Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJill's timeline for PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment Jill’s Timeline for PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment Compiled 8/3/2013 Not all PUD related meetings are listed. Comments are in italics Discussions about Project 1 and the PUD Requirements Ordinance began during the summer in 2012. February 19, 2013: Plan Commission Meeting. The PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment was presented as Special Project 1 by the Carmel Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. (Docket No. 13010013 OA) 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). It was sent to the Subdivision Committee. February 25, 2013: Carmel Chamber of Commerce letter, “views the PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment as unfriendly to business, and therefore opposes its passage.” March 6, 2013: Plan Commission Subdivision Committee was to “come up with criteria or conditions for which a PUD/ Planned Unit Development rezone proposal should even be considered.” At that time “Carmel did not restrict the ability for a petitioner to propose a PUD. When we allow PUD's in our jurisdiction, this simply provides developers with the opportunity to propose customized zoning ordinances -- in other words, they get to draft their own ordinance and submit it for consideration, subject of course to the willingness of the plan commission and city council to accept the language that they have proposed….Zoning administrators can find it hard to keep track of all the different applicable standards where there are literally dozens (even hundreds) of unique PUD ordinances.” March 27: 2013 Special Studies Report: March 22 memo and information packet. “A handful of revisions have been made to the proposed Ordinance in response to Committee discussion and correspondence from the public. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services (DOCS) recommends the Committee forwards this item to the April 16 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable recommendation, after all comments and concerns are addressed. If all items cannot be addressed at the meeting, then the DOCS recommends the Committee discusses this item and then continues it to the May 7 Subdivision Committee meeting for further review and discussion.” April 26, 2013: Memorandum from Adrienne Keeling, Department of Planning Services. “The goal was to amend the Zoning Ordinance if needed to streamline and improve procedures or requirements for future proposals. Main discussion points were 1. How can PUDs be made easier to review and manage? 2. How does the Carmel staff, Plan Commission and Council measure a proposal to determine how it compares with and exceeds existing zoning requirements?” May 28, 2013 City Council Land Use. "The Public" was invited to sit at the table with City Council members and our input was respectfully accepted. The public included: Mo Merhoff, Carmel Chamber of Commerce; Marilyn Anderson and Dee Fox, CWIC2; and Jill H. Meisenheimer, CCRZ. Mo said that developers were opposed to the PUD Amendment because it was not necessary, it was too much work, would cost them too much. Woody explained several times that the PUD amendment was not asking developers to do anything that they had not been asked to do before for a PUD. Woody said he would be interested to meet with developers to see why they opposed the PUD amendment. I asked if I could join that meeting as I wondered also why the developers were so opposed to the PUD Amendment. I was not invited to that meeting. June 24, 2013: Finkam, Sue, City Councilor’s email. “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 legislation? What aren't we getting now that this intends to improve? 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 seemingly concrete reason, at least that I've heard…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." June 25, 2013: City Council Land Use Meeting. Councilor Sue Finkam said she was opposed to this ordinance and could not vote for it unless it was totally gutted. When Sue asked how this ordinance solved any problems no one on Council or from DOCS defended this ordinance. Kevin Rider (liaison between Plan Commission and City Council) while at the Plan Commission moved and approved to send this ordinance to the City Council. At this meeting he said a lot had been added to make this ordinance cumbersome for developers. After months of work by Plan Commissioners and City Councilors on this PUD ordinance Amendment Kevin Rider, Eric Seidensticker, Sue Finkam, and Ron Carter voted to send this ordinance back to City Council with an unfavorable recommendation! July 1, 2013 City Council Meeting the vote failed for ordinance Z-574-13. Pursuant to Indiana Code 36-7- 4-607(e)(4), after a rejection by the legislative body, the item returns to the Plan Commission for its consideration. The Plan Commission has 45 days in which to consider the rejection and report back to the legislative body (Council). The plan commission’s options: 1. Fail to act within 45 days – the ordinance is dead, requiring no further action. 2. Approve the rejection – the ordinance is dead, requiring no further action. 3. Disapprove the rejection – the ordinance would go back to the Council to either confirm their rejection or consider revisions requested by the Plan Commission. Council Discussion & Public during Council Review: While no official report was created, some members of the City Council discussed concerns they had with the proposed ordinance. The discussion indicated that the proposal went “too far” and there was fear by some that the result (intended or unintended) would be halted PUD activity in Carmel. Topics of particular concern included: 1. The Periodic Review requirement for dormant projects 2. Bonds or written assurance on public improvements as a reasonable condition of approval 3. Some of the requirements listed in the “District Ordinance” section were perceived by some to be too early or too expensive to specify during the zoning approval. Rather they are more appropriate to be addressed at subsequent DP or ADLS review. The Planning Department is in the process of exploring options for further revision to salvage parts of the Ordinance. We will be making contact with key members of the Carmel City Council as well as the Chamber of Commerce in coming days. July 26, 2013 Memorandum Gutting PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment August 6, 2013 Plan Commission Executive Committee the Plan Commission has 3 options for voting for the PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment: 1) do nothing, 2) approve the rejection, or 3) send back to committee to consider revisions and disapprove the rejection within 45 days.