HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #87 Mary SmithApril 18, 2022
Carmel Plan Commission Commercial Committee Members and Staff Members
Miles Nelson
Re: 11335 N. Michigan Road, Docket PZ-2021-00205.
I remain very disappointed that the staff and Commission seem to have abandoned the Michigan Road overlay
requirements and the covenants in the Altum agreement and further are accepting significant changes to the UDC.
If the City is routinely accepting increased density and/or reduced parking from the UDC as implied in the
petitioner’s submittal then the code should be changed. Going through this process routinely is a waste of the
Plan Commission and BZA member’s volunteer service to the community.
For this project, all the staff has ever seemed to care about is the architecture being more “Federal” than originally
proposed. There remain many variances required for the project, not the least of which is multi-family residential
on this property. One cannot simply waive away what the text of the Michigan Road Overlay requirements and
Altums agreement say because the staff thinks the regulations were meant for commercial uses, not residential
The text is the requirement, period. Therefore the entire use is a variance that must be acknowledged, not waved
(spelling intended) away. Other variations include heights, setbacks and density.
While the proposed privacy fence may reduce the concern of the adjacent neighbors (including Woodhaven), the
fact remains that the petitioner is not meeting the code requirements for landscaping within the fence. The trees
required by the ordinance would still reduce the view sheds from the Woodhaven homes and the view into our
properties from the second floor apartments. The diagrams on page 31 are misleading at best. The evergreens are
a single row deep, not 4 or 5 deep. The sight lines are NOT as presented on that page.
Certainly viable existing trees and shrubs should be saved, but the idea that the current woods is worth preserving
is ludicrous. Don’t the residents of the proposed project deserve the code-required landscaping along the
perimeter of the parcel? More indication that this project is being done on the cheap. There is no commitment
shown on plans to quadruple the existing evergreens as shown on page 31, nor to meet the landscaping
requirements along setbacks per the code. Further the site plan on page 30 of the packet implies the evergreens
would have to be cut back for the fence to be placed just inside the petitioner’s property. The evergreens appear
to be nearing the end of their useful life. Will they be gone within 10 years?
The stub road to the south is aligned in such a way that it will never be connected to the south. The alignment
planned is strictly to result in a larger commercial lot 2. To say that it is provided to allow a connection to the
south is quite simply ridiculous. It connects at a bend in the parking lot, head on to the building. At least be honest
about things. The designers conveniently cut off the adjacent property features before that building so you can’t
see that on the site plans. Even if it winds around, it connects through the parking lot in a circuitous path. It will
never be appropriate to make that connection unless the main building to the south is torn down and that
property is redeveloped. The City should prohibit such a connection rather than pretend it might happen in the
future. Since the signal has been allowed by the state, there is no need for this connection.
The so-called concessions to the Woodhaven neighborhood were never negotiated at all, much less in good faith.
The first and only meeting with the neighborhood was a last-minute presentation just before the initial hearing,
in Christmas week no less, with a refusal to answer any of our questions. There was never another meeting with
the neighborhood residents, nor any attempt to be good neighbors. The original Altum’s developer as well as
commercial Kroger’s developer met with and negotiated in good faith and our neighborhood made concessions;
REI and the Fehsenfelds have neither reached out nor negotiated in good faith. The decisions to lower the one
building by one floor and provide a fence were already made before our lawyer met with REI and clearly were
minimal attempts to compensate for having completely ignored the Michigan Road overlay requirements in the
original proposal. The fence was approved between REI and the mortuary, a commercial use with different
concerns and a different view shed than the Woodhaven properties. No further attempt to negotiate regarding a
fence appropriate for a separation between the proposed use and the adjacent estate properties has been offered
to Woodhaven.
Sincerely,
Mary S. Smith
4560 Windledge Circle