HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #07 Mary SmithJuly 29 2023
Carmel Plan Commission Members and Staff Members
Re: 11335 N. Michigan Road, Docket PZ-2021-00205.
Thank you for the opportunity to express concerns and issues with the above referenced project. It is very
disappointing that the “revised” plan for this property would even be seriously considered given that it is the
substantially the same project as denied one year ago. In fact, the residential component is even more dense, with
252 units (vs 236), and another residential building added. We do appreciate that the developers held a
neighborhood meeting and promised some tweaks. It appears we will not have an opportunity to see the revisions
before the meeting.
To highlight my objections, the petitioner should be required to do the following before approval of the project:
• Landscape the 25’ buffer along Woodhaven per code,
• Correct the parking counts and consider redistributing the spaces more evenly to the buildings.
• Eliminate parking spaces, particularly tandem garages backing onto the through roadway.
• Correct the sections that completely misrepresent views to/from Woodhaven residences.
• Meet the 20’ height at the setback for buildings 4 and 5, removing four total units, and providing the step
back required by the Michigan Overlay.
The following supports these points.
Density
While they have very slightly decreased the pervious area (by 2%) that may be an illusion because it appears to
have only been achieved by eliminating the commercial space at the southwest corner; this “green
space/pollinator garden” is not beneficial to the residents being so close to Michigan Road either for views from
the apartments or for enjoyment of “green space/pollinator garden.”
One of the negative votes last year included concern that the main street from the signal at Michigan Road to the
eastern boundary did not have adequate landscaping. They have added a row of street trees on the south side,
but no shrubs or other landscaping, and that will only highlight the lack of landscaping along the north side which
is essentially a continuous concrete driveway/parking area in front of building 2. Worse, these driveways are
counted as tandem parking for that building; even with the tandem parking, that building as documented later
has a greater shortfall from the required parking (37% deficient) than the overall average 29% shortfall for all the
residential buildings. This in turn means that there will likely be a car parked in each driveway overnight and up
to the morning peak hour of traffic. The total 20 garage and tandem cars as well as the 15 spaces to the west will
have to be backed into the street to depart. Further to get the car parked in the garage out, the tandem car parked
in the driveway will have to be backed into the boulevard, then the car in the garage will be backed into the street
while the first car is moved into the garage. Even with two people moving the cars, the through traffic will be
blocked. If only one person is home, where do they put the tandem car while retrieving the garage car?
Those 15 spaces by the pool are not only important to this building for the residents but also will likely be used
for leasing, pool pickup and dropoff, fitness center and the gathering space for the complex in this same Building
2! This higher turnover and tandem parking will occur on a street that apparently is deemed to have adequate
traffic to justify a traffic signal at Michigan Rd, and is clearly intended to support the future development of the
large Fehsenfeld property to the east, and possibly be a pass through from Shelborne to Michigan Rd.
We understand the City has the right to waive the Michigan Overlay and Altum’s requirements, indeed I personally
think multifamily residential is better than commercial; however, that doesn’t change the fact that the Overlay
requirements would further protect the adjacent estate-zoned parcels. We don’t see that the loss of 2 units each
on the north end of buildings 4 and 5 (and thus meeting the 20’ height limit as a stepback at that end) as required
by the zoning would seriously damage the viability of the development, especially considering they added 16 more
units since the rejected plan. If Fehsenheld is happy with the height of buildings 5 and 6, fine. If the Weston Pointe
townhomes are willing to accept the height of building 7, fine. But I respectfully request not granting the height
variance for buildings 4 and 5.
Landscaping
There remains a complete failure to meet the landscape buffer requirements along the north property line and
unfair treatment of the north property line as compared to the extensive new landscaping in the buffer along the
east Fehsenfeld property….owned by the same party! The arborist report in the packet said the evergreens need
supplementing.
• The pretty colored site plan implies different
landscaping than shown on the landscape plans.
Along the Woodhaven properties the site plan
clearly shows shade trees in the buffer instead of
the existing older scraggly evergreens. This
drawing is used repeatedly in the Findings of
Facts. Further the sections on Pages 53/54/55, as
well as in one of the Findings of Fact p 99, dated
July 2023 totally misrepresents the existing
evergreens in the buffer as three deep. They are
basically in a single line, as shown on the
landscaping plans, below. This was pointed out in
2022, but they continue to seriously misrepresent
what the impact is along the Woodhaven properties.
• The landscape plan implies shrubs and trees will be provided to meet the ordinance in the 25 ft buffer in the
“north east” area along the 755’ long Woodhaven properties, but that quantity is NOT shown on the plan.
Given the detail shown on the plans, it is concerning that they could landscape per the plans, not the seeming
commitment in the listing of requirements. The total shown on plan: 7 new trees and 13 shrubs provided
adding to the reported 24 existing evergreens. The ordinance requires a 25’ buffer with 45 shade or
evergreens, 8 ornamental trees and 113 shrubs. How is that NOT a variance required?
• Jud Scott’s arborist report notes that while the evergreens can remain “more trees should be added in area
3 to fill gaps.” Two are added in the main straight section where the fence setback is 25’. Wow. Most of the
secondary trees in Area 3 are invasive pear, which is undesirable and not worthy of being maintained. Some
are undersized cottonwoods, and the understory includes weeds. This is an adequate buffer compared to that
required by code? Any woodlands on the Woodhaven properties do not count towards the buffer. REI is
required to provide a landscaped buffer with a specific amount of planting on their property.
• Several of the Findings of Fact pages (I presume these are drafts anticipating that the variance is approved)
purport that landscaping has been “maximized in the North Buffer”, which is absolutely not true. In sum, this
statement below and in particular the portion highlighted in yellow in several of the Findings of Fact is simply
NOT TRUE.
Parking
I will state that I would consider the overall parking spaces provided for the residential properties adequate, and
that is as one of the leading parking consultants in the world with 48-years experience.
https://walkerconsultants.com/blog/2018/06/07/mary-smith-awarded-ipi-2018-lifetime-achievement-award/
However I am concerned that:
· The project plans do not show the 401 spaces noted in the variance request; only 385 appear to be shown
on plans.
· The parking spaces are poorly distributed to the buildings based on the units and bedrooms provided.
After checking and rechecking, I find only 385 stalls shown for the residential area, two of which are designated
for maintenance and shouldn’t be counted towards the required apartment parking when they are providing
less than 3 out of 4 required parking spaces per ordinance. The miscount by the developer seems to be claiming
78 @ 9’ by 20’ stalls when there are only 62 provided.
The deficiency in parking vs the ordinance varies by building, with building 4 being deficient by 18% while
Building 3 (which is all two-bedroom units) is deficient by 49%, building 2 is deficient by 37% and building 9 is
deficient by 36%. Building 6 doesn’t have covered parking (which all other buildings have), unless they park on
the other side of the main street with its traffic.
The following is my tabulation of the parking provided by building using the ordinance requirements.
Building 3’s excessive deficiency is easily correctable by better connecting its parking to the parking for building
4; however that would further reduce the already deficient pervious area. This could also provide convenient
covered parking for Building 6. This bulb extension into the lot is not well landscaped as seen at lower right. I’m
not sure a grass area in the middle of the parking lot is a great play space for children (say all those future
Bldg type stories 1 2 3 Total
Req'd
Park'g Garage Tuck in Tandem ADA 9 x 18 9 x 20 Total Defic % Def
1 I 3 20 10 30 64.3 14 14 2 21 51 -13.3 -21%
2 IV 3 19 7 26 55.7 10 10 2 13 35 -20.7 -37%
3 II 3 24 24 51.4 6 2 18 26 -25.4 -49%
4 IIIA 2 8 8 16 34.3 6 2 20 28 -6.3 -18%
5 IIIA 2 8 8 16 34.3 6 2 19 27 -7.3 -21%
6 IIIA 2 8 8 16 34.3 2 24 26 -8.3 -24%
7 IIIA 2 8 8 16 34.3 6 2 8 9 25 -9.3 -27%
8 V 3 10 10 12 32 68.6 12 10 10 2 16 3 53 -15.6 -23%
9 IIIA 2 8 8 16 34.3 12 2 8 22 -12.3 -36%
10 I 3 20 10 30 64.3 14 14 2 15 2 47 -17.3 -27%
11 I 3 20 10 30 64.3 14 14 2 15 45 -19.3 -30%
Totals 129 111 12 252 540 48 62 62 22 62 129 385 -155 -29%
PROVIDED PARKINGBedrooms
Carmel soccer and football stars) and it convolutes and concentrates traffic flow at a choke point lined by
parking stalls… increasing the likelihood of accidents.
I should also note that in the name of sustainability, the City of Carmel should begin to require EV charging for
new projects, which is particularly critical for residential properties where 70% or more of charging will occur. I
am the principal author of an 84-page white paper on Electric Vehicle Charging for the Parking Consultants Council
of the National Parking Association and would be happy to talk to staff about appropriate requirements for EV
Charging in parking. https://weareparking.org/store/ListProducts.aspx?catid=901696
I do note that one of my 2022 objections, the alignment of the stub road to the south has been corrected to at
least be feasible for a future connection. That and moving the fence 25’ from the property hardly compensates
for the failure to submit an overall improved and less dense residential plan for the project.
Given the stubbornness of the petitioner in not reimagining the plan, one suspects they believe they have the
votes to get the project approved. However, the petitioner should at a minimum, be required to:
• Landscape the 25’ buffer along Woodhaven per code.
• Correct the parking counts.
• Eliminate all parking (especially tandem) backing onto the through main roadway.
• Correct the sections that misrepresent views to/from Woodhaven residences.
• Meet the 20’ height at the setback for buildings 4 and 5, removing four total units, and providing the step
back of the building as required by the Michigan Overlay.
This is especially in the light of the fact that they added 16 units and another building to a development plan that
was previously rejected as being too dense.
Sincerely,
Mary S. Smith
4560 Windledge Circle (Woodhaven Subdivision)