Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #076 John Mackasey - fourth submission Shestak, Joe From:johnmackasey@gmail.com Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 10:52 AM To:Shestak, Joe Cc:'carmel59acres' Subject:Epcon Project 136th and Keystone **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Please exercise caution and Do Not open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** Mr. Shestak; Further to my letter of July 06, 2020, I want to reiterate my continued opposition to the proposed Epcon development. I am continuing to review the packet for the residential committee meeting of August 04, 2020; I am pleased that the number of proposed lots have been reduced from 169 to 149 and that the connection to Smokey Ridge Trail has been eliminated although I thought point 1E of the Updates to the Land Plan was gratuitous. I am still not clear on the age restriction for the community. 80 percent of occupied units are to be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years old or older. Does that mean 20 percent do not need to meet this requirement? Traffic issues continued to be glossed over. I have no confidence in the traffic analysis in this packet and fear that the right turn in/out will be insufficient for this PUD, even with the reduced number of lots and the purported traffic patterns of the 55+ community. I don’t think my traffic pattern is necessarily reduced and if 20 percent of the community is less than 55, I don’t expect the proposed PUD traffic will be either. I still feel this PUD proposal should be tabled until the City Engineer can offer a permanent solution for this and future developments instead of doing the bare minimum. Regarding the Hull House: I know Epcon is passing responsibility to the Landmarks Foundation but I haven’t heard if prospective buyers would be part of the age restricted community or if families would be allowed to live in the th rehabilitated property? Will access to the property be off the new street connecting the PUD to 136 or will it be from Smokey Ridge Trail (shorter driveway)? Will the Landmarks Foundation commit to an action plan with measurable milestones for the rehabilitation of the property and submit it as part of this PUD proposal? I am in both the “desired” age and geographic profile for this proposal and even with the reduced lot count, I will not be interested in this project. The repetitive monotony of tightly packed homes broken up by a few token “parkettes”, the decimation of mature shade trees, being closer to Keystone (not in a good way) and what I expect to be unending traffic th congestion at 136 and Keystone do nothing to attract me to this project. Thank you for your attention. John Mackasey 13627 Smokey Hollow Place Carmel IN 46033-9266 317.843.1455 1