HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #28 Mary SmithOctober 2, 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. It is our opinion that this project should be rejected as too
dense yet again. The further revised plan as of 9/30 is even more disappointing.
· Building 1 has changed from a Type I three story to a type IIIA two story, reducing the unit count from 30 to
16, reducing density back to roughly the same plan REJECTED one year ago, ie 238 units today vs 236 one year
ago. Further Building 1 is adjacent to commercial property (the mortuary), not residential; reducing height
and density there is not beneficial to the overall plan, and doesn’t eliminate the need for any variances!
o Removing the northerly end units (2 each) on the second floor from Buildings 4 and 5 would eliminate the
need for the height variance for building height adjacent to Woodhaven single family residential along
that property line.
o The correct way to eliminate the need for the variance at the south side residential units is to rotate
building 7 so that it too only presents the end of the building to the Westin Pointe townhouses, and
eliminate two second floor units on the end, similar to the change at Building 3 and 4. The pollinator
garden would sit where building 7 is now.
o Building 1 previously had 51 parking spaces for 30 units, a ratio of 1.7 spaces per unit. That included 28
garage and tandem spaces. Changing to Type IIIA eliminated the garages and tandem spaces, however
the reduced length of the building allowed expansion of the parking lot to the south. The revised plan still
provides 56 spaces, despite the reduction in units. Now the ratio is 3.5 spaces/unit, and is 63% more than
required parking! While this provides some additional spaces for the clubhouse and pool, it does not fix
the distribution of parking to buildings. Building 3 is still short of parking by 49% and Building 8 is short of
parking by about 42%!
· Further I can’t find the 401 spaces on plans noted in the staff report
recommending approval. I can only count 395 spaces. This is 10 more than
the counts in July, with 5 added at building 1 (least usable spaces by other
apartments) and 5 at the dog park. The 10 additional spaces look good on
paper but do nothing to help the shortages in other areas.
o This grass area in the middle of the parking lot for buildings 3,4,5 & 6 is
useless, if not unsafe for children to play in. They added one more tree
in the September filing. Wow, what an improvement!
· The bike requirement calculation on page 73 shows elimination of another
10 units at building type IV/Building 2 on plan and 8 units from building type V/Building 8. This is not reflected
in the either the submitted floor plans for those buildings or the overall unit counts. At a minimum, the bike
calculations are incorrect.
· The submittal claimed enhancements of the northerly and southerly landscape buffers. This is patently false.
They enhanced the presentation documents and provided more detail BUT did NOT enhance the landscaping
with the exception that they moved the fence north of the pond back to the buffer line; this results in some
plantings previously proposed inside the fence to be outside the fence. I am not clear what the benefit was to
adding the distance to the Woodhaven houses. The fact is that the petitioner is not meeting the UDC for
landscaping of the buffer. Further this has been noted repeatedly in both the 2022 filing and 2023 filing. If
they intend to meet the code required plantings, why haven’t they shown them? Why hasn’t the staff noted
the deficiency and required that the planting plans as submit require a variance?
o The landscaping SHOWN in the northern buffer adjacent to Woodhaven:
11 shade trees vs 21 required. Further only two new trees are in the easterly +/-500 ft and 9 are
proposed in the remaining +/255’ buffer north of the pond.
4 ornamental trees vs 8 required, with all in the westerly portion and none in the 500’ easterly portion.
57 shrubs vs 113 required, with 44 in the westerly portion and 13 in the 500’ easterly portion.
o For the southerly buffer adjacent to Westin Pointe, they are completely removing the “mature
woodlands” according to the woodlands evaluation by Jud Scott, as defined by Carmel code, and replacing
it with landscaping that again does not meet code for the buffer (outside the fence). It is my understanding
that the petitioner should preserve and save existing “mature woodlands” by code.
13 trees provided vs 13 required (two more are shown as new at the eastern end but are not labeled
with tree species.)
13 shrubs vs 33 required.
Given that the petitioner seems to believe that they have votes for approval of virtually the same residential plan
previously rejected, the petitioner should be required to do the following before approval of the project:
• Landscape the 25’ buffer along northeast (Woodhaven) and southeast (Weston Pointe) residential uses per
code. If the plans are not corrected, require a commitment from the developer that they will landscape the
buffers per code required plantings.
• Correct the parking counts ( I count 395 spaces) and consider redistributing the spaces more evenly to the
buildings. OR Go ahead and approve for 401 spaces and then we’ll check and demand that they actually build
that many.
• Eliminate parking spaces, particularly tandem and garages backing onto the through roadway.
• Meet the 20’ height at the setback for buildings 4,5,7 (after rotation), removing six 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 was previously “green
space/pollinator garden” but has been switched with the dog park.
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 25% 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? It is noted
that the staff incorrectly describes these tandem spaces as “tucked behind the tuck under garages.” These are in
fact on the front side, facing and accessing the street.
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 have not
reduced the density 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 “enhanced” colored site plan requested by
the committee does not correct the failure to
show adequate plants on that plan. It does move
the fence to the 25’ set back for the two most
westerly Woodhaven properties which are
adjacent to the pond. Beyond that, they have not
changed the plantings. Further the sections on
Pages 53/54/55, as well as in one of the Findings
of Fact p 99, all 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. Showing distances from the
houses to the Woodhaven properties doesn’t change the fact that a variance is required for the plantings
along the Woodhaven and Weston Pointe property lines.
• The landscape plan list on the right side of the sheet 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 “provided” counts in the listing of requirements. The relocation of the fence
to outside some plantings for the two westerly properties has increased the plants outside the fence, but still
does not meet code.
o The landscaping SHOWN in the northern buffer adjacent to Woodhaven STILL does not meet the
landscaping code and REQUIRES a variance not listed by petitioner or staff!
11 shade trees vs 21 required. Further only two new trees are in the easterly +/-500 ft (red arrow) and
9 are proposed in the remaining +/255’ buffer north of the pond.
4 ornamental trees vs 8 required, with all in the westerly portion and none in the 500’ easterly portion
57 shrubs vs 113 required, with 44 in the westerly portion and 13 in the 500’ easterly portion.
• Jud Scott’s arborist report notes that while the evergreens can remain “more trees should be added in area
3 to fill gaps.” Two trees, no ornamental trees and 13 shrubs are added in the 500 easterly portion! 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.
• Similarly and even more glaring, all of the Mature Woodlands identified by Jud Scot on the southern property
line are being removed, contrary to the zoning ordinance. The report notes that there are Silver Maple,
Hackberry, Black Walnut and White Mulberry trees along the south property line. While there are also some
invasive ornamental pear that should be removed, the “good” trees should be preserved.
o And while the required 13 trees are provided adjacent tot eh residential, only 13 shrubs are provided vs
33 required.
Several of the Findings of Fact pages in the July 2023 packet (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 395 appear to be shown
on plans.
· The parking spaces are poorly distributed to the buildings based on the units and bedrooms provided.
· The 10 additional spaces on the September plans do not serve residents well. 5 are at Building 1 and really
only serv the clubhouse well, and 5 are at the relocated dog park.
After checking and rechecking, I find only 395 stalls shown for the residential area. The following is my updated
(9/30) tabulation of the parking provided by building using the ordinance requirements.
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 42%. The allocation by building will be slightly different depending on how you allocate the shared
parking in between buildings 7-11; I allocated that parking based on the deficiency of the building after counting
their garages, tandem and ADA spaces.
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… and already deficient parking. With the reduction in units of Building 1 and
added spaces, it now has 63% MORE parking than required by ordinance. While usable by the pool and
clubhouse this parking is not reasonably usable by building 3.
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 IIIA 2 8 8 16 34.3 2 54 56 21.7 63%
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 12 2 5 9 28 -6.3 -18%
8 V 3 10 10 12 32 68.6 12 10 10 2 15 3 52 -16.6 -24%
9 IIIA 2 8 8 16 34.3 6 2 12 20 -14.3 -42%
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 16 46 -18.3 -28%
Dogpark 5 5
Totals 117 109 12 238 510 48 48 48 22 63 167 396 -114 -22%
PROVIDED PARKINGBedrooms
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 grass bulb extension into the lot is not well landscaped as seen at lower right
even with a third tree added since July. 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 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 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. It should be rejected
if the previous votes on the project are to be respected.
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 and Weston Pointe, saving “good” trees, per code.
• Correct the parking counts.
• Eliminate all parking (especially tandem) backing onto the through main roadway.
• Meet the 20’ height at the setback for buildings 4, 5 and 7 (after the latter is rotated), removing six total
units, and providing the step back of the buildings as required by the Michigan Overlay.
This is especially in light of the fact that the plan is largely the same as a development plan that was previously
rejected as being too dense.
Sincerely,
Mary S. Smith
4560 Windledge Circle (Woodhaven Subdivision)