HomeMy WebLinkAboutJill's letter re: PUD requirement ordinance 03-21-13
DATE: February 21, 2013
TO: Lisa Motz lmotz@carmel.in.gov Please forward this email to the Plan Commissioners.
cc: Rachel Boone rboone@carmel.in.gov
FROM: Jill H. Meisenheimer
471 Burlington Lane, Carmel, IN 46032
jmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com
(317) 844-3920
RE: Docket No. 13010013 OA: PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment related to the
Carmel Chamber letter 2/25/2013
Carmel Plan Commissioners,
I was unable to attend the PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment hearing at the CPC Subdivision
Committee Meeting on Wednesday, March 6 and I have not been able to see or listen to the transcript
from that meeting.
I am hoping and requesting that the March 27 Subdivision Committee meeting will allow comments from
the public as part of the review and discussion. Development should be pro community not only pro
business or pro residents.
I am responding to the February 25, 2013 Carmel Chamber letter, “PUD Requirements Ordinance
Amendment” and numbering the bullets in the order that they were presented.
1.We agree with the Carmel Chamber that “the Plan Commission’s job is to review plans…and the ultimate
decision as to whether a PUD is approved is at the sole discretion of the City Council.”
However, in order for the Plan Commission to effectively review and issue a reasonable
recommendation (whether positive, negative or giving no recommendation to the City Council) they
need to be able to look at the entire development plan, not just the ADLS and they should be able to
a.Require “a standard format including an outline indicating the order of development standards,
required exhibits and with standard language regarding how and when PUD ordinances may be
modified.” (Discussion Point 4 CPC Memorandum February 8. 2013.)
b.“Require a summary document exhibit which helps identify how the proposed project falls below,
meets or exceeds both existing and comparable zoning districts. This would include a spreadsheet
and the standards proposed in the PUD.” (Discussion Point 4 CPC Memorandum February 8. 2013.)
c.Require “petitioners to submit visual/graphical depictions of not only the “concepts” represented
by the PUD ordinance, but also visual renderings of the most intense development possible under
the PUD ordinance.” (Discussion Point 6 CPC Memorandum February 8. 2013.)
These are all reasonable requirements to simplify and streamline a thorough review of complex PUD
proposals
2.We agree with the Carmel Chamber that it may be more expensive for a developer to propose a PUD.
However, when a developer proposes a PUD he is asking the city to toss out the current set of zoning
rules so that the developer can make his own special set of rules. So the developer does need to
provide materials to describe what he plans to do. It is reasonable and responsible for the PUD
developer to provide the reasons for, uses and development plan for a rezone before he can be
awarded it. The PUD is the framework for everything that will happen in that space. It is not reasonable
for the developer to change his framework because he wants to change his concept. After the PUD has
been passed each building should be reviewed for ADLS within the parameters of the PUD.
3.We agree with the Carmel Chamber that, “a PUD is a rezone.” And it can be a “very important valuable
part of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance that allows development of a specific parcel to be fine-tuned to
meet the concerns of all parties.” However, all parties should include the neighbors adjacent to the
PUD. A PUD is a rezone, but differs greatly from a standard rezone, in that a standard rezone has
standard and consistent rules in place so that all parties already know what is required and what to
expect.
4.We are in favor of the Sunset provision. If the developer cannot build the PUD in the time limit given
and/or wishes to change the concept or major framework of the PUD, then the developer should be
required to go through the PUD process again. A property is rezoned based on certain requirements.
When a PUD is proposed it makes its own guidelines, develops its own laws, has a public hearing,
through the Plan Commission committees adapts to some of the requests of the city and neighbors, is
voted on by the Plan Commission and sent for more review and a vote by the City Council for a vote. It
is totally unfair to the Plan Commission, City Council and public for a PUD to do something radically
different in concept or framework than what was originally marketed just because there is economic
uncertainty and poor market conditions.
Neighbors expect what has been proposed to stay mostly the same as what was required to gain
approval. If a developer wants to develop in Carmel and his PUD needs to be dramatically changed,
then the developer should revise it and resubmit the PUD. Zoning exists so that development is
planned, and not based on constantly changing market conditions.
5.The Carmel Chamber wrote that “the impetus for this ordinance was…too many PUDs” and they
suggest, “The abandonment of Euclidian zoning”. We interpret this statement as suggesting that Carmel
should throw out all zoning laws and having no rules for development! We believe that the impetus for
this ordinance was that the PUD is complicated, time consuming to review and a lot of work for the Plan
Commissioners, which is compounded by a lack of consistent guidelines and some poor PUD proposals
which have been submitted.
We support the concept of the PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment. It is not unreasonable to expect
developers to document how the change from the existing zoning to a PUD is in the best interest of the full
community. We believe that PUDS can be made easier to review and manage and that the staff, Plan
Commission and Council should be able to measure a proposal to determine how it compares and exceeds
existing districts to warrant favorable consideration for all parties.
Jill H. Meisenheimer M. P. Meisenheimer
CCRZ/Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning President, Williams Mill HOA