HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD Memo 2
/
MEMORANDUM
To: Carmel City Council Land Use and Annexation Committee
Eric Seidensticker, Kevin Rider, Carol Schlief, Luci Snyder
Cc: Mike Hollibaugh, Adrienne Keeling, Mayor
Brainard
From: Carmel Chamber
Re: PUD Ordinance Z-574-13
As you know, the Carmel Chamber opposes the passage of Ordinance Z-574-13 and has expressed its concerns throughout the ordinance’s
approval process. We view the ordinance as unnecessary, unfair to business and capable of substantially decreasing the development opportunities in our community.
Our concerns were
compiled from a variety of concerned business representatives in Carmel. Those concerns, related to specific items in the most recent draft (6/25/2013), are listed below.
Line 39
Why are PUDs being singled out for specific requirements? No other rezone requires a petition.
Line 52
Why would PUDs be limited to these two desirability factors? Under these criteria,
single-use PUDs (e.g. Parkwood East or West) could have been disallowed.
Line 82
This verbiage should mirror that of 5 (b)(iii) Transportation Systems, and require general location
of the layout. Use of open space is part of the landscape plan under ADLS. This would move that later, after rezone, requirement to the rezone request.
Lines 87-98
These are all items
currently negotiated for inclusion at rezone stage, but typically addressed later under ADLS. While these issues may be raised, they are not required. What’s being communicated here
is that every PUD is going to require all of this information. That is incorrect. If everything in ADLS is now being proposed for initial rezone, then 1. eliminate ADLS, or 2. retain
it and avoid having developers incur ADLA-related costs up front.
Line 112
Every aspect of the ordinance should be in the ordinance.
Line 123
Renderings and photographic samples are design features and part of current ADLS.
Line 150
Allowing the potential for imposition of a bond has major deterrent potential.
The developer is attempting to change the zoning at this point, not build the project. Were a developer to have interest in a large area requiring infrastructure improvements, the potential
for a bond demand could have considerable negative impact on development and redevelopment.
Line 197
The sunset clause ignores economic uncertainty and market conditions. How can developers
obtain financial support for their project if within three years, that project can be “under review,” with no defined outcomes of that review?
There is currently no such provision
if a property is rezoned from residential to commercial zoning. Why would PUDs be singled out?
Our fear is that this segment relates to a specific PUD, not all PUDs in Carmel that have
not been developed with the three-year timeframe. Consequently, there is potential for unintended consequences here.
What are the specifics of the “review”? What is “minimal construction”?
Line
238
This is another example of the ADLS process being applied to a PUD rezone.
Summary
Passage of this ordinance will impose excessive and expensive requirements on a developer by requiring
professionally-prepared materials to be created before the rezone, not after it which is now the case. This could also mean that developers would be faced with approaching financial
institutions for funding before the land has been rezoned to cover costs for materials they would typically create for the ADLS process.
Adding additional costs to the development
process takes smaller developers out of the game and has the potential to limit creative developments, something Carmel has attempted to foster.
The potential for requiring a bond for
a rezone is a major deterrent to development, and unnecessary at this stage. One bonds to build the project, not to get the land rezoned.
The Periodic Review section ignores economic
uncertainty, financial institution loan agreements and market conditions and would be a deterrent to developers interested in our community.