Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #12 Mary & Doug SmithDecember 20, 2021 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Members and Staff Members This letter is in regards to the proposed apartments at 11335 N. Michigan Road, Docket PZ-2021-00205. We are residents in the Woodhaven neighborhood immediately to the north of this site and have been since 2001. We join our neighbors in opposition to this development and have many concerns with the process, holiday scheduling, proposal, and the many variances included in the proposal. These ordinances do not mean anything if a project with this many and more importantly such SIGNIFICANT variances is approved. 1. There was one and only one information session provided to the Woodhaven community. We were unable to attend but it has been reported that the developers refused to respond to many of our neighborhood concerns, and questions were not addressed or answered. 2. The proposal substantially ignores both the 1988 Altums agreement, as well as US 421-Michigan Road Corridor Overlay requirements that were designed, among other things, to protect the character and value of adjacent properties. The buffers were intentionally stronger next to residential uses but are clearly thrown out the window here. The following overlay mandates are violated: · Paragraph 3.88 C, Building Heights and paragraph 3.96 B, Setbacks, specifically for the two buildings adjacent to Woodhaven residential properties. While the average building height across the project may be 38’ mentioned in the staff report (we have not confirmed), the elevations show one Type II building next to us with a height of 45’6” (correctly measured to the roofline as required for the overlay zone.) The second Type IIIA building also next to us is 32’1” to the roof line. The Michigan Road Overlay requires a minimum setback of two times the building height, which would be 91’ to the Type II building versus 50’ provided, and 62’2” to the Type IIIA building versus 40’ provided. As far as we can tell, the ordinance does not say to the average of several buildings, but rather to a building. Further, both are required to be a maximum 1.5 stories tall on the façade nearest to other residential uses (i.e, WOODHAVEN), although a second story can be added starting 25’ back, or one structural bay whichever is larger. EVEN conceding a 32’1” tall two-story building for both, they should be set back for at least 62’2 from our properties, with the second story beginning 25’ further away. This roughly shows what the overlay district requires at our property line overlaid on the Type II building facade. Therefore, the end of the Type II building next to us should be reduced by at least two floors, and the end of the Type IIA building should be reduced by one floor and both still should be at least 62’2 setback, if not a 91’ setback if an overall three-story building is retained. In sum, we do not agree with staff that this is an adequate buffer to our S-1 estate homes, especially since most if not all of the homes along that property line appear to have a ground floor roughly 5’ lower than the ground floor of the proposed units (as noted below.) I believe our subdivision was established before either the Altums 1988 agreement or the Michigan Road Overlay was established and we were specifically represented by Brian Shapiro, a current resident of Woodhaven in the development of those standards. Our subdivision has a right to have them enforced at our property line, especially in the absence of any hardship for the developer. · Building Facades: The facades of 7 out of 10 buildings are not adequately articulated as staff notes, and all 10 are not “similarly detailed.” Siding shall not exceed 10% of the overall non- window area; as noted in the staff report the overall project use of siding is up to 62%. The three buildings along the Fehsenfeld property are only two story, are significantly more articulated on the long facades and have significantly more brick at 60% Brick/40% siding overall. Note, however there is much less brick on the “left side” elevation facing Woodhaven. The other building closest to Woodhaven, a Type II building, has almost exactly the reverse: 41% brick and 59% siding overall, but the “right side” elevation closest to Woodhaven has even more siding, and electrical panels reducing the brick area. Even the end of the garage closest to us has under 45% brick, only half the 90% required. 3. The proposal violates the underlying B3 zoning. For example, the development is asking for a deficiency of 26% in parking spaces and a 73% increase in allowable dwelling units. 7 of 10 buildings also violate the maximum residential building heights for B3 of 35’ to the mid-point of the pitched roof. All of these variances are quite simply required to achieve 244 units; we have not seen any argument of hardship justifying this density. 4. As implied above, the two-story buildings (all others being 3 story) are conveniently the ones that back up to/line the Fehsenfeld property. Further they are the more highly articulated buildings and have more brick facing that currently vacant property. This makes the view from the Fehsenfeld. property much better than our view; our adjacent owners will be looking at the ends of two buildings (with electrical units reducing the already below-required quantity of brick and flat aesthetic) as well as down a parking lot that extends across nearly the entire width of the property (700’?), with some accessory garages. 5. The grading plans show that the natural slope is down towards Woodhaven along the north property line, with what looks to be fairly steep slope from +909 at the south edge of the woods down to 903 or 902 at the property line. This forms a visible natural “wall” from the Woodhaven yards as seen in the photo. The plans in fact show removing the top of this natural berm and lowering it 3’ to 906. The building first floor elevation will be 907.0 for the nearby buildings. All of the neighbors yards and first floors will thus be lower than the apartment floor elevations by 5’ or so, accentuating the height of the apartment buildings, rather than making the building heights “an appropriate buffer” as stated by staff. Indeed a buffer to what? Any use other than residential is more than 700’ away to the south. For the angled view across the pond, to the SW is building 1, a Type I and also 45’6” tall. Given the commercial further west will be 1.5 stories, there is no reason that at a two story building at 32’2” is not an adequate buffer. What we need is an adequate buffer to this three-story, overly-dense residential project. 6. The pond is an “attractive nuisance” to children. We understand a study has indicated that there is a particular hazard to children with autism. The developers have a mix of 1 (46%), 2 (49%) and 3 (5%) bedroom units, so there certainly will be children living there. The woods/natural vegetation that separates us from the pond will be removed by the mere fact of the planned grading, making it much more of a nuisance to our children. Conversely there is quite a bit of wildlife in the large pond that will undoubtedly be killed or chased off in the process of significantly enlarging it, including expansion towards our property lines. About five years ago, a few of the young teens in the neighborhood encountered a young muskrat in a backyard, with two of the children being scratched, and requiring consultations with the animal control authorities, but thankfully no need for rabies vaccinations. At the very least, there should be a fence or similarly dense landscaping at the top of the existing hill and not a lowering of it. 7. We haven’t seen a traffic study and see no mention of a traffic report in the City Planner comments. Shouldn’t there be one for a project of this magnitude, especially with permitted density being so grossly exceeded? We understand the developer said at the meeting they were requesting a traffic signal at Michigan Road; is a traffic signal being requested based on the project as submitted, or is it also to provide access to a future development on the Fehsenfeld property to the east, as indicated by the dotted road extension. Is this project large enough to require a signal and/or a second access on its own? While Michigan Road is controlled by the state, the City should still require submittal of a traffic study that seems to be in process to protect the interests of all parties in the Michigan Road Overlay District. In conclusion this proposal doesn’t comply with the Altums commitments of 1988 which prohibited this use altogether. While the commission has the right to waive those commitments, it should at a minimum enforce the Michigan Road Overlay District requirements. Our neighborhood, specifically including the Fehsenfelds negotiated in good faith when Kroger was attempting to acquire the site and were able to obtain appropriate concessions from the developers. While the Fehsenfelds now control the property, and may be willing to abandon the Altums/Michigan Rd/Kroger commitments and protections for their own profit, the current plans are still skewed to benefit their adjacent property (which is currently vacant along this property line) to the detriment of Woodhaven. Once again, there is no hardship to justify the apartment density and all the significant variances required to get to that density. Further there is a rather clear intent to set up the adjacent property for future development. We request the plan commission staff to hire a consultant to develop a plan that meets the Michigan Road Overlay Zone. According to Mr. Shapirio, the planning department has done this many times in the past. At the very least Woodhaven should have a representative that is allowed to attend and work with the subcommittee to which the project gets assigned. Thank you for considering our concerns. Sincerely, Mary and Doug Smith 4560 Windledge Circle