HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Chamber to Council 08-27-13
Motz, Lisa
From:Keeling, Adrienne M
Sent:Tuesday, October 08, 2013 3:38 PM
To:Motz, Lisa
Subject:FW: PUD Ordinance
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Lisa – Please add to laserfiche and file: 13010013 OA.
Email from Chamber to Council 08-27-13
From: Mo Merhoff \[mailto:mm@carmelchamber.com\]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:35 AM
To: Sharp, Rick; Carter, Ronald E; Luci Snyder; Snyder, Luci; Schleif, Carol; Seidensticker, Eric; Finkam, Sue; Rider, Kevin
D; Grabow, Bradford S; Stromquist, Steven R
Cc: Keeling, Adrienne M; Hollibaugh, Mike P; alana.shane@huntington.com; Bill Redman; DCoots@chwlaw.com; Jeff
Groth; john.schuler@indyhcs.net; Matt Frey; Mike Drewry; Mike Vall; Pat Pickett; randy@choosesurroundings.com; Ryan
Rooom; Steve Pittman; tom@gradexinc.com
Subject: PUD Ordinance
Good morning –
Per the email below, the Chamber would completely disagree with the suggestion that points already thoroughly
discussed and rejected be addressed once again. As we have argued throughout this process, we believe the
requirements originally proposed in the ordinance are unnecessary, expensive and majorly unfriendly to business.
As previously mentioned, if everyone is unhappy working with PUDs, then let’s begin discussion on some form-based
zoning in areas that make sense for such action. The Chamber would be happy to engage in those discussions.
In the meantime, we would urge the committee and council to reject this ordinance for a second time.
Thanks-
Mo
Mo Merhoff
President
Carmel Chamber of Commerce
317.846.1049
www.carmelchamber.com
If there is no wind. . .row.
From: Jill Meisenheimer <jmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com>
Date: August 26, 2013, 9:06:13 PM EDT
To: Sharp Rick <rsharp@carmel.in.gov>, Rider Kevin <krider@carmel.in.gov>, Seidensticker Eric
1
<eseidensticker@carmel.in.gov>, Schleif Carol <cschleif@carmel.in.gov>, Snyder Luci <lsnyder@carmel.in.gov>, Carter
Ron <rcarter@carmel.in.gov>, Finkam Sue <SFinkam@carmel.in.gov>
Subject: Council Land Use discussion of PUD Amendment 8/27/2013
Date: August 26, 2013
To: Carmel City Councilors
From: Jill H. Meisenheimer 844-3920 jmeisenheimer@indy.rr.com
RE: Council Land Use discussion of PUD Amendment 8/27/2013
PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment should bein the best interest of all in Carmel.
I urge you to set up a special meeting to discuss only this amendment if there is not enough time for the Land Use
Committee on August 27 to thoroughly discuss the PUD Requirements Ordinance Amendment from beginning to end.
The PUD Amendment has ping ponged from Commission to Council to Commission and back to Council with far too
many missed points on each serve.
These questions posed by DOCS to the Plan Commission regarding the PUD are still valid.
What are criteria or conditions for which a PUD/ Planned Unit Development rezone proposal should even
be considered?
How can PUDs be made easier to review and manage?
How does the Carmel staff, Plan Commission and Council measure a proposal to determine how it
compares with and exceeds existing zoning requirements?
The PUD process is complicated and compounded by a current lack of consistent guidelines,
which make it time consuming to review and a lot of work for Commissioners and Councilors,
DOCS and the public. A clearer process and structure would also help developers to be able to
better prepare for presenting a PUD proposal. It is reasonable to require
1.A standard format with development standards, accepted uses, required exhibits, and when PUD
ordinances may be modified.
2.A spreadsheet identifying how the proposed project falls below, meets or exceeds both existing and
comparable zoning districts.
3.Visual/graphical depictions of the “concepts” represented by the PUD ordinance and visual renderings of
the most intense development possible under the PUD ordinance.
I urge you to add back the Development Requirements (lines 69-95) including concept plan, land uses,
transportation systems, open spaces, natural features, lot details and parking requirements. You could
accept general descriptions for lighting, signs, and the Declaration of Covenants with more details to follow
during ADLS.
I urge you to add back the Supplemental Information (lines 107-125) including character renderings, vicinity
maps and site conditions.
The PUD process would be easier to understand and follow for all parties if there were a predictable structure,
transparency and clear safeguards for the nearby neighbors. I can only support the passing of this ordinance if the
above previously deleted items are returned to the PUD Ordinance.
Jill H. Meisenheimer, 471 Burlington Lane, Carmel IN 46032
Mo Merhoff
President
2
Carmel Chamber of Commerce
317.846.1049
www.carmelchamber.com
If there is no wind. . .row.
3