Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #05 Michael Andreoli - representing Woodhaven HOABEFORE THE CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION DOCKET NO. PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS And BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DOCKETS NO. PZ-2021-00224 V, 00228V9 00234 V, 00240 V, 00241 V, and 00244 V IN RE: THE MATTER OF 11335 N. Michigan Road Apartments SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION This written remonstrance has been prepared for and on behalf of the Woodhaven single family home residents and, generally, all others who may be in opposition to the Application and requests for Variances. As the remonstrators Response in Opposition was heretofore filed under the Plan Commission Docket, the remonstrators respectfully request that the original Response in Opposition also be adopted verbatim in response to the Variances requested in the above docketed items before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals. MULTIFAMILY USE The Woodhaven single family home residents are categorically opposed to the multifamily use being proposed for this site. Historically, and without general opposition, the Michigan Road Corridor has generally been laid out to include more intensive uses in and along Michigan Road with larger big box and/or offices as the developments have progressed farther to the east. Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals members are actively encouraged to either Google Map the area or take a short drive from 98 h Street on the north along Commerce Drive in particular to 1061h Street. What the members will find is that in this particular area along Commerce Drive, development has occured with a mix of large open space along with a combination of professional office buildings as a buffer between the big box developments and the residential immediately to the east. The members will note that tremendous areas of open space buffering, fencing and low intensity office and professional use allow both the single family residential and commercial component in and along Michigan Road to not only co -exist but to thrive. North of 106th Street, along the backs of all of the commercial buildings, fencing with substantial mounding and landscaping has occurred to once again allow these uses to co -exist with the residential development immediately to the east. What members will NOT find located in these areas, specifically adjacent to residential development, and specifically adjacent to high end low density residential development, is an intense multifamily project. While obviously the Woodhaven residents would like to see the reforested area of trees planted by Altums to remain in place with no intensive use, they recognize this request may be unrealistic. While everyone would love to see a park or nature preserve behind their residential homes, they have suggested to REI that an apartment complex is not the highest and best use for that particular ground, especially as it relates to their properties. They have legitimate concerns that a multifamily development with this number of homes and parking will have doors slamming at all hours of the night, lights, noise from the residents' music and all those particular difficulties that generally do not occur by having professional offices that have more defined hours and use. In meetings with Mr. Fehsenfeld and Mr. Wells regarding the proposed use of this ground, we were told that commercial office buildings, et cetera, were unrealistic as it was too far back. This is a preposterous and disingenuous response to a very real concerns raised by Woodhaven. All up and down Michigan Road along Commerce Drive and otherwise, until Altum Gardens, one can see how commercial and residential transitioned and how low-level office use was included far off Michigan Road along Commerce Drive with successful results and extremely high occupancy. The developer doesn't want to accommodate this request from Woodhaven, not because it wouldn't be successful Page 2 or wouldn't be in line with all other development in and along Michigan Road, but rather this is not what REI does as they intend to make this a legacy multifamily project managed by the Fehsenfeld and Wells heirs. Moreover, they seek to do this with six (6) requested Variances which, as previously suggested to the Boards, requires the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, in particular, to fit a square peg into a round hole. While the developers' goal is clearly to maximize every inch of the site to its full development and money -making potential, this should not be allowed on the backs of the enjoyment and property values of the Woodhaven Subdivision. ATTEMPTS TO ACCOMMODATE As to the proposed development, the Woodhaven residents, through this attorney, conducted two (2) meetings: one with Fred Fehsenfeld, Mike Wells and Ryan Wells; and the other with essentially Ryan Wells. Concerns regarding this project and requests for the developer to conform the use to a more traditional commercial use as shown up and down Michigan Road were unreceptive. Hence, Woodhaven residents, having a stake in the game, made constructive attempts to create a better product that would allow the multifamily to move forward at a slightly less dense development, with better, more efficient setbacks, restructured and relocated buildings, and a common fence line with Woodhaven that would provide the appropriate buffering, sound control and aesthetic component that most assuredly should be part of Carmel's approval process. Instead, the current proposal puts forth very little change and a proposal for a white vinyl fence along the common property line. Members of the Carmel Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals, Really???? A white vinyl fence is the best the developer could come up with? Simply looking across the street at the project that Buckingham did, approved in Zionsville, adjacent to a high -end low density residential subdivision shows a brick and stone fence. With the proposed buffering and mounding of the fence proposed by Woodhaven, the developer would meet the requirements of separation, noise control and aesthetics that one would expect from a "Legacy Project". In the end, Page 3 Woodhaven is left to remonstrate and remain in opposition to this project as whatever truly constructive attempts they made to make the project more compatible for area residents fell on deaf ears. (See Andreoli Law letter to Wells dated March 28, 2022). CONCLUSION In the end, no multifamily product has been developed in and along the east side of Michigan Road. The developer would be hard pressed to point to the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals similar high density multifamily next to low density single family residential in Carmel. Professional offices and other successful office structures have been located and, with proper buffering, have blended in to the adjacent neighborhoods. This is not a use that is compatible with the existing surrounding neighborhoods based upon all the substantive reasons provided to the Boards and the many letters sent in opposition to this project. Moreover, the neighbors' concerns and suggestions have largely gone unanswered. This project does not appropriately comply with the Michigan Road Overlay District and the number of Variances and requests being made from the Plan Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals to fit this project into this site should ring loud alarm bells for the Boards that would strongly suggest that perhaps this site is not an appropriate size or location for the use being requested by REI and the Fehsenfeld Michael J. Andreoli, #2412-06 Attorney at Law 1393 W. Oak St. Zionsville, IN 46077 317-873-6266 andreoli(& atlaw.co S Attorney for Remonstrators Page 4 MICHAEL J ANDREOLI ATTORNEY AT LAW 1393 West Oak Street Zionsville, Indiana 46077-1839 (317) 873-6266 Fax (317) 873-6384 mandreoli(ab-datlaw.com March 28, 2022 Via E-Mail Ryan Wells, Director of Development RE[ Real Estate Services, Inc. 11711 North Pennsylvania Street, Suite 200 Carmel, Indiana 46032 RE: Altums Development PZ-2021-00205-DP/ADLS-11335 N. Michigan Road/ Apartments Dear Ryan: I am following up on our two meetings, the last of which presented suggestions and proposals to see if your proposed development could be made more user friendly for my clients immediately to the north. As you are aware, the Woodhaven Development is an older, well established, low -density single-family home development. While Woodhaven does not believe that the proposed development by REI is compatible with Woodhaven, the following suggestions are being made to try and reach an accommodation that would allow you to move forward, to -wit: We propose that you install a 3' berm with an 8'-10' stone and/or masonry fence along the top along our common property line. This would sufficiently screen our development from yours. Your suggestion of a white vinyl fence is a non -starter for the neighborhood as we believe this looks cheap and tacky in light of the fact that you are proposing this apartment complex as a legacy project. We pointed you to fencing installed several years ago by Buckingham Co. to screen from a similar low -density single-family development. 2. That you would move Building 1 to the south where the pool is located. 3. That Building 4 and the units therein would be eliminated so that it's not so close to the Woodland's properties. In doing so, we propose relocating Building 3 a little farther to the north with the pool to be located just south and east of Building 3. This would make the pool closer to the overall interior of the development to serve the needs of its residents and allow Building 1 to be moved to the south. 4. That all air conditioning and heating to be relocated non -adjacent to the Woodhaven development. 5. As you have proposed, the elimination of any sidewalk people trail on the northern edge of the proposed pond. This is acceptable. 6. The rotation of Building 7 will provide setback relief for the Weston Point community together with a fence the same material but of a reduced height and berm. 7. That we request that the following uses be removed from consideration of development in your out lots: a. Gas station; b. Automotive or truck repair; c. Automotive or truck sales; d. Bars; e. Hookah bars; f. Car wash; and g. Restaurants would be per]I%ichaEeUAndreoli patio seating. MJA/ba Enclosure cc: Joe Shestak Clients �A ggg. Qi Tog I J fig"! 01AI 110 11160 Q% A I PSIM!egg ; 1111 JK 8.31 IF4 ;.j�g fill el Pal mg Q stu Rig !04 .4 a x - aq Nslig 1, ka- 156B . . I. a 1,14' IF 111 gig PAN 2 9 U011111b NQ JNN�Qxx MIX, . ..... ... .. .. ... I 0 VERALLSITEPLAN RP REAL ESTATE SERVICES, E'S4 WC , ALTUMI _ VEeM, T U IUM N. MICHIGAN ROAD CARMEL, 1NDJ1ANA466i77 -4, Zod FA Nol 5 2 gig f!"! P O . salqjj�x