HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #061 Scott & Thetchen Price - second submission
Shestak, Joe
From:Thetchen Price <prices34@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, July 5, 2020 7:19 PM
To:Shestak, Joe
Subject:Proposed Epcon Project at 136th & Keystone
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from
unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
My name is Scott Price, and my family and I live in the Smokey Ridge
subdivision, which is adjacent to Epcon's planned project at 136th Street and
Keystone Avenue (the Project). I have attended the various virtual public
meetings regarding this topic, and have a few issues, detailed below, about which
I am particularly concerned.
We continue to be concerned about the density and layout of Epcon's proposal. Despite
repeatedly stating that they are meeting with and listening to the surrounding
neighborhoods' concerns, Epcon has not reduced the number of units in their proposal,
which are significantly more (at least 10%) than the number of units proposed by previous
petitioners. Additionally, the general layout of the project is "plain vanilla" at best,
with a line of sight of straight streets and row after row of houses, which is not
visually appealing. There is a considerable lack of green space compared to
previous petitioners, and overall the product being submitted by Epcon lacks
variety and is monotonous.
In the original meeting, Epcon touted a franchisee's Zionsville community, the
Courtyards of Zionsville, as a product that could be looked at as a comparable to
the Project. However, after commission members and neighbors visited the
Zionsiville community and expressed concerns ranging from design to layout to
building materials utilized, Epcon quickly distanced itself from the project,
continually noting that it was a franchisee's project. I am very familiar with how
the franchise industry works, and for a franchisor (Epcon) to distance itself from
a franchisee leads to several questions, as typically there should be very little
difference between how a company-owned business and a franchise-owned
business operate, including building materials used. Having been involved in
discussions over the 59 acres property beginning with the original petitioner
(Beazer), my view is that Epcon seems to have a "check-the-box" mentality and is
merely going through the motions to get this project approved, as opposed to
really listening and addressing neighborhoods' concerns. It would appear that
they've made very few, if any, substantive changes. Both of the previous
1
petitioners made many changes along the way, so this plan by the current
petitioner is extremely worrisome.
Another area of concern is the additional traffic that will undoubtedly further "gridlock" the
roundabout at 136th Street and Keystone Avenue. I will not go into great detail on this
topic, as it has been discussed countless times. My primary concern is that residents of
the Project who want to travel East will not use the South entrance/exit of the Project. No
one is going to fight the traffic leaving to the South to go all the way around the roundabout
in order to head East. Instead, they will go through the adjacent neighborhoods, whose
roads are not equipped to handle the additional traffic, when coupled with the number of
commuters who already cut through those neighborhoods to avoid the congestion of the
Carey and Smokey Row Roads. One of the most confusing aspects of the traffic situation is
that there are different "solutions" offered by the City Engineer respective to each petitioner,
whether it be a "spoke" added to the Keystone roundabout or a new roundabout just East
of the existing Keystone roundabout. I think a singular, best solution should be decided
upon and made as a mandatory prerequisite of any petitioner to develop the 59-acre
area. The solution should be based on what is best for the traffic of the Project and
surrounding neighborhoods, and not what is most convenient or best financially for a
petitioner or city.
The elephant in the room for this Project has also been the high (I would say
outrageous) asking price for the land by the owners of the 59 acres. Because of
the land price, I can sympathize with any developer wanting to take on this
property, particularly given that such a large percentage of the 59 acres is not
able to be developed unless substantial costs are incurred to improve the
land. As a result, high-density housing appears to be one of the few avenues to
develop the property. As a homeowner in an adjacent neighborhood to the
proposed Project, I do not believe that it is my responsibility to "foot the bill" for a
high asking price for the 59 acres of land by having an adjacent neighborhood
that will ultimately hurt my home value by having a smaller square footage home
made with inferior materials than the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally,
there will be far more traffic cutting through our neighborhood as a result of any
Project on the 59 acres. No matter what Epcon has to say about what they put
into each home, those homes will be nowhere near the same as homes in the
surrounding neighborhoods. When we considered purchasing our home over 10
years ago, one of the first questions we asked was what could be built on that
property when the time came. We asked our realtor, the seller’s realtor and even
the City. The answer every time was single family homes (R-1) that would be
similar to the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. What could happen to
that property was very much a consideration for us, particularly since our street
(Smokey Ridge Lane) will become a through street into the new
neighborhood. Let's also be clear that we aren't opposed to anything being built
on this property. We always knew that eventually something would be built there.
But as per the existing zoning, we expected them to be homes similar to those in
the adjoining neighborhoods.
2
I understand that there's a belief that Carmel needs more communities of this type. As I'm
currently not in the market for this type of community myself, I honestly have no idea
whether that's the case or not. But even if that may be the case, it doesn't mean it's
suitable for every piece of property in Carmel. The Epcon proposal leaves a lot to be desired
on many fronts. I believe Carmel should explore a long-term solution to the existing traffic
issues in this area and further examine the effect this type of community has on the home
values of the surrounding homeowners. I truly believe that we can do better.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Scott & Thetchen Price
3