Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Subdivision 03-06-13City of Carmel Carmel Plan Commission SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Meeting LOCATION: CAUCUS ROOMS, 2nd FLR CARMEL CITY HALL ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, IN 46032 TIME: 6:00 P.M. (DOORS OPEN AT 5:30 P.M.) The Subdivision Committee will meet to consider the following item: 1. Docket No. 13010013 OA: PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment. The applicant seeks to amend Chapter 3: Definitions and Chapter 31: General Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of modifying the definitions, procedures, and development requirements for new Planned Unit Development district ordinances (PUDs). Filed by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. i) Does the spreadsheet help? Is it worth it for staff or does it add another step? (1) The petitioner should put together the spreadsheet to make it easier for the staff. (2) Concern with the spreadsheet is that someone might wonder why something may or may not be on it. How far should it be taken? (a) Based on previous zoning, can petitioner simply state that they will comply with the City of Carmel's standards? (b) Highlight text that is cut and pasted to make it easier where the customizations have occurred to focus efforts on those matters. Objectives /Concerns to be addressed: i) Some frustration on the part of the plan commissioners that a PUD addresses such a huge litany of issues that it makes it difficult to see how it compares to an existing zoning ordinance. ii) From a standpoint from a transparency and to help to address the concern that maybe a PUD is an attempt to circumvent other existing standards; dimensionaUnumerical from what is being petitioned and sought to make it easier to compare against other zoning classifications. iii) For the benefit of the plan commission to make it easier to identify whether there is a real need for PUD as the vehicle, if by comparing to both the existing zoning district for that property and the next closest of the varying districts on the books today, is it easier to see the uniqueness about the proposed PUD text that cannot be provided for under something else ONE, CIVIC SQUARE Page I of 3 CARMEL., INDIANA 46032 317 - 571 -2417 March 6, 2013 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee that is available off the shelf. iv) Anything that makes the review and consideration process easier for the commission. v) If ADLS has not been proposed within 3 years of the passage of the PUD then it is subject to sunset review and that's consistent with state statute as well. vi) Understanding that a lot of the issues are not resolved, but once they have beentapproved, they come back for something different. How can we avoid the surprises and better anticipate what's going to happen in the future? vii)A lack of communication between the petitioner and the immediately impacted'residents. Steps to addressing objectives: i) Inventory all of the PUDs in Carmel today; what are the common threads? Now 23 PUDs on the books? ii) Every PUD should be multipurpose in its nature. iii) We don't want to discourage single use PUDs because they will likely become more common due to infill development and redevelopment opportunities. Red Lined Text Comments: i) Page 4, Line 131- Suggestion that a PUD petitioner should be required to give notice to homeowners associations that fall within the area in addition to prior requirements. ii) The idea of a time limitation — 3 year sunset provision with the potential for extensions. (1) If a PUD is passed, but 3 years later it goes without pursuit and then reverts: to the previous zoning; does that create more uncertainty and is the solution worse than the disease? Must know that the underlying zoning is appropriate for the project. (2) You can't get a loan to development land for more than 3 years. (3) What a time limit would do from a landowner's standpoint — once you have something, it shouldn't be able to be taken away; however, it could be better for the community for the PUD to be updated so that something wouldn't get passed and then 20 years from now get built on. (4) Sunset provision is awkward to developers because they often feel that they, cannot respond to the market place. iii) Primary concerns are the demands that are placed on the developer. Whose job is what in the process of approval? Specifications should be stated. Make it objective; not subjective. Need consistency. iv) PUDs provide point in time opportunities for today's market conditions. v) Reapproval processes could make the public disapprove of PUDs for changing conditions based on what they already complied with in a prior approval process. (1) If there could be an issue that might arise in the future, it could be put in as a commitment in the PUD to bring the developer back to the commission within a certain number of years. ONE CIVIC SQUARE Page 2 of 3 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317-571-2417 March 6, 2013 Meeting Minutes Carmel Plan Commission Subd. Committee (2) Valuable to have some way of following up with developments. vi) Need to more clearly define the definition of "time ". Provide metrics for what value the proposals are for. vii)For evaluation standards to provide the best recommendation, need to better understand what the PUD will do for the community: jobs, tax base, schools, etc. ONE CIVIC SQUARE Brad Grabow - Chairpers File: SUBD -2013 -0306 Wednesday.doc Page 3of3 CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317- 571 -2417