HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #004 E. Davis Coots( --Coots, Henke & Wheeler May 4, 2020
L Davi" Cuoh
J,u1W\ D. Crum
l\Ll1tlww L Hinkle'
l)anicl F.. Coot\
Brandi:\_ Cilhon"
Jol111 \" \l:turO\ id1
SlC\'C!l l l. l knke
Steven D. Hardin
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Re: Courtyards of Carmel PUD
Dear Steve:
Several adjacent homeowners have weighed in on Epcon's proposal and developed
the below list of concerns. This is probably not all inclusive, but describes in general the
concerns.
We question the necessity for a virtual public hearing at this time with restricted
numbers ofremonstrators able to attend and participate. While the Governor's Executive
orders have addressed LC. 5-14-1.5-3.6, we believe the precatory language to his order
reserves the procedure for only "necessities" and holding a public hearing at this time
negates the ability of affected owners to express their concerns about the project.
Items of concern are:
• Overall Density-170 units with larger footprint (than previous accepted PUD) and
very little green space.
• Traffic -Cut through traffic in existing neighborhoods as well as the new
neighborhood is undesirable. The previous PUD had limited the current access points
by closing off Smokey Ridge Trail which would limit the cut through traffic trying to
avoid the 136 and Carey roundabout back up. Opening this will worsen an already
difficult situation.
• Roundabout -The current design of adding additional access/ egress to the only
traffic metered roundabout in Carmel is unacceptable. The additional development of
future homes R-1 on the south side of 136 (291 IE 136th St) will also impact this
roundabout traffic. The age restriction perimeter (55+) does not negate the current
traffic issue or how cut through traffic will compound the problem.
• Lot size and Coverage. -transition from existing R-1. 35-50' lots around perimeter
lack the transition from the existing R-1 I 00' lots. Assure adjacent homeowners that
any lot abutting an existing home will have a minimum 60 feet rear lot line and either
an 8 feet decorative fence or rear home elevation brick, stone or other material
2 5 5 '·",. c,, ,,,, , 0 ,, "' than expanse after expanse of siding.
c""'"' ,N "03 2 • Monotony of the architecture, no design features on the building sides or rear. All
317 iH-1-"1693
FAX 317-573 5385
www.CHWLAW.COM
same size garages
A Frotess1on;,I CorpcraLlon
Steven D. Hardin
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
May 4, 2020
Page 2
• Historic house is left to the historical society to figure out -needs to have better
viability and controlled plan.
• 40' buffer needs to remain and be augmented. The current plan shows clearing 20
feet of the existing 40'
• Eliminate the homes along the entry drive that back up to Smokey Hollow. The
topography will allow the Smokey Hollow homes, that sit raised on a hill, visibility
into the backyard and courtyards of the proposed homes in the southern portion of the
parcel.
• Speed bumps or raised crosswalks (similar to Rangeline Road) to slow interior and
cut-through traffic.
• Landscape lots at each connecting street to an existing street to adjoining
neighborhoods.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
co{CKE & WHEELER P.c.
E. Davis Coots
EDC/co
cc: Joe Shestak, Carmel Dept. of Community Development via email and regular U.S. mail