldn't complement our property on the North and East borders or even the neighborhood. We have beef} in contact with all oq~ neighbors they agree that these kind of homes don't fit in our area setting. They are known as the triplets. They all look the same except for different colors. 04/07/09. - Bill & Regina Greenwood Ben 8~ Beth Scott 311 5th St NE 301 5"' St NE Carmel IN 46032 Carmel IN 46032 ..: ....... ~, ~~~~ ', _ ~' ~; ,- . ~ r.. ,; Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Warren Dunn [vespacars@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, Apri121, 2009 12:45 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Blackwell Property Developement Dear Ms. Holmes, I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the proposed development and request for a zoning variance from R-2 to R-3 by Justin Moffett. I have lived at 135 Sylvan Lane since nineteen hundred and sixty. My parents built this house and I have lived here ever since. The adjoining field know as the "Blackwell Property" has always been a refuge for wildlife including deer, fox, and hundreds of species of birds including owls and pilated woodpeckers. My concems include over building the property which would not be in harmony with the area as the five lots in question on the Sylvan Lane side aze not fifty foot frontage as he requests variance for. Secondly, there is already a drainage problem Mr. Moffett created by failing to address ground water issues after building the three houses on 3rd Ave which also do NOT conform to the area by any stretch of the imagination. He is awaze of the drainage problem but has only made a token effort to correct it. Next is the issue of access from Sylvan Lane which if allowed would create a handy drive by drop off for the high school students. which is already a problem. Another concern is the proposed "Blackwell Park" which the developer has said will be a "nature" type facility with a few benches however those promises sometimes seem to be forgotten once the permits to go ahead have been granted. THE LAST thing we want to see in the neighborhood is a "kiddie" pazk with playground equipment. This is a quiet retirement setting and we expect it to remain that way. What about the sanitary sewer and where will it connect? There aze six houses connected to the current system which drains to a lift station. That lift station is on Aucubon Drive and is visited by the City usually once a month due to clogging or failure of the equipment In short it is overloaded now not to mention the problems if this new progect of 13 homes is allowed to pass. The solution to all of the problems is simple -keep the zoning in compliance with the larger parcel including the houses on Sylvan Lane and Audobon Drive that exists now which is R-2. In closing, I hope you will consider my concems which include carte blanche clearing of every tree, proposed "park", too many houses for the land available, possible street access from Sylvan Lane, displacement of the wildlife in the area and last but not least the negative effect this project will have on my property value. I have seen how the Cobblestone project turned out and I fear the same thing will happen here. I welcome your comments, please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Warren and Brenda Dunn 135 Sylvan Lane Carmel, IN 46032 317-796-4294 4/21/2009 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Regina Greenwood [rgreenw311@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:37 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Blackwell property Bill & Regina Greenwood 311 5th St NE Carmel IN 46032 We live adjoining the Blackwell property. We strongly disagree with Justin Moffett about his building project. The three houses he built on 3rd ave. n.e. are out of character and too big and not compatible with houses in the neighborhood. We do not think his variance changes should be granted. Justiri should abide by al] existing zoning requirements that the city has made.These zoning requirements are there to protect interest `of property owners, and to maintain the neighborhood ascetics, history, and therefore protecting our property values.Any variance grants should be considered wrong and irresponsible. His project if allowed will look like a bunch of army barracks packed tightly together towering over and crowding into surrounding homes. Out of consideration for our cites zoning and neighbors the purchase price should be properly set so that it can be properly developed with every ones interest at heart and not just someones billfold. , 4/27/2009 Page 1 of 1 Holmes, Christine B From: Beth Scott [beth-Scott@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:58 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Blackwell Park Dear Ms. Holmes, We are writing to convey our concerns and objections to the Blackwell Park Development proposals by Justin Moffitt. Our family lives adjacent to the Blackwell Property that is in the process of being purchased by Justin Moffitt. We strongly oppose a~ variances that Mr. Moffitt is pursuing as a result of the exorbant price he has offered for this property! The proposed development of this property will'result in homes that are out of character for this neighborhood such as the three Mr. Moffitt already built on 3rd Avenue. These homes are not only out of character with our neighborhood but tower over other homes in the immediate area. The rear of our home and property are directly connected 4o the Blackwell Property and if these variances are approved the homes proposed by Mr. Moffitt will bump up directly to our backyard and will destroy all privacy we currently have in our yard and home that we have enjoyed for the past several years. Even if a privacy fence were installed this would not give us privacy from the towering homes that will be built right up to the property line allowing direct site over a fence and into our backyard and into the windows of our bedroom, living room, and kitchen! There are rules and ordinances in place in this city to protect the homeowners from violations such as this! The city needs to uphold those codes to protect the current residents! It would be unfair and unjust for the city to approve such variances to assist Mr. Moffitt in turning a profit on an investment that was not made with sound financial judgement. Please assist the good tax paying citizens of this neighborhood from being violated by not approving the variances requested by Mr. Moffitt. Sincerely, Benjamin and Beth Scott 301 5th St NE Carmel, IN 46032 317-464-9853 4/27/2009 Page 1 of 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Brentwesterfeld [bbwesterfeld@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:33 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Cc: jcorry@indy.rr.com Subject: Blackwell Property Variance Petition Dear Ms. Holmes \We are writing in regard to our objections to the variances sought on the Blackwell property. My wife and I live at the corner of 2nd Ave Ne and 3rd St NE. There are numerous obejctions we have to the variances. Foremost among them is the fact that the developer has no grounds to support this request. My wife bought this property with the understanding of the rules adopted by the City. She invested in the property on this basis. Now, nearly 20 years later, a developer wants to come in and change them. This must not be allowed. We have lived in Carmel and seen how changes have been made in disrespect for the people who came here long before the "newcomer" developers. This must stop now. The impact on families and their quality of life must be considered. The developer now wants to change the rules based upon the view that he cannot make enough money off the development unless the rules are changed. This is not grounds for a variance. If it were, every property owner would be able to change the rules if he could claim that he could not make enough money on a sale if the rules were not changed. The law is clear that this is not the standard under which variances maybe granted. As to the merits of the variance petition, the developer in essence seeks to build a "zit":between old town and the homes that lie on Sylvan and Audubon. The homes he proposes to build will look out of place compared to the homes in old town and those to the east and north. This area is a transition aiea and it currently represents such. The homes the developer proposes maybe appear appropriate to main street and rangeline, but will stick out like a sore thumb between 2nd ave NE and Audubon. IOne only need view the homes the developer built on 3rd Ave NE and between 2nd and 3rd St. NE. If the variances are approved it will be clear that the City wants citizens who live in houses unlike those houses out of Carmel. The "zit" effect is also apparent by the developers proposal to have a "homeowners association". This is a neighborhood. Planning should not be a party to creating an island in the middle of this neighborhood. This is not some corn field like those north of here. We may not have taken courses in urban planning, but it is clear to those uneducated in urban planning that putting a Manhatten style housing addition in the middle of this typical Carmel neighborhood is not good urban planning. It is a 1960's redevelopment kicking out the less rich for the richer -those who can pay higher property taxes. The property is platted. There are zoning rules. A developer who purchases the property is well aware of those rules. The developer argues that his plan meets the density requirements for this area. However, he only counts people density. People in this neighborhood invested based on building denisity. The woods on the Blackwell property are part of that. One need only walk over to Sylvan and Audobon to see that the Blackwell property mirrors that area. It is clear that that the developer will clearcut the woods and change the character of this area foreever. For years the Blackwells planted trees 4/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 and native flowers in this azea. The Blackwells regulazly rescued native plants from azeas that were being dozed. Now, a developer intends to doze all of their efforts under. In conclusion, please be assured that we will attend the hearing on Monday. A rational planning department seeking to serve the interests of the neighbohorhood and applying the rules it recommended years eazlier should rigthly recommend the denial of these variances. A recommendation to approve will make it clear to the citizens that the planning department has no interest in serving the cifizens of Carmel. Rather it will demonstrate that planning is in the pocket of the the developers. Kathryn and Brent Westerfeld 241 2nd Ave. NE. 4/27/2009 Holmes, Christine B From: Jim Corry [jcorry@indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:40 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Old Town/Blackwell update Attachments: OLd Town Meeting Minutes 4.6.09 OLd Town Meeting Minutes 4.6.0... Dear Christine, Hello! I just wanted to send you an e-mail to let you know how I feel abort Justin Moffett's proposal known as Blackwell Park/3rd Avenue Extension. Thank you in advance for you reading this. I am opposed to the development and to the 4 variances that Justin is going to try to get. There is a current petition against the development and no variances to the R2. This is in part do to Justin Moffett's apparent unwillingness to compromise on his proposed density. At the very beginning when my husband and I met with Justin (late Feb/early March), we listened to his overview and when I told him that there were "too many houses back there"--meaning the woods, he said that he "wasn't willing to go down on that." Wi11 the petition do anything? Maybe not, but it sends a message to the BZA and Moffett that we do not agree with his proposal. The land in question is bordered to the north, east and south by property that is currently R2. Moffett is saying that this will bring this land into conformance with the rest of the neighborbood but I disagree. There is a current eclectic mix of architechural styles, homes, varied property setbacks and empty lots between homes. That's what the homeowners want, that's why they moved here and that's why they are staying here. It sounds like Mr. Moffett wants to put a POD in the middle of our neighborhood. That doesn't seem to fit. If he does go ahead with his proposal (regardless of variance), neighbors would like quality homes with varied architechural styles and a mix of building materials. Moffett claims that the density for his proposal would be 3.7. The current neighborhood density is 9.0 which on the surface sounds right. However, he wants to put 13 homes in his development (l0with the variances + 3 that are already platted) --all with minimum yard setback, max, lot coverage, minimum lot width and max area. That is definitely is NOT staying in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. There is nowhere in Old Town where there are 13 homes right next to each other on 50'lots. I think if anything, there should be 3-4 homes back there on wooded lots. That's what people want--not to be squeezed next to each other. People want mature trees, wooded lots, a backyard for their kids to play and dog to run. If he does varied, quality homes on larger lots this could be a benefit to the neighborhood. There will be additional major drainage problems if he puts 13 homes back there. There are already drainage problems from the 3 homes that he put on 3rd Ave NE. Water rushes down Sylvan Lane with major rainfall. Traffic will be a big problem. The current narrow roads will have a hard time acommodating an additional 30+ cars (assuming 13 home go back there). There are already high school events, community events, trash pick up that tax the area. Plus, there is only one outlet. There needs to be some emergency egress for vehicles to get back there. Quality of life can be cited. There is also the to keep existing woods and/or greenspace alone. alarming rate. Once they are gone, they are gone wildlife and greenspace issues. We need Our urban forests are being lost at an Mammals depend on these areas, 1 especially if they are located near creeks or rivers. One may say that animals can find someplace else to live. That is true to a point. If one says that about every property, their habitat will be lost and animals will eventually die off for lack of food and shelter. The current woods in question is adjacent to other wooded property in the area (Audubon and Sylvan) which run along Cool Creek. Mr. Moffett has said that if he does not get his variances for the property in the woods he might be forced to put duplexes on 2nd Ave NE. Is this an intimidation tactic? This is recorded in the attached minutes which Mr. Moffett is aware of and has made corrections/additions to. At a meeting on April 16th at which Woody Rider attended, he has also publicly stated that he is committed to putting up single family homes on the R3 and that he will not put up duplexes. There have been several neighborhood meetings: March 14, March 21, April 2. As you have suggested, we have had a small group meeting with Justin April 6., and there was a neighborhood meeting with Justin April 18th which Woody Rider attended a portion of. Attached are(the minutes from the small group meeting with Justin. Thanks again for taking the time to listen to my concerns. Laura Corry 390 2nd Ave NE 571-9716 jcorry@indy.rr.com 2 Meeting Memorandum Old Town Carmel Blackwell Woods MEETING DATE: April 06, 2009 REPORT DATE: April 08, 2009 (revised April 13, PROJECT: Old Town Blackwell Developmen LOCATION: Carmel Library (Meeting Room H ATTENDEES: Justin Moffett Kevin Lavelle Debra Kunce Clete Kunce 2009) t (3~^ Avenue NE & 3~^ Street NE) OwnerlDeveloper (Uptown Partners) Home OwnerlNeighbor Home OwnerlNeighbor , Home OwnerlNeighbor (writer) The following represents the writers understanding of the content of the conversations. The purpose of the Conversations was the following: I. For neighbor representatives to listen to Mr. Moffett to gain additional information regarding the proposed development. 2. For Mr. Moffett to gain insight to the neighbor's concerns of thg proposed development. General Discussions (commenced at 7:00om1: Mr. Moffett started the discussion with a brief history of how and why the proposed development transpired. The bullet points of that conversation are as follows: a. Justin has had his eye on this property for some time and asked Chris Blackwell to contact him if he ever wanted to sell the property. b. Chris Blackwell's mother passed away recently (in the last twelve months). c. Chris has decided to sell the property (with the exception of the house and associated lot on the NE corner of 2^d Avenue NE and 3~a Street NE to which Chris has no immediate plans of selling). d. Justin has the first right of refusal on the property and has yet to close, but the closing is scheduled. e. The property to be developed comprises of 5 already platted lots. Three fronting 2^d Avenue NE and two with their side yards abutting 3~^ Street NE and their eventual front yards to be on the proposed 3~^ Avenue NE extension (as part of the new development), and the un-platted area known as Blackwell woods. f. The un-platted area in Blackwell woods comprises approximately 2.2 acres. g. The proposed development would create 8 new platted lots on the 2.2 acres, bringing the total number of single family lots to a total of 13 lots (S platted & 8 un-platted). h. The proposed Blackwell Park green space on the lowest part of the property comprises approximately 113 of the total development (approximately .67 acres). i. The variances sought by Justin for reduced lot width, side yard and front yard setbacks, and minimum lot coverage pertain to this un-platted parcel only; as the other 5 parcels are already platted, j. Justin's family lives in Old Town and Justin's thoughts were that he wanted to purchase the property and develop the land in an appropriate way as opposed to another developer FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN Page ~ I buying the property and maximizing lots (as opposed to saving "green" space for the neighborhood). 2. Mr. Moffett pointed out that this un-platted parcel is not in the historic overlay district, and he has no obligation to follow the overlay architectural standards. 3. Justin talked to Carmel zoning staff and asked their preferences on an appropriate "common ground" for development of the un-platted parcel. 4. Staff's recommendation was to be consistent with existing platted lots in the contiguous old town neighborhoods (SO' wide interior lots and 65' wide corner lots). This matches the lot widths preferred in the overlay standards. Staff also was favorable of Justin's proposal to leave approximately Ili of the development to not be developed for housing and to give this green space back to the neighborhood. 5. Mr. Moffett admitted that because of the speed of the real estate transaction, he has not performed all of his due diligence. He still has questions to answer and is open to ideas from the neighbors. If, and when he receives his variance requests and BZA approval, then drainage calculations and civil engineering would be performed prior to the platting process of the property. City Engineering would need to stamp and approve the development before final platting. Then housing design, etc. would be performed. 6. Justin conveyed that he is committed to have the development adhere to the Carmel overlay district architectural and zoning standards for all parcels. 7. Justin additionally verbally committed to the group that all parcels will be developed as single family residences. 8. Mr. Moffett did mention that he needs to have a minimum of B (eight) lots on the un-platted parcel to make his "numbers" work. He reminded the group that if he does not get the minimum 8 lots on the un-platted parcels, that he would be forced to possibly develop the 3 platted lots on 2^d Avenue NE as multi-family (duplexes), which he is allowed under the current zoning of those lots. 9. Justin wants rear yard Garages (not facing the street i( at all possible). The lots are proposed to be SO' wide, with S' minimum side yards with an aggregate total side yard setback requirement of IS' total width. He is proposing the anticipated average home width would be 32' - 35'. 10. Justin is also Committed to improving the alleys to provide access to the proposed rear yard Garages. Garages would then be accessed from the alley. He mentioned the possibility of utilizing pervious pavement to reduce storm water run-off of the proposed development, if the City of Carmel will accept this method of storm water management. I I. Justin is developing this parcel as a "minor" sub-division and those rules as it applies to green space and storm water retentionldetention. A minor subdivision is a development of 5 acres or less. Storm water requirements are relatively the same for a Minor or Major subdivision. Mr. Moffett is offering the green space, even though it is not compulsory to the platting process or required in a minor subdivision. 12. Storm water retentionldetention is anticipated by Justin to be a "dry" basin or bowl at the lowest elevation of the woods. It would be planted with the proper vegetation for this type of environment. The bowl would hold water in heavy rains and snow melt-off, and then be released into the city's piped water management system which eventually discharges into Cool Creek. Justin indicated that he does not want a "pond" that provides full detention (water-constantly in the pond). 13. As a result of Justin developing this area as a minor subdivision, this would require him to establish a Home Owners Association (HOA) for this development. This HOA would then be responsible for the maintenance of the common areas (woods, etc.). The City of Carmel would be responsible for the road. 14. Justin's engineers would design the new 3~^ Avenue NE road extension to meet the City's standards, which would match the width and sidewalk of the existing stretch of 3~^ Avenue NE. I S. Justin also mentioned that the end of 3~d Ave. NE in the development would be designed as a hammer-head as indicated on the Site Plans he has provided (in lieu of a "circular" cul-de-sac). 16. The hammer-head design conforms to Carmel's standards and is designed to accommodate a fire truck, and based on the fire truck's turning radius performing a "Y" turn. FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN Page ~ 2 a. I1. Mr. Moffett also mentioned that this hammer-head design would provide the future potential of extending this new Street to Fifth Street NE if those properties to the North of the development would ever come up for sale. IB. Justin also suggested that he could possibly provide a slight curve to the West in the new 3~d Ave. NE extension (affecting lot no's. I through 4) to save more trees and eliminate having to "fill" where the existing grade starts to fall away to the East. This is why he is requesting the lot size variance of reduction from 10,000 square feet to 6500 square feet. The average depth of lot is 145'. So, if you multiply 50' min. lot width by 145', which equates to 7,250 square feet for the average lot to be developed per the variance requests. In other words, if you maintain a 50' width you could reduce the lot length to 130', which would allow the road to "curve" approximately IS' to the West. Justin quizzed the group if this would make the neighbors happy (curving the street to save more trees). The neighborhood representatives responded that it may be more preferable to maintain the City "grid" system of streets already established, and all lot depths the same. This would also require Mr. Moffett to have to "fill" a portion of the lower area to maintain a straight roadlstreet. 19. The neighbor's asked if Mr. Moffett would provide and install landscape buffers between the neighbors to the North and East of the development. He responded that the Platting standards have I'andscape buffer requirements, but would be willing to talk to the neighbors, if the platting standards do not satisfy the neighbors. 20. The neighbors asked about the design of the homes..."what will they look like"> Mr. Moffett had two ezte~ior front (street) elevation examples. His intent is to have the homes have a "cottage" feel. Both examples had front porches with lap and shake style siding. Both were two story examples. One was a bungalow style, while the other was a "plain" colonial. The neighbors preferred the bungalow style when asked by Justin. The bungalow had more detail, relief with the front porch with tapered wood columns and wood bracket details. The other example had a very "flat" front elevation, with very little stylization. 21. Justin also explained that he is planning on having 3 different (loot plans for the development. Each floor plan will have three different "elevation" packages. This means that there is the potential that there could possibly be 9 (nine) different front (street) elevations. The neighbors asked if every house in the new development could have a different front elevation. Justin feels he can vary the three elevations per unit to achieve enough variety. The neighbors expressed ,their concern of houses being too alike, even with the variations. The neighbors felt that the streetscape created by these new houses should make every attempt to be as unique and as varied as possible to stay within the context of the existing housing stock present in Old Town. We feel these new homes should have as much character and charm as possible. 22. The target market for these new homes according to Justin is the upcoming young professional working couple with 2.1 children. 23. The price point for these homes is intended to be in the $350,000 range. This price point coupled with the density of the development will make Justin's development Performa numbers work to make a successful Project for Mr. Moffett. 24. Mr. Moffett is going to team up with a local custom home builder. The builder is "Heartwood Homes"ILangston. Heartwood has a home designer on staff that will develop the three "models". 25. It is Justin's intent to not build all the homes at once, but instead he will pick one of the lots and build a model for people to view prior to purchase. 26. Justin was puzzled as to why the neighbors were opposing the development, and was curious why no one attempted to contact him prior to initiating the petition. Justin expressed that from his standpoint the density is precisely what is allowed, and the variances in his opinion bring the lots up to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. He also suggests that the petitions were contradictory, in that the neighbors are accepting of a density of 5 unitslacre (or less) in Old Town. Yet we (the neighbors) are opposed to Justin's development, which proposes a density of 3.7 unitslacre (due to the proposed green space). He seated that the contradiction stands out quite clearly in the petition letter sent to the neighborhood. 27. His questions to the neighbors were as follows: FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN X13 a. Are the neighbors just completely against any kind of development? b. Do the neighbors want more green space.> c. What are the specific issues as they pertain to density? d. Is it lot area? e. Is it lot coverage? f. Is it.lot widths.> 28. Our responses were as follows: a. Some of the neighboring community is against any kind of development, but we believe that most neighbors understand that this is private property, and it can and probably will be developed. The neighbors desire the property to be developed in an appropriate way, consistent with the character and charm of Old Town. b. The neighbor's are generally okay with the green space, but have concerns that it could be detrimental to the neighborhood i( it becomes a detention pond, which could pose safety issues to kids in the area, and do not want the Park to be a mosquito infested pdnd. c. The neighbors feel the development is too dense compared to the surrounding homes. d. The neighbors feel the lots as proposed are too small and do not meet current property sizes or current zoning requirements. e. The neighbors generally feel the lot coverage should match the zoning requirements. f. The representing neighborhood group felt that lot width of all the issues may be the most contentious. We suggested the allowed 65' wide lots be Considered. An idea was presented to make all of the un-platted lots to be 60' wide, while still utilizing the alleys and rear loaded Garages accessed off the improved alley. It was suggested that maybe Justin could add one more 60' wide lot on the East side'of the development to match the other two proposed lots (lots 7 & 8). This would place 3 lots on the East side of the road. Then, Justin could hopefully arrange 5 lots on the West side of the street with all those lots being 60' wide. This would still give him the 8 lots he needs and desires to make his numbers work. We also suggested possibly moving the newly proposed alley running west from new 3~^ Ave. farther North, but we did like the fact that this proposed alley visually breaks up the streetscape, which is consistent with the surrounding areas. 29. Justin asked if there could be a "common ground" approach with the neighbor's. . 30. Justin also asked if it would be productive to meet the entire neighborhood group. Subsequent to the meeting the representative group decided it would be good to let all of the neighbors have the opportunity to engage in a productive dialog with Justin. 31. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. Action Items for Next Meetine I. Justin will investigate what the landscape buffer requirements are from the platting standards. 2. Justin will consider making the exteriors as varied as possible. 3. Justin will look at a new layout utilizing 60'-0" wide lots for the 8 desired un-platted lots. 4. Justin will consider enlarging lot size from his requested 6,500 square feet, especially if he does not "bend" the new street to the West, and if he can make the 60' wide lots work in the development. 5. The neighbors will contact Justin'to schedule a forum for Justin to meet The Friends of Old Town. Please contact the writer (Clete Kunce at ckunce(a7haus-arch.com or 501.6021- cell) of these meeting minutes within 3 business days of receipt with any corrections, or to report any discrepancies or inaccuracies contained herein, otherwise this report shall stand as reported and written. Attachments: NIA Cc: All listed + distribution to Friends of Old Town FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN Page j 4 Holmes, Christine B From: Jim Corry ~corry@indy.rr.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:11 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Petition for Blackwell Property Attachments: The following is the wording of the petition that the Friends of Old Town will present at the BZA meeting on Apri! 27th at 6.doc fie following is the wording o... Christine, There is a petition that the Friends of 01d Town would will present at the BZA meeting on the 27th. I have been advised that we need not submit the actual petition for the BZA packet but that.we can submit the wording of the petition. I have attached a copy of the wording of the petition so that you can include it in the packet for the BZA. The petition states as follows: Petition Opposing Development of the Blackwell Property and any of the requested variances for the property. , We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Carmel's Old Town Neighborhood, oppose the proposed development of the Blackwell property, and strongly object to the granting of ANY variances for the property. Thanks, Laura Corry 340 2nd Ave NE 571-9716 jcorry@indy.rr.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Justin Moffett [justinmoffettC~aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:16 AM To: Holmes, Christine B; Conn, Angelina V; Hollibaugh, Mike P Cc: Rider, Kevin D Subject: Blackwell Park- Neighborhood Meeting Report I wanted to make sure to keep the planning staff in the loop regarding my efforts in meeting with the neighbors in old town. Last Saturday I met with a group of approximately 30 neighbors at Carmel Christian Church to share the details about our proposed development, Blackwell Park. I've written a summary below that I had sent to the leaders of the neighborhood group after the meeting. For the most part I felt that the major concerns were addressed through my presentation and most of the people who had been willing to engage in community building dialog expressed their relief once all of the details were explained. Obviously, there were still a few people remaining who cannot be satisfied with anything we're proposing. If I were to try and identify the greatest concerns that came from the meeting they were 1) Traffic problems. This issue will not be made better by the addition of 13 homes, but there is a root problem that won't go away by pointing fingers at our project. I think there is potential to form a neighborhood action group (hate the term committee) that seeks to ease congestion in the neighborhood through implementation of new traffic control devices and enforcement of existing rules. I would be glad to assist in this process, but please recognize that my property rights won't be restricted because of the existing problem. How do we work together on this one? 2) Architecture. I probably bored them with how many times I explained this to the group. I am submitting myself to architectural standards and controls that I don't have to commit to in seeking these BZA variances because they are the only process by which the city can request and enforce architectural standards. 3) Scale of the Homes. I understand that the massing of the homes is important to neighbors and we need to be careful with how we size the homes. 4) Drainage. Again, the city won't restrict my property rights because of the problems the school has caused. Our civil engineer will be charged with making the drainage better on the site and surrounding area or we won't be given construction permits. That issue is pretty simple and straightforward. 5) Green Space. I heard loud and clear that the neighbors want to see as much green space as possible, no pond, no playground and heavy vegetation. Thanks, Justin W. Moffett Uptown Panners, LLC 255 3rd Ave NE Carmel, IN 46032 317.966.2023 phone 317.580.9596 fax justinmoffett@aol.com 4/21 /2009 Tingley, Connie S From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1:28 PM To: Broach, Kent; Dierckman, Leo J; Earlene; Hawkins, James R; James Hawkins; Kent Broach; Leo; Madeleine; Plavchak, Earlene;Torres, Madeleine Cc: Tingley, Connie S, 'John Molitor' Subject: FW: Old Town Neighbors meeting minutes 4.6.09 Attachments: minutes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Orange Category Meeting minutes from neighbors and Justin Moffett. Christine Barton-Holmes, LEED AP Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax P Please consider the environment before printing Original Message From:Jim Corry [mailto:icorry @indv.rr.com] Sent: Friday,April 17,2009 7:28 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: Old Town Neighbors meeting minutes 4.6.09 Christine, Please see attached meeting minutes between Old Town Neighbors and Justin Moffett. There is a meeting with the entire neighborhood and Moffett Saturday April 18th at 1:00 @ Carmel Christian Church (across from the high school). Laura Corry Original Message From:Jim Corry [mailto:icorry @indv.rr.com] Sent: Friday,April 17, 2009 7:06 PM To: Mike P Hollibaugh; Kevin "Woody" Rider; Eric Seidensticker; Denise Howell;Warren & Brenda Dunn; Bill & Regina Greenwood; Luanna Albrecht; Phil Cripe;Trish Rose;Tony Alerding;Tom & Freda Weigel; Susan Mattes; Scott Morris; Rosalie& Kevin Lavelle; Natali& Eshel Faraggi; Mark Collins; Linda &Glen Westerfeld; Lee, Marg and Doug Dolen; kiz720 @msn.com;Joshua Kirsh;John Jefferson;Jim & Laura Corry;Jenny Alderding;Jennifer Frick; Gretchen &Van Crawford; Everett Frick; Don & 1 Karyn Clevenger; Don & Karyn Clevenger; Brent Westerfeld; Bill & Kim Sanders; Ann Conrad; Clete Kunce; Deb Kunce; Ben & Beth Scott Subject:Old Town Neighbors meeting minutes 4.6.09 Attached are the minutes from the small group meeting with Old Town Neighbors and Justin Moffett regarding the Blackwell Park/3rd Ave. NE extension proposal. There will be a BZA meeting April 27 where Justin will attempt to get 4 variances. Thanks to Clete Kunse for recording the minutes. Sorry this isn't more detailed...I have to go soothe a crying baby! Laura Corry 340 2nd Ave NE 571-9716 icorry @indv.rr.com 2 Holmes, Christine B From: Jim Corry [jcorry@indy.rr.comj Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:28 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: FW: Old Town Neighbors meeting minutes 4.6.09 Attachments: minutes minutes (60 KB) Christine, Please see attached meeting minutes between 01d Town Neighbors and Justin Moffett. There is a meeting with the entire neighborhood and Moffett Saturday April 18th at 1:00@ Carmel Christian Church (across from the high school). Laura Corry ~ , -----Original Message----- From: Jim Corry [mailto:jcorry@indy.rr.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 7:D6 PM To: Mike P Holli:baugh; Kevin "Woody" Rider; Eric Seidensticker; Denise Howell; Warren & Brenda Dunn; Bi11 & Regina Greenwood; Luanna Albrecht; Phil Cripe; Trish Rose; Tony Alerding; Tom & Freda Weigel; Susan Mattes; Scott Morris; Rosalie & Kevin~Lavelle; Natali & Eshel Faraggi; Mark Collins; Linda 6 Glen Westerfeld; Lie, Marg and Doug Dolen; kiz720 @msn.com; Joshua Kirsh; John Jefferson; Jim & Laura Corry; Jenny Alderding; Jennifer Frick; Gretchen & Van Crawford; Everett Frick; Don & Karyn Clevenger; Don & Karyn Clevenger; Brent Westerfeld; Bi11 & Kim Sanders; Ann Conrad; Clete Kunce; Deb Kunce; Ben ~ Beth Scott Subject: Old Town Neighbors meeting minutes 4.6.09 Attached are the minutes from the small group meeting with Old Town Neighbors and Justin Moffett regarding the Blackwell Park/3rd Ave. NE extension proposal. There will be a BZA meeting April 27 where Justin will attempt to get 4 variances. Thanks to Clete Kunse for recording the minutes. Sorry this isn't more~detailed...I have to go soothe a crying baby! Laura Corry 340 2nd Ave NE 571-9716 jcorry@indy.rr.com Meeting Memorandum Old Town Carmel Blackwell Woods MEETING DATE: April 06, 2009 REPORT DATE: April 08, 2009 (revised April 13, PROJECT: Old Town Blackwell Developmen LOCATION: Carmel Library (Meeting Room H ATTENDEES: Justin Moffett Kevin Lavelle Debra Kunce Clete Kunce 2009) t (3~^ Avenue NE & 3~^ Street NE) OwnerlDeveloper (Uptown Partners) Home OwnerlNeighbor Home OwnerlNeighbor , Home OwnerlNeighbor (writer) The following represents the writers understanding of the content of the conversations. The purpose of the Conversations was the following: I. For neighbor representatives to listen to Mr. Moffett to gain additional information regarding the proposed development. 2. For Mr. Moffett to gain insight to the neighbor's concerns of thg proposed development. General Discussions (commenced at 7:00om1: Mr. Moffett started the discussion with a brief history of how and why the proposed development transpired. The bullet points of that conversation are as follows: a. Justin has had his eye on this property for some time and asked Chris Blackwell to contact him if he ever wanted to sell the property. b. Chris Blackwell's mother passed away recently (in the last twelve months). c. Chris has decided to sell the property (with the exception of the house and associated lot on the NE corner of 2^d Avenue NE and 3~a Street NE to which Chris has no immediate plans of selling). d. Justin has the first right of refusal on the property and has yet to close, but the closing is scheduled. e. The property to be developed comprises of 5 already platted lots. Three fronting 2^d Avenue NE and two with their side yards abutting 3~^ Street NE and their eventual front yards to be on the proposed 3~^ Avenue NE extension (as part of the new development), and the un-platted area known as Blackwell woods. f. The un-platted area in Blackwell woods comprises approximately 2.2 acres. g. The proposed development would create 8 new platted lots on the 2.2 acres, bringing the total number of single family lots to a total of 13 lots (S platted & 8 un-platted). h. The proposed Blackwell Park green space on the lowest part of the property comprises approximately 113 of the total development (approximately .67 acres). i. The variances sought by Justin for reduced lot width, side yard and front yard setbacks, and minimum lot coverage pertain to this un-platted parcel only; as the other 5 parcels are already platted, j. Justin's family lives in Old Town and Justin's thoughts were that he wanted to purchase the property and develop the land in an appropriate way as opposed to another developer FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN Page ~ I buying the property and maximizing lots (as opposed to saving "green" space for the neighborhood). 2. Mr. Moffett pointed out that this un-platted parcel is not in the historic overlay district, and he has no obligation to follow the overlay architectural standards. 3. Justin talked to Carmel zoning staff and asked their preferences on an appropriate "common ground" for development of the un-platted parcel. 4. Staff's recommendation was to be consistent with existing platted lots in the contiguous old town neighborhoods (SO' wide interior lots and 65' wide corner lots). This matches the lot widths preferred in the overlay standards. Staff also was favorable of Justin's proposal to leave approximately Ili of the development to not be developed for housing and to give this green space back to the neighborhood. 5. Mr. Moffett admitted that because of the speed of the real estate transaction, he has not performed all of his due diligence. He still has questions to answer and is open to ideas from the neighbors. If, and when he receives his variance requests and BZA approval, then drainage calculations and civil engineering would be performed prior to the platting process of the property. City Engineering would need to stamp and approve the development before final platting. Then housing design, etc. would be performed. 6. Justin conveyed that he is committed to have the development adhere to the Carmel overlay district architectural and zoning standards for all parcels. 7. Justin additionally verbally committed to the group that all parcels will be developed as single family residences. 8. Mr. Moffett did mention that he needs to have a minimum of B (eight) lots on the un-platted parcel to make his "numbers" work. He reminded the group that if he does not get the minimum 8 lots on the un-platted parcels, that he would be forced to possibly develop the 3 platted lots on 2^d Avenue NE as multi-family (duplexes), which he is allowed under the current zoning of those lots. 9. Justin wants rear yard Garages (not facing the street i( at all possible). The lots are proposed to be SO' wide, with S' minimum side yards with an aggregate total side yard setback requirement of IS' total width. He is proposing the anticipated average home width would be 32' - 35'. 10. Justin is also Committed to improving the alleys to provide access to the proposed rear yard Garages. Garages would then be accessed from the alley. He mentioned the possibility of utilizing pervious pavement to reduce storm water run-off of the proposed development, if the City of Carmel will accept this method of storm water management. I I. Justin is developing this parcel as a "minor" sub-division and those rules as it applies to green space and storm water retentionldetention. A minor subdivision is a development of 5 acres or less. Storm water requirements are relatively the same for a Minor or Major subdivision. Mr. Moffett is offering the green space, even though it is not compulsory to the platting process or required in a minor subdivision. 12. Storm water retentionldetention is anticipated by Justin to be a "dry" basin or bowl at the lowest elevation of the woods. It would be planted with the proper vegetation for this type of environment. The bowl would hold water in heavy rains and snow melt-off, and then be released into the city's piped water management system which eventually discharges into Cool Creek. Justin indicated that he does not want a "pond" that provides full detention (water-constantly in the pond). 13. As a result of Justin developing this area as a minor subdivision, this would require him to establish a Home Owners Association (HOA) for this development. This HOA would then be responsible for the maintenance of the common areas (woods, etc.). The City of Carmel would be responsible for the road. 14. Justin's engineers would design the new 3~^ Avenue NE road extension to meet the City's standards, which would match the width and sidewalk of the existing stretch of 3~^ Avenue NE. I S. Justin also mentioned that the end of 3~d Ave. NE in the development would be designed as a hammer-head as indicated on the Site Plans he has provided (in lieu of a "circular" cul-de-sac). 16. The hammer-head design conforms to Carmel's standards and is designed to accommodate a fire truck, and based on the fire truck's turning radius performing a "Y" turn. FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN Page ~ 2 a. I1. Mr. Moffett also mentioned that this hammer-head design would provide the future potential of extending this new Street to Fifth Street NE if those properties to the North of the development would ever come up for sale. IB. Justin also suggested that he could possibly provide a slight curve to the West in the new 3~d Ave. NE extension (affecting lot no's. I through 4) to save more trees and eliminate having to "fill" where the existing grade starts to fall away to the East. This is why he is requesting the lot size variance of reduction from 10,000 square feet to 6500 square feet. The average depth of lot is 145'. So, if you multiply 50' min. lot width by 145', which equates to 7,250 square feet for the average lot to be developed per the variance requests. In other words, if you maintain a 50' width you could reduce the lot length to 130', which would allow the road to "curve" approximately IS' to the West. Justin quizzed the group if this would make the neighbors happy (curving the street to save more trees). The neighborhood representatives responded that it may be more preferable to maintain the City "grid" system of streets already established, and all lot depths the same. This would also require Mr. Moffett to have to "fill" a portion of the lower area to maintain a straight roadlstreet. 19. The neighbor's asked if Mr. Moffett would provide and install landscape buffers between the neighbors to the North and East of the development. He responded that the Platting standards have I'andscape buffer requirements, but would be willing to talk to the neighbors, if the platting standards do not satisfy the neighbors. 20. The neighbors asked about the design of the homes..."what will they look like"> Mr. Moffett had two ezte~ior front (street) elevation examples. His intent is to have the homes have a "cottage" feel. Both examples had front porches with lap and shake style siding. Both were two story examples. One was a bungalow style, while the other was a "plain" colonial. The neighbors preferred the bungalow style when asked by Justin. The bungalow had more detail, relief with the front porch with tapered wood columns and wood bracket details. The other example had a very "flat" front elevation, with very little stylization. 21. Justin also explained that he is planning on having 3 different (loot plans for the development. Each floor plan will have three different "elevation" packages. This means that there is the potential that there could possibly be 9 (nine) different front (street) elevations. The neighbors asked if every house in the new development could have a different front elevation. Justin feels he can vary the three elevations per unit to achieve enough variety. The neighbors expressed ,their concern of houses being too alike, even with the variations. The neighbors felt that the streetscape created by these new houses should make every attempt to be as unique and as varied as possible to stay within the context of the existing housing stock present in Old Town. We feel these new homes should have as much character and charm as possible. 22. The target market for these new homes according to Justin is the upcoming young professional working couple with 2.1 children. 23. The price point for these homes is intended to be in the $350,000 range. This price point coupled with the density of the development will make Justin's development Performa numbers work to make a successful Project for Mr. Moffett. 24. Mr. Moffett is going to team up with a local custom home builder. The builder is "Heartwood Homes"ILangston. Heartwood has a home designer on staff that will develop the three "models". 25. It is Justin's intent to not build all the homes at once, but instead he will pick one of the lots and build a model for people to view prior to purchase. 26. Justin was puzzled as to why the neighbors were opposing the development, and was curious why no one attempted to contact him prior to initiating the petition. Justin expressed that from his standpoint the density is precisely what is allowed, and the variances in his opinion bring the lots up to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. He also suggests that the petitions were contradictory, in that the neighbors are accepting of a density of 5 unitslacre (or less) in Old Town. Yet we (the neighbors) are opposed to Justin's development, which proposes a density of 3.7 unitslacre (due to the proposed green space). He seated that the contradiction stands out quite clearly in the petition letter sent to the neighborhood. 27. His questions to the neighbors were as follows: FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN X13 a. Are the neighbors just completely against any kind of development? b. Do the neighbors want more green space.> c. What are the specific issues as they pertain to density? d. Is it lot area? e. Is it lot coverage? f. Is it.lot widths.> 28. Our responses were as follows: a. Some of the neighboring community is against any kind of development, but we believe that most neighbors understand that this is private property, and it can and probably will be developed. The neighbors desire the property to be developed in an appropriate way, consistent with the character and charm of Old Town. b. The neighbor's are generally okay with the green space, but have concerns that it could be detrimental to the neighborhood i( it becomes a detention pond, which could pose safety issues to kids in the area, and do not want the Park to be a mosquito infested pdnd. c. The neighbors feel the development is too dense compared to the surrounding homes. d. The neighbors feel the lots as proposed are too small and do not meet current property sizes or current zoning requirements. e. The neighbors generally feel the lot coverage should match the zoning requirements. f. The representing neighborhood group felt that lot width of all the issues may be the most contentious. We suggested the allowed 65' wide lots be Considered. An idea was presented to make all of the un-platted lots to be 60' wide, while still utilizing the alleys and rear loaded Garages accessed off the improved alley. It was suggested that maybe Justin could add one more 60' wide lot on the East side'of the development to match the other two proposed lots (lots 7 & 8). This would place 3 lots on the East side of the road. Then, Justin could hopefully arrange 5 lots on the West side of the street with all those lots being 60' wide. This would still give him the 8 lots he needs and desires to make his numbers work. We also suggested possibly moving the newly proposed alley running west from new 3~^ Ave. farther North, but we did like the fact that this proposed alley visually breaks up the streetscape, which is consistent with the surrounding areas. 29. Justin asked if there could be a "common ground" approach with the neighbor's. . 30. Justin also asked if it would be productive to meet the entire neighborhood group. Subsequent to the meeting the representative group decided it would be good to let all of the neighbors have the opportunity to engage in a productive dialog with Justin. 31. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. Action Items for Next Meetine I. Justin will investigate what the landscape buffer requirements are from the platting standards. 2. Justin will consider making the exteriors as varied as possible. 3. Justin will look at a new layout utilizing 60'-0" wide lots for the 8 desired un-platted lots. 4. Justin will consider enlarging lot size from his requested 6,500 square feet, especially if he does not "bend" the new street to the West, and if he can make the 60' wide lots work in the development. 5. The neighbors will contact Justin'to schedule a forum for Justin to meet The Friends of Old Town. Please contact the writer (Clete Kunce at ckunce(a7haus-arch.com or 501.6021- cell) of these meeting minutes within 3 business days of receipt with any corrections, or to report any discrepancies or inaccuracies contained herein, otherwise this report shall stand as reported and written. Attachments: NIA Cc: All listed + distribution to Friends of Old Town FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN Page j 4 Tingley, Connie S From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1.25 PM To: Broach, Kent; Dierckman, Leo J; Earlene, Hawkins,James R, James Hawkins; Kent Broach; Leo; Madeleine; Plavchak, Earlene;Torres, Madeleine Cc: Tingley, Connie S; 'John Molitor' Subject: FW. Petition for Blackwell Property Attachments: The following is the wording of the petition that the Friends of Old Town will present at the BZA meeting on April 27th at 6.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Orange Category Blackwell neighbors' petition. Christine Christine Barton-Holmes, LEED AP Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax P Please consider the environment before printing Original Message From:Jim Corry [mailto:icorry@indv.rr.com] Sent: Monday,April 20, 2009 12:11 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Petition for Blackwell Property Christine, There is a petition that the Friends of Old Town would will present at the BZA meeting on the 27th. I have been advised that we need not submit the actual petition for the BZA packet but that we can submit the wording of the petition. I have attached a copy of the wording of the petition so that you can include it in the packet for the BZA. The petition states as follows: Petition Opposing Development of the Blackwell Property and any of the requested variances for the property. 1 We,the undersigned residents and property owners of Carmel's Old Town Neighborhood, oppose the proposed development of the Blackwell property, and strongly object to the granting of ANY variances for the property. Thanks, Laura Corry 340 2nd Ave NE 571-9716 Icorry@indv.rr,com 2 The following is the wording of the petition that the Friends of Old Town will present at the BZA meeting on April 27th at 6:00pm Petition Opposing Development of the Blackwell Property and any of the requested variances for the property We, the undersigned residents and property owners of Carmel's Old Town Neighborhood, oppose the proposed development of the Blackwell property, and strongly object to the granting of ANY variances for the property. Tingley, Connie S From: Holmes, Christine B Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1:26 PM To: Broach, Kent; Dierckman, Leo J; Earlene; Hawkins,James R;James Hawkins; Kent Broach; Leo; Madeleine; Plavchak, Earlene;Torres, Madeleine Cc: 'John Molitor';Tingley, Connie S Subject: FW. Statement from Friends of Old Town Attachments: MM-2009-0420_BZA Stance letter_Blackwell Woods-Old Town_CAK.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Orange Category More information from the Blackwell neighbors. Christine Christine Barton-Holmes, LEED AP Planning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 317.571.2424 317.571.2426 fax P Please consider the environment before printing Original Message From:Jim Corry Finailto:icorryPindy.rr.comj Sent: Monday,April 20, 2009 11:31 AM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Statement from Friends of Old Town Christine, You may include this statement from the Friends of Old Town for inclusion in the BZA packet. Thanks, Laura Corry 340 2nd Ave NE 571-9716 icorry @indy.rr.com Memorandum Old Town Carmel Blackwell Woods REPORT DATE. April 20, 2009 PROJECT: Old Town Blackwell Development Also known as Blackwell Park/3rd Avenue NE extension LOCATION: (3rd Avenue NE & 3rd Street NE) Carmel, Indiana REGARDING: The Development Standards Variance Request As filed by petitioner Justin Moffett of Uptown Partners Development The following represents the neighbors (Friends of Old Town) position statement regarding the petitioner's requests for Board of Zoning Appeals variances for the above referenced proposed development within Old Town. General Statements (shall be as listed but not limited to the following): I. The neighbors have met several times regarding this proposed development, and are concerned about this development. 2. The neighbors are organized (Friends of Old Town) and in agreement. 3. The neighbors have been in contact with the developer Mr. Moffett, and met with Mr. Moffett on more than one occasion. 4. Mr. Moffett has made a presentation to the neighbors as an informative session to illustrate his intentions for the development. 5. The neighbors have circulated petitions opposing all four variances sought prior to the developer's presentation/neighborhood meeting. 6. The neighbor's position remains the same after the presentation; opposing all four variances sought by the petitioner. 7. The neighbors (Friends of Old Town) will be in attendance at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting scheduled for 6:00 pm on April 27, 2009. 8. As outlined in the meeting procedures, the neighbors are allowed to speak after the petitioner's presentation to the board. The neighbors will elect this right to speak to the board. 9. As a matter of respect for the Board, and as an illustration of the neighbor's solidarity regarding opposition of the variances, the neighbor's will elect one speaker to address the Board. The presenter will represent the neighbor's position(s) regarding the variances sought. FRIENDS OF OLD TOWN Page I I I CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA Request For Records Pursuant To Indiana Access To Public Records Act (I.C. 5-14-3-1, et sea•, as amended) I, '~- « ~ ~~ ~ ,hereby request of the City of Carmel, [name optional] Indiana, the right to inspect and copy the following records: P~~~~.k,a,~Ii P 5 5~~ Dated this day of /~(.~~ , 200 9 . The City may provide me with its response to this request: By telephone at `> 7/" `~ ~/ By facsimile transmission at By mail at Other --- Received bv: ~~?~1 i9 i i% / i i Signature: Printed Name and City Department: at DfJC ~ ~ ~? , m. on 3 '~ZD, 200L. Sent to Legal Department for response on: Received by Legat Department on: ~~ c ~ by by [S \FORM5~2004 FORM RxmAS Raryea.MYt I/Ol]