Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #59 Michael Andreoli - representing Woohaven HOABEFORE THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DOCKET NO. PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS IN RE: THE MATTER OF 11335 N. Michigan Road Apartments RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION This written remonstrance has been prepared on behalf of the Woodhaven single family home residents and generally, all others in opposition to this Application. PUBLIC HEARING This Application was originally considered by the Carmel Plan Commission on the 21 st day of December, 2021. Respectfully, this Application carried with it much public opposition, albeit it hastily organized, for a whole host of reasons. Staff has outlined for the Committee general concerns raised by the members of the Plan Commission regarding the multi -family project. However, the Remonstrators have provided for the Committee a transcription of comments made by certain members of the Plan Commission prior to sending this to the Commercial Committee for review. While various insignificant changes are being suggested by the Applicant in the hope they address the concerns raised by the community and the Plan Commission Members themselves, these changes solve nothing and are simply inadequate. They amount to nothing more than to try to put lipstick on a pig. Remonstrators humbly suggest that there's not enough lipstick on the market to allow this multi -family project to be in the best interest of the neighborhood and to otherwise comply with the zoning and overlay districts. (See attached Plan Commission comments.) BEST USE OF PROPERTY The adjacent neighbors submit that this large density multi -family project is not the best use of land based upon the Overlay and Zoning Districts, together with the Commitments that carry forward with the land and the past commercial uses of this site. Altum Gardens had occupied the property and created a working co -existence with the adjacent neighborhoods, including the Woodhaven Subdivision, whose houses are contained in a low -density large lot subdivision immediately to the north. While Altum was clearly a commercial use of the property, it was a type of commercial use that blended well with large lots immediately to the north. For instance, Altum had regular hours and did not have comings and goings at all times of the day or night as this multi -family complex would have. Hence, even as a commercial use, the noise and activity were reduced. Perhaps a use for the property needs to be investigated that would be more in line with a less intense office environment with regular hours and the opportunity to use the site itself to screen parking and other activities from the surrounding residential users. Please be reminded that the Applicant is now seeking 236 units which, even with this slight reduction, leaves them with a shortage of 106 parking spaces. Carmel's Ordinances were generically adopted based upon empirical and historical information to provide the appropriate number of parking spots based upon the number of units involved. To create a variance shortage of 106 spots is a nightmare waiting to happen in terms of where parking will have to occur to account for the apartment users and their guests. Moreover, the B-3 Zoning District as well as the US 421 Overlay District, together with the Commitments filed by Altum, do not allow for this multi -family property onsite. Given the well -developed commercial nature of the properties in and along 421, it is hard to imagine how this proposed multi -family use might be in any way superior to a commercial office complex as appears so often along Michigan Road. Traffic flow, access to Michigan Road and the sheer volume of traffic create a minefield for the development and adjacent existing property owners. A brief Page 2 analysis of the issues and comments have been placed on the Applicant's site plat to further illustrate the development concerns. (See Attached.) VARIANCES Probably the best indicator of whether this is the best use for the property is contained in the sheer number of variances that will have to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Further, the Plan Commission must consider the fact that the multi -family project is not allowed in the B-3 Zoning District and the US 421 Overlay District. These factors clearly suggest that the Applicant is trying to put a square peg in a round hole, as the sheer number and importance of these variances, if granted, simply emasculate the B-3 and US Overlay Zoning requirements. The request for so many variances strongly suggests that this project simply doesn't fit as an accepted use on the subject property. Moreover, as it must be decided by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Applicant has a statutory burden to convince the Board of Zoning Appeals that they are factually and legally entitled to these variances. In order to prevail, the Applicant must convince the Board to make the following findings: 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; and 3. The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance will result in a Practical Difficulty in the use of the property. (Ind. Code 36-7-4-918.5) While not in the purview of the Commercial Committee, Remonstrators respectfully argue that the Applicant's request for the number and scope of the variances needed can in no way suggest the strict applications of the Ordinances (Zoning and Overlay) will result in a practical difficulty in the use of the property. In fact, it is the specific use of the property as a dense multi -family development that is the practical difficulty, not the Ordinances themselves. Page 3 CONCLUSION While the Remonstrators recognize that it is not the role of the Commercial Committee to be the final decision maker for this application, they also recognize that your goal is to offer critique and comment and move properties toward responsible development that is compatible with existing Ordinances and Development Standards. This is not such a project. Michael J. Andreoli, #2412-06 Attorney at Law 1393 W. Oak St. Zionsville, IN 46077 317-873-6266 mandreolikdatlaw.com Attorney for Remonstrators Page 4 Subject: Plan Commission Comments Transcript 2:27:30 Brad Grabow Thank you. I'll close the public hearing at 8:27 but I will reserved the right to reopen the public hearing because it's my sense that there is a great deal of work to be done on this proposal and if the changes that come back that I think are necessary to gain our approval are made they will be significant and significant enough to give the public another bite at the apple, another chance to have input. Discussion from members of the commission? Mr. Kestner? 2:28:06 Nick Kestner Besides the variances that are listed there, when do these go to the BZA? In February or March? Ok, it would be nice probably if they hear those before they came back to us so we don't spin a lot of wheels. I'd like to see a pedestrian plan and my other concern is traffic. If you have ever been to what was there currently and tried to get out it was almost impossible if you wanted to go south. This would be considerably more traffic than what was there originally. So, I would need to look at the traffic especially, making a left turn out of there is a nightmare. We've known about it's a nightmare. 2:29:27 Carrie Holle I have to say there is not a like about this project. If we look at, I know the petitioner said the 421 overlay only really pertains to commercial, I don't know why it wouldn't also pertain to residential. If you look, if you read some of the intentions of the 421 overlay, "Increase property values, promote high -quality innovative site design" I don't see that anywhere here. I can speak to property values and I will tell you this will NOT increase property values, this will do just the opposite. Those property values will be affected in the adjacent residential properties. Arch itectectural style, "Federal, Greek Revival, Georgian, Italianate" I don't know if this even has a specific architectural style. I think we've worked so hard to keep that 421 coordiore looking beautiful and staying within those standards. The use of red brick, stone, limestone. I don't, I mean this is cement board. Just, it has no aesthetic appeal. The height, the setbacks, the density. I'm just. I'm not in favor of this project. 2:30:57 Christine Zoccola I would ditto what Carrie says. The Michigan overlay standard is there for a reason. It's not just for setbacks, it's also the architectural style which is very specific and the four that she read are the four that are specifically permitted in the michigan overlay zone. Your current proposal doesn't fit within any of those four. As President Grabow says, a significant amount of work needs to be done and I'm not sure you can get there from where you're starting. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on this project. So, I think you've got to go back and look at those Michigan overlay standards and rework this project significantly. 2:31:45 Brad Grabow Ok. I'll provide some focus to those comments as well. Additional focus I should say. Let me start with maybe the easier pieces at least. For me, I'm willing to consider, I think it's important to consider building height, setbacks, buffers as an all in context to one another. So I would appreciate you providing us with more insight into instead of looking at each of those on a stand alone basis how do they work together. What is the height requested where for a given setback proposal and so forth. And landscaping is the third element to that. And I think for context it is also what is the distance to the adjoining property improvements, not just to the property lines but I know our standards are written to the property lines. There is a little bit of confusion in the overlay in that much of the overlay talks about building heights along the facade. Which is not how we normally measure building heights, we normally measure it to the mid point between the peak and the roofline. So, making sure we are applying the correct standards and helping the committee understand those would be helpful when we are talking about the difference between a 20 foot facade maximum height and a 38.5 foot as proposed for some of the buildings. Minor point in some of the elevations: the building types and building numbers don't correspond to the site plan or some of the other plans I should say. So if you could help us clarify when we see a type 1 building that the other maps are correctly labeling where type 1's would go. Architectural design - the department says this satisfies overlay zone requirements for architecture design because the project has a base, middle, and a top. The overlay requires that it has a base, middle, and top in each instance appropriate to the building standards as defined in section 3.88d of the overlay. So, what is the as Carrie says "The georgian or other specific architecture style that those elements conform to." The overlay requires building entrances to be defined and articulated. Again, within the context of a specific required architecture style. Historical architecture style. The department says building materials conform to the overlay because brick is being used. The overlay requires red brick be used. Tan is proposed. The other variances, the architecture design theme, the vehicular parking is listed as a variance. I'm not sure that our standards frankly don't over require parking here. When I look at the numbers of parking spaces measured per unit and measured per bedroom they seem to conform fairly closely to industry practices, so I'm not as concerned about vehicular parking for the apartment project, but that takes me to the outlots. Because I think it's important that we not lose sight that we are also approving the four outlots as well and in that regard the landscaping plan shows them being buffered along the rear frontage road with new trees and landscaping but no curve cuts are proposed. So, how does one access any of those four outlots without the need for landscaping to be removed or repositioned from what is currently planned. 2:36:00 Brad Grabow That's probably enough to go on right now. On lot 4 what would outlot # 4 what would the plan be there because it has virtually no frontage on Michigan road so from a commercial viability would be a deficit to it but what would be the access point, intended orientation, and how the design standards address that orientation and landscaping if it's not oriented to Michigan road. 2:38:06 Brad Grabow Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll leave my, I'll stop my comments there but the intent is to lead you in the direction of issues that I think need more work. Thank you. Not to put you on the spot Josh but do you have any comments? 2:38:33 Joshua Kirsh I don't, thank you for asking. 2:38:40 Brad Grabow Is there a motion? 2:38:49 Kevin Rider I make a motion to send this commercial committee in February. To come back here for final approval. Second. 2:38:40 Brad Grabow Thank you both. All in favor of sending this to commercial committee February 4th with final authority reserved to the commission. Say "I" Any opposed? "I" Thank you. This will go to the commercial committee beginning in February. sVe 4-u -etures M WM NI'apvdeuvlpu� - Nvpvg.peg m—om LL09b VNVICINI `13WHVO 'oaZ's4u41—oaMu--IAuaV11AF3 OVOUNVDIHOIW'N5££4l IMMOl3A303H S;Wn11V =,`,=, 011 `S331AH3S 31V1S3 1V3H 13H > € Q ¢0 a g gge ^^ as 48 qI G k 7 Q� 1W1 fat. m� 6 �hQ ffiQ ���M �B�Q � $ R � � $`h �n2 $_ ��$ i Ike a ^ j_ $gglul HT s �a RAP f1i Q ha 8 €�s�Q Q I- I ©~� 0 Z NVId 31IS TIVE13AO 1!9111 '115i"; 15 R4at ; 6 .15 ,lea ;��Jh I€ �k