HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #03 Steve & Lori N. Shestak, Joe
From: Shestak,Joe
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 4:35 PM
To: Shestak, Joe
Subject: FW: -Old Town Design Group Proposal,4 December Mtg
Letter#03 for Docket No. 18070015 PUD Rezone
Forwarded message
From: N JACKSON <flight70@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:52 AM
Subject: Fwd: -Old Town Design Group Proposal, 4 December Mtg
To: <mcasati@carmel.in.gov>, <nkestner@cannel.in.gov>, <jkirsh@carmel.in.gov>, <swestermeier@,carmel.in.gov>
Cc:jworrell@carmel.in.gov <jworrell@carmel.in.gov>, sfinkam@carmel.in.gov<sfinkam@carmel.in.gov>,
<agreen@carmel.in.gov>, krider@carmel.in.gov <krider@carmel.in.gov>, lcampbell@cannel.in.gov
<lcampbell@carmel.in.gov>,bkimball@carmel.in.gov<bkimball@carmel.in.gov>, rcarter@carmel.in.gov
<rcarter@carm el.in.gov>
RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE:
Michael Casati
Joshua Kirsh
Susan Westermeir
Nick Kestner
Dear Carmel Residential Commission members:
As Smokey Ridge homeowners, we do NOT support the request to approve rezoning 59 acres for the
higher density project on the adjacent to Smokey Ridge.
We do recognize the accomplished projects in Carmel, by Old Town Design Group.
Traffic-This property is unsuitable for high density housing due to Keystone Avenue
limiting access, the high traffic density resulting from the high school, and 136th roundabout
traffic. Smokey Ridge Interior neighborhood traffic impact is very unclear.
Has anyone considered the change in traffic due to the shift to online shopping deliveries (meal
deliveries, Amazon), as well as school bus and service vehicles for grounds keeping, trash, and U.S.
postal?
-Further, why do the stadium 60' lights, high volume PA and band activities, make
the 59 acres desirable, along the Keystone traffic corridor?
-Emergency fire/moving van/semi trucks. Roundabout redesign and repair history of some existing roundabouts,
shows there is insufficient design consideration for the size of these vehicles to navigate and access neighborhoods.
Traffic constraints and street design complexity will result in the senior taxpayer base leaving Carmel.
Density- As a homeowner, I believe it is rationale to say, "Not in my backyard".
Why does Carmel need to promote this land for development, when much of Carmel has already
been surrounded by concrete ramps and roundabouts?
1
- Green space is disappearing within Cannel. The 59 acre property has a fair market value, but the
landowner wants to sell it for much more so that the only development solution is to build high density
land use. In effect, the landowner is forcing developers to push the City to endorse and
approve rezoning for high density housing, in order to recover the inflated landowner's selling price.
The City should not be in the business of" subsidizing"the 59 acre seller by process, to ensure a
sale-when it impacts the adjacent residential market values. Further, Cannel should not be in the land
development business (as in Mohawk shopping center) or as landlord for failed business, such as
Shapiro's.
Sincerely,
Steve&Lori N.
Smokey Ridge
Sent with Importance lEl
Email secured by Check Point
2