HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - fi
To: City Councilors June 4,2012.
From: CWIC2
Re: Z-558-12,Patch Ordinance IX.
We have two concerns with the proposed Patch Ordinance:
1. It would allow the Plan Commission to grant waivers of up to 35%of any quantitative or dimensional
standards in the Subdivision Control Ordinance, and
2. It would remove all of the current, specific considerations for granting a waiver and replace them with
much different and lesser criteria.
While much of the waivable Subdivision Control Ordinance (SCO) standards relates to infrastructure, the
increased waiver ability would also apply to SCO standards such as:
- - greenbelts and planting strips,
- % of woodlands that could be cleared,
- open space planned for a development,
- preservation of floodways &wetlands,
- minimum frontage at right-of-ways,
- various street requirements, and
- paths.
It is possible a developer could gain approval for a standard development plan, only to go back to the Plan
Commission for approval of multiple significant waivers. As written,the Plan Commission, not Council,
would have the final vote on some parts of the development plan, giving Commissioners the opportunity to
undo choices that were important to Council before Council granted their approval for the development.
We very much appreciate that this Council has been unwilling to grant the Plan Commission the ability to
approve 35%changes to PUD's,holding them instead to what the current Zoning Ordinance defines as
_"Minor" alteration--a change of less than 10%. We would ask you likewise not to grant others the ability to
approve substantial changes on essentially all SCO components of a new development. We think you'd like
to know that a Commissioner commented during Committee meetings on this Patch Ordinance that they
would need to depend more on the Department Reports.
There were also-comments froni some Plan Commissioners that because the proposed changes allow more
flexibility, there would likely be an increase in waiver requests,and therefore the Commissioners would need
to be very disciplined and judicious. Given Commissioner turnover,there is much danger that the original
intent of an ordinance will become lost and then subject to new interpretations. Regardless, we residents end
up asking what's the value of the SCO standards if they can be so easily and substantially waived? Where is
the predictability for developers and residents that Council's vote of approval is supposed to provide?
However, in a case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for, reducing the percent in this Patch Ordinance means
developers will take their requests to the BZA. We think that's a problem, too. Perhaps these items can be
moved into the-Zoning Ordinance, or a statement added that any changes beyond a set percent of your choice
are required to return to Council for final approval. We are hoping this goes to the Land Use Committee so
these technicalities and their ramifications can undergo further scrutiny.
We are also very concerned that the new ordinance loses current criteria that we believe are important
considerations before approving waivers. Please keep these existing considerations:
- 3.07.02. The use or value of the area adjacent to the property included in the proposed plat will not be
- affected in a substantially adverse manner.
- 3.07.03. The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and such
condition is not•due to the general conditions of the neighborhood.
- 3.07.04. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance will constitute an unusual and unnecessary -
hardship if applied to the-property for which the variance is sought.
NOTE: the word "variance"will need to be changed to"waiver"to match the new ordinance.
The Dept. reports continue to heavily cite from the City-Wide Policies & Objectives in the Essence Section of
the Comp Plan. While we appreciate that these reports to Commissioners have begun including citations from
the section of the Comp Planfor the relevant specific area of Carmel, the waters are muddied when the
citations are contradictory, as they too often are for at least West Carmel.. We are therefore concerned about
the possible loose interpretation for the proposed Patch Ordinance's new Section 3.07, "The proposal shall be
in harmony with the purposes and the land-use standards contained in the Comprehensive Plan." We ask that
you reword and strengthen the proposed statement to also reference applicable sections for the specific area
and zoning ordinances,with guidance that where the area-specific sections conflict with the City-Wide
- Essence section, the area-specific section should take priority.
In summary,we do not believe it is in the community's best interest to expand the power of the Plan
Commission to grant substantial waivers to every standard in the SCO, with no opportunity for Council
review. We also believe that the current criteria for granting waivers are more protective of adjacent
properties than the Patch Ordinance criteria that are replacing them, and that this protection should not be
abandoned.
Thank you for your consideration:
Marilyn Anderson,President MaryEllen Bormett,Vice-president Dee Fox,Secretary
Conn, Angelina V
From: John Molitor [jmolitor@prodigy net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10.45 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V, Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Donahue-Wold, Alexia K; Littlejohn, David W, Mindham, Daren, Boone,
Rachel M
Subject: Re Patch Items
Re-sending the Indiana Code definition of Continuing Care Retirement Community.
From: John Molitor <jmolitor @prodigy.net>
To: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in gov>, "Keeling, Adrienne M" <AKeeling @carmel.in.gov>
Cc: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov>; "Donahue-Wold, Alexia K" <awold @carmel in.gov>; "Littlejohn,
David W" <dlittlejohn @carmel.in gov>, "Mindham, Daren" <dmindham @carmel in.gov>; "Boone, Rachel M."
<rboone @carmel in gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 2:04 PM
Subject: Re Patch Items
Everybody - As I noted in my comments, the State's definition of CCRC is in IC 16-28-15-2 (below). I
recommend that we just incorporate it by reference and not spell it out. (The legislature frequently changes
these definitions; it was just rewritten last year. We might not keep up.)
John
IC 16-28-15-2
"Continuing care retirement community"
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "continuing care retirement community" means a health care facility that:
(1)provides independent living services and health facility services in a campus setting with common
areas;
(2) holds continuing care agreements with at least twenty-five percent(25%) of its residents (as defined in
IC 23-2-4-1);
(3) uses the money from the agreements described in subdivision (2) to provide services to the resident
before the resident may be eligible for Medicaid under IC 12-15; and
(4) meets the requirements of IC 23-2-4.
As added by P.L.229-2011, SEC.162.
From: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> ~~
To: "Keeling, Adrienne M" <AKeeling @carmel in gov>
Cc: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh@carmel in gov>; "Donahue-Wold, Alexia K" <awold @carmel in gov>, "Littlejohn,
David W" <dlittlejohn @carmel in gov>, "Mindham, Daren" <dmindham @carmel in.gov>; "Boone, Rachel M "
<rboone @carmel.in gov>, 'John Molitor' <jmolitor @prodigy net>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 1202 PM
Subject: RE- Patch Items
Thanks for all your work on this, Adrienne!
Comments:
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Keeling, Adrienne M
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1212 PM
To: .Conn, Angelina V
Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K
Subject: RE Patch Ordinance IX - addendum?
Oh,yeah. Notice was sent for March 20. I just re-noticed keeping the same docket number and added the chapters that
needed to be added.
From: Conn, Angelina V
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M
Cc: Donahue-Wold, Alexia K
Subject: Patch Ordinance IX - addendum?
Hi Adrienne—
just checking on this...will this item be noticed in time for the March 21 PC meeting?
thanks,
Angie
1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Hancock, Ramona B
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:12 PM
To: Keeling, Adrienne M, Conn, Angelina V
Subject: FW Patch Ordinance
FYI
Ramona
From: CWIC2 [mailto:cwic2Cayahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 1:40 PM
To: Hancock, Ramona B
Subject: Patch Ordinance
To: Plan Commissioners
From: CWIC2
Date: March 2, 2012
Re: Docket No. 12010005 OA: Patch Ordinance IX.
We didn't think we needed to worry about a Patch Ordinance, and saw nothing alarming in the summary of
changes. However, after recently reading,the text changes themselves, we have belatedly discovered some to be
of concern.
SCO Chapter 3.07: Subdivision Waiver. There are much greater changes here than the summary's statement of
merely substituting the term "waiver" for "variance". Three of the 5 specific considerations for granting
waivers would be removed, leaving only the more vague and subjective language. As proposed, basically any
developer for any reason can request the waiver for any amount of deviation from the zoning. We believe this
will put Commissioners in the same spot they are now in with PUD's: Developers will see this as a way to
increase density/intensity and routinely submit proposals requesting the waiver. In particular, removing the
3.07.05 language "The grant of the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan" sends
a green light to developers to use a waiver as a way around existing zoning standards/approvals. This green
light is also signaled by removing, in the opening paragraph, "owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement
of the provisions of said ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship," (see also 3.07.04), and by removing
3.07.03, "The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property and such condition is
not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood."
We ask that you keep the language identified above and add language that clarifies what would warrant a
waiver. We believe language should restrict the percent of increase to no more than 10% with any larger
increase requiring a rezone. That would delineate the difference between a "mild" waiver and a Iarger change
that traditionally has been handled via rezone. Please acid standards that make this difference clear between a
waiver and a rezone.
ZO Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, Lot Area and Buffering Regulations. The proposed addition of
26.04.02 (a) reduces the perimeter buffering, thereby decreasing the salability of the houses on the street for
those who do not want an "urban-up-to-the-street" home. The proposed 85 feet could easily affect homes on 1/4
acre lots. Here's the math: 43,560 sq. ft./acres divided by 4 divided by 85 feet = 85' x 128' lot. Assume the lot
is deeper than wide and that most of each lot will not be in the front of the house. After deducting for the space
the house takes up, the front door can be closer than 85' from the street right-of-way. Please reduce the 85' to
something more appropriate for homes that are clearly meant to be in "new urbanism/smart growth" type of
developments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marilyn Anderson, President MaryEllen Bormett, Vice-President Dee Fox, Secretary
2
Conn, Angelina V
From: Keeling, Adrienne M
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11 56 AM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: Docket No. Assignment: (OA) Patch IX (#12010005 OA)
From: Keeling, Adrienne M
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:55 AM
To: Boone, Rachel M.; Blanchard, Jim E; Donahue-Wold,Alexia K; Hancock, Ramona B; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling,
Adrienne M; Littlejohn, David W; Mindham, Daren; Stewart, Lisa M; Tingley, Connie S; Mishler, Nicholas F; Duncan, Gary
R; Maki, Sue; 'GARY DOXTATER'; Thomas, John G; Barnes, David R; Redden, Nick; 'John Molitor'
Subject: Docket No. Assignment: (OA) Patch IX (#12010005 OA)
I have issued the necessary Docket Number for(OA) Patch Ordinance IX. It is the following:
Docket No. 12010005 OA
Application Fee: $0.00 (exempt)
Total Fee: $0.00
Docket No. 12010005 OA: Patch Ordinance IX
The applicant seeks to amend Subdivision Control Ordinance Chapter 3: General Provisions and Chapter 7: Open Space
Standards for Major Subdivisions. The applicant also seeks to amend Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2: Compliance with the
Regulations, Chapter 3• Definitions, Chapter 5: S-1/Residence District, Chapter 20A: 1-1/Industrial District, Chapter 21:
Special Uses & Special Exceptions, Chapter 23C: US Highway 421 — Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone, Chapter 25:
Additional Use Regulations, Chapter 26: Additional Height, Yard, Lot Area and Buffering Regulations and Appendix A:
Schedule of Uses. Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission
1 This Item will NOT be on an agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC).
2. Published Public Notice will occur Friday,January 27`h, in the Indianapolis Star.
3. Thirteen (13) Informational Packets will be delivered to Plan Commission Secretary Ramona Hancock no
later than NOON, Friday, February 10,2012.
4. The Item will appear on the February 21,2012 agenda of the Plan Commission (under"Public
Hearings").
5. The Item may also appear on the March 6,2012 agenda of the Plan Commission Special Studies
Committee.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Adrienne Keeling
Planning Administrator
City of Carmel - Dept of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
akeeling @carmel.in.gov
317-571-2417
317-571-2426 fax
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
1