HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #26 Mary & Doug SmithJanuary 28, 2022
Carmel Plan Commission Commercial Committee Members and Staff Members
Miles Nelson
Re: 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 many variances
included in the proposal.
1. The proposal substantially ignores both the 1988 Altum’s 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. These ordinances do not mean anything if a project with this many and more
importantly such SIGNIFICANT variances is approved. The following overlay mandates are violated:
· Paragraph 3.88 C, Building Heights and paragraph 3.96 B, Setbacks, specifically for all buildings adjacent
to Woodhaven residential properties as well as next to Weston Pointe Townhouses and the Fehsenfeld
S-1 property. Since December the Petitioner has reduced the building height of Building 4 adjacent to
our subdivision from 3 stories to 2. The staff has calculated a height for the two-story building of 26’2
3/8”, so a 52’4” setback is required, and is now provided on the north and south but NOT on the east,
where only 40’ is provided. However, there still is a variance required for the 25’ additional setback to a
two-story building, which staff mentions in passing but doesn’t list as a variance. Until the code is
changed or clarified, it is a variance! This roughly shows what the overlay district requires at our
property line overlaid on the Type II building facade. Where the end is closer, such as next to
Woodhaven, the code would require essentially eliminating 2 units each from buildings 4 and 5, for a
total reduction of 4 units. Given the excessive density of the project it is reasonable to enforce the 25’
setback to the second story.
· It will be much more difficult to meet setbacks on the east and south property line, which are to the long
side of the buildings. The buildings would need to be setback 77’6” to meet the requirements for two-
story buildings. Just because the Fehsenfelds are willing to accept these variances as they will be profiting
from the project, it is unfair to the Weston Pointe owners. The staff report notes the additional 25’ is
required but doesn’t list it as a variance. Further, additional height variances are STILL required for the 30’
maximum height at the three-story buildings. These height adjustments are necessary only to achieve the
excessive density proposed.
· Building Facades: The architectural design has been improved and we trust the staff to negotiate further
improvements. However, as the staff notes, there are electrical and mechanical units at the end of the
buildings facing Woodhaven, with NO landscaping for screening. (See further discussion of landscaping
below.) The electrical panels on the end of Building 4 towards Woodhaven are certainly a lovely
architectural element that are not going to be shielded by the planned landscaping.
· Building 7 has been rotated “to provide buffer between neighboring town homes and the parking lot.” (p
4 Explanation of Request in packet.) Is not the same buffer provided to R-4 apartments appropriate for S-
1 homes and in particular shielding headlights in a LONG parking lot from neighboring single-family
homes? The landscaping at the Woodhaven end of the parking lot does not currently include any
evergreens, and the parking lot is at least 4’ above the first-floor elevation of the Woodhaven homes, so
the headlights will shine directly into windows, given the “ratty” condition of the existing evergreens.
While the staff mentions the HVAC Units as being adjacent to the balconies at ground level, I could not
find that they are shown on the landscaping and site plans for appropriate mitigation. The additional 8’ of
height at the three-story buildings should not be allowed as long as the HVAC units are provided at grade.
2. Page 4 further states that they are offering to build
a fence along residential properties, but only on
our properties, not theirs. This is in combination
with NOT providing the REQUIRED landscaping
along the Woodhaven property lines, purportedly
to maintain “existing vegetation”. That vegetation
is essentially a row of evergreens that are at least
30 years old, and with underlying wild vegetation.
While that means they are not lowering the top of
the berm by 3’ as previously proposed, the
Woodhaven backyards are roughly 6 to 7’ below
the grade at the evergreen line. Installing a 5’ tall
fence on our property line does nothing to “buffer” the property, much less headlights down the long parking
lot aisle! The new combo of “buffer” is probably worse than what was proposed originally and a BIG cost
savings.
3. Further the landscaping drawing is not consistent with what they state on the side of the same page as
provided and both are different from page 4 of the packet. On page 4 Petitioner said they retaining existing
vegetation along all residential properties and will “supplement” it. They say they will prune and maintain the
existing vegetation along the south property line, but do not offer to do that for the north property line.
Indeed, landscaping is still required in the buffer by code, as enumerated in a table right on the drawings,
albeit with a couple of errors as seen below. Note the lack of trees noted to remain on the south property line
and only 5 on the more than 815’ of east property line.
According to the landscape plans, however, they are NOT showing retaining the vegetation on the south and
east property lines, and are instead heavily landscaping those buffer yards. We suspect that is because their
tenants don’t have much view out the buildings to the north, but they will on the long sides of the building to
the east and the south. At any rate, the landscape drawings do NOT show that they are providing the required
landscaping beyond the 24-30 existing evergreens along the north property line. This should also be listed as
a variance if is permitted and they ought to commit to pruning and maintaining the existing vegetation on the
north property line.
4. The proposal violates the underlying B3 zoning. For example, the development is asking for a deficiency of
28.5% in parking spaces and a 67% increase in allowable dwelling units. All of the requested (and required but
apparently not requested) variances are quite simply required to achieve 236 units; we have not seen any
argument of hardship justifying this density.
5. I also notice they misstate the existing zoning of adjacent property along north edge of property on the main
site plan p 37 and on p 45 (correct on landscaping on p26); B5 is correct for the mortuary, but the majority
and especially along the residential and pond is S1. Also, they also misleadingly call the Fehsenfeld S-1
Special Use and not Single Family on 37 and 45.
I am sending a separate letter based on my professional experience for 40+ years as a Professional Engineer,
regarding roadway design and traffic.
In conclusion this proposal doesn’t comply with the Altum’s 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 Altum’s/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. While the changes to the plan did lower Building 4 to two stories, both it and 5 still
require variances to setbacks. The change to landscaping is significantly negative for Woodhaven, while Westin
Pointe received significant improvement by rotating building 7 (as I previously requested for Building 4.) 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 disparate treatment of neighbors to the north, south and east.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely,
Mary and Doug Smith
4560 Windledge Circle