HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Sue Finkam 06-24-13From: Finkam, Sue
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 9:16 PM
To: Seidensticker, Eric; Luci Snyder; Snyder, Luci; Schleif, Carol; Rider, Kevin D
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling, Adrienne M; Brainard, James C; Sharp, Rick; Carter, Ronald E
Subject: RE: PUD Ordinance
Eric, I plan to be there tomorrow night unless my golf cart gets stranded in the rain. However, I thought
I'd send some thoughts to committee members in advance.
I'd like some clarification re: a few things:
1) The recitals tell us what we're authorized to do, but nowhere in there does it describe what the
problem is that this ordinance is trying to solve. If passed, will better developments happen? What
examples of poor PUDs exist that have prompted this legisla tion? What aren't we getting now that this
intends to improve?
2) Why are we voluntarily putting limits on our already vested power as a council? If we don't like a PUD
we can just so no. This ordinance just complicates the entire process for no seemingl y concrete reason,
at least that I've heard.
Line 37 - this is our jurisdiction so this seems as if it's not necessary
Line 53 - 4 a. - calling out mixed use developments seems short-sighted. In many cases, if we required
developers to use standard zoning for large housing developments, tens and tens of variances would be
presented thru the process, making the process unwieldy. A "one size fits all" solution is not what's best
to attract high-quality neighborhoods.
Line 55 - 4 c. - This is in direct opposition to the purpose of the PUD, which is to vary from the existing
Zoning Ordinance.
Lines 62-86 - 5 a. and b. - Text only??
Lines 87-102 - vii - xi. - Text only? and why ask for this at the rezone stage versus ADLS? This puts PUDs
at a competitive disadvantage to other rezones.
Line 113 - c. - No - the PUD is meant to stand alone.
Lines 123-129 - b. Why illustrate the "worst case" scenario? We don't do that with any of our overlays,
e.g. diagram the least attractive parts of the areas described??
Lines 130-134 - e. Historic - too time consuming to research these institutions.
Lines 150-154 - Bond. Ridiculous. Ties up $ unnecessarily. Puts PUDs at a competitive disadvantage
again. Are we going to require all rezones to do this?
Lines 197-200 - Review. 1) Parts contained here can be challenged as violating state law which already
permits review after 3 years. This requires review after 2. Violates state law that states vested rights for
3 years after rezoning. 2) If the Director does a review and reports results, what then? 3) Define
"minimal construction activity." Too subjective. Once again puts PUDs at a competitive disadvantage as
it introduces uncertainty from which investors/finance teams run.
Lines 224-250 - Why needed? Can't we just write into the PUD ordinance that changes greater than 10%
aggregate must be approved by council as we've done in the past?
At this point, I don't see how this ordinance is even needed. However, if this ordinance comes out of
committee with a positive reco and the review, the ADLS-like requirements or the bond, I cannot see
supporting it. And, if it passes council with these in it, I urge the Mayor to veto it.
Sue Finkam
Carmel City Council - Northeast District
317-614-5835
View my bio
Find me on Twitter