P
ag
e
1
MONROE COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION
Virtual Meeting via ZOOM - Minutes October 20, 2020 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 27, 2020; June 4, 2020; July 21, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: Margaret Clements called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
ROLL CALL: Margaret Clements, David Warren, Amy Thompson, Julie Thomas, Jim
Stainbrook, Trohn Enright-Randolph, Bernie Guerrettaz, Jerry Pittsford
ABSENT: Geoff McKim, Susan Sandberg, City of Bloomington Plan Commission
Representative
STAFF PRESENT: Larry Wilson, Director, Jackie Nester Jelen, Assistant Director, Drew Myers, Planner/GIS Specialist, Tammy Behrman, Senior Planner
OTHERS PRESENT: Brady Egan, Tech Services, David Schilling, Legal, Terry Quillman, MS4 Coordinator, Lisa Ridge, Highway Department Director
INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE:
Jackie Nester Jelen introduced the following items into evidence: The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance (as adopted and amended) The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (as adopted and amended)
The Monroe County Subdivision Control Ordinance (as adopted and amended) The Monroe County Plan Commission Rules of Procedure (as adopted and amended) The case(s) that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing on tonight’s agenda The motion to approve the introduction of evidence carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion to approve the agenda, as amended, carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to continue approval of May 27th, June 4th, and July 21, 2020 meetings, carried
P
ag
e
2
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS:
1. 2007-REZ-07 Woods Rezone from IP to AG/RR
Preliminary Hearing. Waiver of Final Hearing Requested.
One (1) 5.65 +/- acre parcel in Section 12 of Bloomington Township at 3751 E Boltinghouse Rd. Zoned Institutional/Public (IP).
2. 2008-SPP-03 Holland Fields Major Subdivision Phase 2 & 3 Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Hearing. Waiver of Final Hearing Requested.
Thirty-five (35) parcels on 13.0 acres +/-. Located in Section 21 of Perry Township at E Holland DR and E Crestline DR. Zoned RS3.5/PRO6.
REPORTS: 1. Planning: Larry Wilson
P
ag
e
3
NEW BUSINESS
1. 2007-REZ-07 Woods Rezone from IP to AG/RR
Preliminary Hearing. Waiver of Final Hearing Requested.
One (1) 5.65 +/- acre parcel in Section 12 of Bloomington Township at 3751 E Boltinghouse Rd. Zoned Institutional/Public (IP).
BOARD ACTION: Clements introduced the petition. STAFF ACTION:
Myers: Yes, I am here. Can you hear me ok? Clements: Yes.
Myers: Ok, let’s get into it. This is the Tammy Woods rezone from Institutional Republic to Agricultural/Rural Reserve. The petitioner requests to rezone approximately 5.65 acres from Institutional Republic or IP to Agricultural/Rural Reserve or AG/RR for short. Should the rezone be approved the petitioner expects to sell the property to new owners who intend to construct a new detached 2-car garage through the standard Improvement Location Permit application process. The property currently contains a 1,092 square foot single family residence, 2 utility sheds and an above ground pool with a deck. The 2 utility sheds and above ground pool with a deck had previously not received permits and they were therefore were required to apply for after-the-fact permits. Those permits have now been approved but are pending issuance until this this rezone is decided. Due to the existing IP zoning, any owner of this property would be required to petition to either a rezone or a use variance in order to permit the residential accessory structure like a 2-car garage. At one time this property was owned by gas utility company Indiana Gas Company, which is likely the reason why the current IP zoning exists. It is located at 3751 East Boltinghouse Road. In Bloomington Township, Section 12. It is currently zoned IP. The zoning around the petition site is AG/RR along with the other areas designated IP. The Comprehensive Plan has it designated as Rural Residential and the MUCA Phase 2 plan has it designated as Rural Transition. Some site conditions and the slope map on the screen here. The property exhibits access off of East Boltinghouse Road which is designated as local. The petition sit currently contains a single family residence, 2 utility sheds and the above ground pool with the deck. The petition site also include a substantial amount of area that exhibits slopes greater than 15 percent as you can see in the slope map. There are no known karst features on the site. There is no FEMA Floodplain and the site primary drains to the south. It is serviced by septic. Here we have some site photos. This is just a zoomed in picture of those structures that are on the site. The next photographs are just aerials images kind of showing you the petition site there. This one on the screen now is the petitioner letter and consent letter for representation. These next 2 pictures are of the Chapter 804 designs standards. I have highlighted and circled the IP design standards and in the next slide the AG/RR design standards, so there will be a change for these design standards for the property and like I stated before any new permits that come in for the property after this rezone, if it is approved, will have to abide by those new standards and go through the permit application process. I spoke last time at the Administrative Meeting if anybody wanted to see the change in permitted uses for this rezone, I didn’t get any feedback from that. I can certainly pull that up if we want to go through
P
ag
e
4
any of those. We don’t have to. Overall, staff recommends approval based on findings of fact and subject to the Monroe County Highway and Drainage Engineer reports. I will now take any questions.
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval based on the Findings of Fact subject to the county highway and drainage engineer reports.
FINDINGS OF FACT - REZONE
According to Section 831-3. Standards for Amendments of the Zoning Ordinance: In preparing and considering proposals to amend the text or maps of this Zoning Ordinance, the Plat Committee shall pay reasonable regard to:
(A) The Comprehensive Plan;
Findings:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site and much of the surrounding area to the south as Rural Residential and to the north as Farm and Forest;
The site currently contains an approximate 1,092 sq. ft. single family residence (ca. 1960), two utility sheds, and an above-ground pool with a deck. The two utility sheds and above-ground pool with deck did not have building permits on file.
MCUA Phase II proposed zoning designates this site as Rural Transition (N4), which says, “This district includes land in the outer edges of the Urbanizing area, intended to retain a low-density development pattern and rural character, consistent with the Rural Transition land use type designated in the Urbanizing Area Plan.”
(B) Current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district;
Findings:
The site is currently zoned Institutional/Public (IP);
The site currently contains an approximate 1,092 sq. ft. single family residence (ca. 1960), two utility sheds, and an above-ground pool with a deck;
The immediately adjoining uses are either residential, agricultural, or public utility (Indiana Gas Company adjacent to the south);
The site drains to the south;
There is no FEMA floodplain present on the petition site; There are no known karst features present on the petition site; The site is accessed of E Boltinghouse RD (Local);
The site is not in a platted subdivision;
(C) The most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted;
Findings:
The petition site exhibits a primary use of residential;
P
ag
e
5
(D) The conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction; and
Findings:
Values may vary significantly dependent upon future planning and zoning in the area; See Findings under (A);
(E) Responsible development and growth.
Findings:
If the rezone were to be approved, the petitioner expects to sell the property to new owners who intend to construct a new detached 2-car garage;
The site is currently utilizing a septic system;
The current or prospective owners of this property will need to follow the standard Improvement Location Permit process in order to receive a permission to construct a residential accessory structure;
All structures on the petition site will meet all other design standards as outlined in Chapter 804 for the Agriculture/Rural Residential Zoning District;
The site is accessed via E Boltinghouse RD (Local); See Findings under (A) through (D);
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF – 2007-REZ-07 - Woods
Pittsford: I have one question, if I might. When I would looking at this I noticed that this is one piece out of a larger area that this to the east and northeast, if you go to, there you go, you knew what I was talking about, good job Drew, thank you. Are the other pieces, parcels in this area surrounding this still being used as Institutional Public or has this all been phased out? Is this step one is a multi-phase that we are going to see?
Myers: I know that the parcel immediately to the south across East Boltinghouse Road is currently the Indiana Gas Company, so they will likely retain that zoning classification. The 2 parcels that are zoned IP to the east, I believe those may be vacant right now, so those might be picked up when we go through the rezoning process in the new ordinance.
Pittsford: Ok and that was going to be my follow-up question, so you are on point tonight. Thank you. I was just going to ask if we need to address the remaining properties. Thank you very much for a very good answer.
Myers: I also must concede that Jackie is on control of the power point. Nester Jelen: Drew, you didn’t have to admit that. Dave and then Julie.
Warren: Related to that question. I might have asked this at the Admin Meeting, I apologize if it is redundant, but are there a lot of sort of orphan zones like this where it’s no longer being used for whatever the original purpose was and can we kind of wholesale rezone those in the CDO update process?
P
ag
e
6
1997 so we are trying to capture those by looking at the assessor’s records and verifying what the property is currently used as versus what it is zoned and so yes, we will be able to rezone, bulk rezone some of the areas that need updating to what the current standards are.
Warren: Ok.
Nester Jelen: Julie, you had a question.
Thomas: I just wanted to verify that and I think I asked this at the previous meeting as well that the gas company was notified of this process just to make sure that there is no issue. Clearly building a house on this property means that there isn’t an issue but I just wanted to verify that. Myers: As a standard procedure for doing a rezone petition the surrounding parcels, I believe it’s 2 parcels out or 660 feet, whichever is least, those properties, the owners of those properties get notification.
Nester Jelen: Any other questions from Plan Commission Members? Bernie?
Guerrettaz: Briefly, to follow up on Dave’s question, which was a good one. There is also several overlay zones that when we get into the rest of the ordinance that we will be probably be making changes to like the Business Industrial Overlay over on the west side. There are several locations over on the west side that Dave brought up.
Clements: Ok, great. Well, I know that Betty is here and she would like to address the Plan Commission. Would you like to speak, Betty?
Nester Jelen: Betty, you are on mute, so if you see the screen I am asking you to unmute press ok. PETITIONER/PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE – 2007-REZ-07 - Woods
Mullis: Yes, I think they covered everything and I sent certified letters out to everybody that they gave me a list of from the department in there. I think everything has been said. It is pretty straight forward.
Clements: Ok. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak in favor of this petition? If there is no one, is there anyone present that would like to speak in opposition to this petition? If there is no one, we come back to the Plan Commission, if there is any further decision, please let us know.
Pittsford: Ma’am Chair, I am prepared to make a motion when ready. Clements: Thank you, Mr. Pittsford.
PUBLIC COMMENT– 2007-REZ-07 – Woods: None
P
ag
e
7
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF - 2007-REZ-07 - Woods Pittsford: Are we ready?
Clements: Yes.
Pittsford: Ok, I was going to give a pause there. In case number 2007-REZ-07, a request for rezone from Institutional Public, IP, to Agricultural/Rural Reserve, AG/RR, and a request for a Waiver of Final Hearing, this is a piece of property located at 3571 East Boltinghouse Road, currently zoning IP, it consists of 5.65 acres plus or minus in the Bloomington Township, I move approval of this request along with approval of waiver of final hearing. Guerrettaz: I second that positive recommendation.
Clements: Ok, Mr. Wilson would you please call the roll?
Wilson: I will. The vote is on petition 2007-REZ-07, Woods request to amend the zoning map from IP to AG/RR for the property located at 3571 East Boltinghouse Road. Again, the zoning would change from Institutional Public to Agricultural Rural/Reserve. The motion is to send a favorable recommendation to the Monroe County Commissioners in regard to the amendment to the zoning map subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Trohn Enright-Randolph?
Enright-Randolph: Yes. Wilson: Bernie Guerrettaz? Guerrettaz: Yes.
Wilson: Geoff McKim is still absent, I assume unless I hear differently? Jerry Pittsford? Pittsford: Yes.
Wilson: Jim Stainbrook? Stainbrook: Yes.
Wilson: Julie Thomas? Thomas: Yes?
Wilson: Amy Thompson? Thompson: Yes.
P
ag
e
8
Warren: Yes.
Wilson: Margaret Clements? Clements: Yes.
Wilson: The motion is approved by an 8 to 0 vote.
The motion in case 2007-REZ-07, Woods Rezone from IP to AG/RR, Preliminary Hearing, Waiver of Final Hearing Requested, send a favorable recommendation to the Monroe County Commissioners, carried unanimously (8-0).
P
ag
e
9
NEW BUSINESS
2. 2008-SPP-03 Holland Fields Major Subdivision Phase 2 & 3 Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Hearing. Waiver of Final Hearing Requested.
Thirty-five (35) parcels on 13.0 acres +/-. Located in Section 21 of Perry Township at E Holland DR and E Crestline DR. Zoned RS3.5/PRO6. BOARD ACTION: Clements introduced the petition.
STAFF ACTION:
Behrman: Sure thing. Jackie, scroll with me here. This is located at 790 East Holland Drive, which is in in Perry Township, Section 21. It is approximately 14.18 acres and it is 35 parcels. It also intersects with Crestline Drive. Here is the location. It is just south of Bloomington and just off of South Walnut Street Pike. The zoning is RS3.5 PRO6. The developer chose not to use the PRO6 overlay. But this does allow them to do lot sizes of 0.22 acres by right and the Comprehensive Plan has it has MUCA Mixed Residential. Ok, so the site conditions, this is a little bit of an older map that did include Phase 1 borderline property line, which is mostly north of East Holland Drive and the slope map down in the right hand corner just basically shows this is a very flat site, slopes less than 12 percent actually. Just in case we want to reference the larger picture, there is some floodplain over to the east and showing some of the other subdivisions in the area and topography and potential connectivity. This is a little closer to what we are seeing today. The first phase was platted back in January of 2019. They continued to do work to help to develop up Phase 2 and 3, unfortunately the Preliminary Plat expired. There was a staff visit. The Stormwater Inspector was doing an inspection and discovered a sinkhole had opened up on the property there located on the southern end of South Rotterdam Drive in the red circle there. Just a brief timeline, Holland Fields Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat was originally approved in July 19, 2016 under that specific petition there 2016-SPP-01, which is Exhibit 1 in the packet, sorry, Exhibit 3 in the packet. There was a Preliminary Plat extension granted, under Chapter 854-7 (K). A plat will expire after 2 years. So, they did ask for that extension. They were issued that by the Plan Commission and it expired July 19th 2020. During that time Holland Drive was to be reconstructed in 2018. Once they got the road corrected Phase 1 underwent the final platting which we saw in that previous slide of the recorded plat of January 17, 2019. Then we saw the sinkhole develop and a Grading Permit was issued July 30, 2020. They began that karst remediation which was completed July 16, 2020. Patriot Engineering and Environmental was hired by the developer to propose remediation for the sinkhole that developed on site. It was approved during the Grading Permit process and then they begin the work. Terry Quillman spoke a little bit about this during the PC Admin Meeting, the MS4 Coordinator, and he was able to oversee part of the process but not all of it. So, if you have more questions regarding the sinkhole remediation you should direction those toward him. As a result of the sinkholes that developed we realized that the road was going to be impacted that went to the south. So the Plat Committee went on September 17, 2020 and with a vote of 3 to 0 they decided that they wanted to require the developer to keep connectivity and keep it in such a way that no waivers would be requested for futures developers should they want to develop to the south. This required a little bit of a design adjustment, a road was kind of pushed a little farther west, the cul-de-sac was kind of moved up north a little bit but this does allow for a full 50 foot right of way, with complete, this would be able to fit sidewalks, street trees, infrastructure for the most part, we might come to infrastructure when that would get connected but we do have the 50 foot right of way and it did impact a little bit of the common area which is one of the drainage bioretention
P
ag
e
10
areas. Terry Quillman did sign off on that. I did include in the staff packet a summary of changes that from the previous time that this was approved in 2016 versus now, so we do see that small road change that we saw before and this impacted a little bit of increase and decrease just within that area. But all of the height, bulk and design standards were still fine. The cul-de-sac again, it terminates farther north and there are a little bit of drainage and grading changes made in the Common Area on Lot 33. Just basically looking here the next few slides are directly from the Preliminary Plat that staff reviewed and feels meets all of the standards. Again, the part in the circle there is the part that was most impacted with any changes and a lot of this looks exactly the same and still offering the 2 common area lots and there are 33 other, 33 lots, its 35 parcels, 3 of which are common area lots. Next slide. With this one I just kind of pull out, there is one of the common areas that Jackie is pulling out. Again, all sidewalks are being designed to be installed, street trees were met, and they are not asking for any waivers in this subdivision, the waivers that were asked for in Phase 1 mainly had to do with Holland Drive being just shy of a 50 foot right of way. This one is just kind of highlighting the common area and the drainage basin that Terry reviewed and signed off on and feels that should be adequate to meet his stormwater standards. Drainage Engineering comments went out and I put these here in here in this slide. Stormwater review the revisions. Due to recently exposed sinkhole and finds the detention edits satisfactory. The sinkhole was filled under the guidance Patriot Engineering. Terry didn’t witness the process but reviewed Patriot’s report and the process seems to be appropriate. The Highway Engineer comments are those 6 points listed there, 1 of which I was going to pull out in that; Number 2: No heavy construction traffic on East Crestline Drive. All heavy construction traffic shall ingress/egress from East Holland Drive. This is actually another change that was made by the developer. I did have one person call in on the petition that was the only person call on in the petition. She lives on Crestline Drive and she was happy to hear that this was possibly going to be a condition of approval. This is the Highway Engineering Analysis that was sent out. I just wanted to put it in here for the record. At the Plan Commission Admin Session aside from discussing drainage extensively and karst features extensively and hopefully some of you had a change to look at the link that I sent within the staff report from that presentation that was done that the Drainage Board. There was also question if we could do an extended maintenance bond of some sort for the sinkhole just too kind of protect the homeowners there and after talking with the Highway Department a maintenance bond is not an option for that Sinkhole Conservancy Area because it is not within that public right of way and because we do not have a mechanism to bond outside of a public right of way. So, it doesn’t make sense to put in the SCA within the county’s hands, so the other option that Dave Schilling, we spoke with Dave Schilling and he had thought that there might be 2 options here. One might be to require a written commitment that the Homeowners Association maintain the SCA or to require written commitment that the HOA put funds aside specific to mitigate impacts of SCA on private property and he did mention that prior conditioning the writing commitments above the petitioner must state their willingness and understanding to do so, so just keeping that in mind. Staff gives a recommendation of approval of the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat for Phase 2 and 3 based on the findings of fact and subject to the Monroe County Highway Department and Drainage Engineer reports with the following 15 conditions, the first 14 are the ones that we really just carried over from the 2016 petition, Jackie if you go to the next slide, the one that was added and this was kind of recommended from conversations with Dave Schilling was; require deed covenant for the lot with the sinkhole. Person who owns the lots is responsible for complying with Chapter 829 of the Monroe County Zoning Ordinance, meaning they can’t build in the sinkhole and they can’t fill it in. Then there are after
P
ag
e
11
reviewing the Highway and Drainage Engineer reports, mostly the Highway’s there are a few items in there we should probably add as conditions of approval in there as well. I think that concludes my presentation. Jackie, if you want me to list and read all of those 15 conditions let me know and I will do that for the record but it is a lot.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff gives a recommendation of approval of the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat based on the findings of fact and subject to the Monroe County Highway Department & Drainage Engineer reports, and with the following conditions:
Drainage Engineer report requests from 2016: 1. Waivers
a. 761-7 (c) (4) watershed area for bioretention shall not exceed two acres (based on experience this does not work in single family residential areas because property owners don’t like small practices scattered throughout the development.)
b. 761-7 (c) (1) (b) riparian buffers zones for all waterways greater than 10 acres (The waterway within this project is a broad swale in an open field. It contains no riparian habitat and does not hold storage necessary for mitigation of flood peaks.)
c. 761-5 (b) emergency spillway (This waiver allows for greater volume in the southern detention basin.)
d. AD26 – underdrain for bioretention (This waiver allows for greater volume in the southern detention basin.)
2. A plan showing re-use of existing topsoil on the site will be needed. 3. Permanent monuments describing all of the open areas shall be installed.
4. Drainage easements (minimum 20’ wide) for all swales and other stormwater infrastructure are needed as specified in Chapter 761.
5. One inch of storage is needed for the new impervious surface draining to Walnut Street Pike and for the new impervious surface on Windmill and Rotterdam Dr south of the southernmost street inlets.
6. A landscaping plan is needed for the detention basins utilizing trees, shrubs, and turf grass. 7. Detention basin outlets may need to be revised by adding another orifice in the riser pipes. 8. Final details will need to be worked out with the MS4 Coordinator.
9. As-built plans are required for stormwater infrastructure including detention basins in accordance with Chapter 761-10.
Highway Department report requests from 2016:
10. At the intersection of Holland Drive and Walnut Pike, wrap curb and gutter around radius and tapers. Transition curb and gutter height to 0” at the end of the curb and gutter.
11. A vertical curve design speed of 30 mph is recommended for all streets in this subdivision. The following vertical curves do not meet the 30 mph vertical curve design requirements on Holland Drive, Line R-1, Sta. 14+59.67 (25 mph)
12. Stop condition should be used at the following locations: a. Crestline Drive stop at Windmill Lane
b. Windmill Lane stop at Holland Drive c. Rotterdam Drive stop at Holland Drive
P
ag
e
12
d. Crestline Drive stop at Rotterdam Drive
13. Signs are to be placed on the cul-de-sacs to discourage parking in the emergency turnaround areas.
14. Incorporate monuments that clearly designate common area boundaries per Plan Commission.
Planning:
15. Require Deed covenant for the lot with the sinkhole. Person who owns the lot is responsible for complying with Chapter 829 of the Monroe County Zoning Ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT - Subdivisions
850-3 PURPOSE OF REGULATIONS
(A) To protect and provide for the public health, safety, and general welfare of the County. Findings
The 35 lot subdivision will conform to all major subdivision ordinance provisions unless a waiver is granted by the Plan Commission;
Roads will meet Chapter 856 ordinance provisions except where waivers have been requested;
Sidewalk or side paths are proposed throughout the subdivision;
Street trees total 89 in number are proposed throughout the subdivision;
Highway and Drainage engineers have both reviewed the plans and are satisfied with the modifications from the 2016 preliminary plat design;
Roads were designed to promote connectivity to adjoining areas encouraging future adjacent subdivisions and accommodate on street parking;
Where a road ends at the property line a modified cul-de-sac has been required that allows for emergency vehicle turnaround and method of future connectivity to adjacent properties.
The subdivision has two proposed phases;
Utilities will be underground throughout for electric, sewer, water and telephone;
Comments from the fire department were positive;
Comments from MCCSC indicated that the proposed subdivision would have no significant impact on their district;
A Sinkhole Conservancy Area has been included on the plat next to Lots 31 & 32;
S Rotterdam Dr was designed to avoid the Sinkhole Conservancy Area;
(B) To guide the future development and renewal of the County in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and related policies, objectives and implementation programs. Findings
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Mixed Residential which supports a wide array of both single-family and attached housing types, integrated into a cohesive neighborhood. They may also include neighborhood commercial uses as a local amenity;
P
ag
e
13
The sidewalk and sidepath facilities are consistent with the Monroe County Alternative Transportation and Greenways System Plan;
The site is within a mile radius of two public middle schools and one public elementary schools;
See findings under Section A;
(C) To provide for the safety, comfort, and soundness of the built environment and related open spaces.
Findings
The proposed use category for lots 1-2, 23-32, 34-41 and 43-55 is residential;
The proposed use category for lots 33 and 42 is common area;
Common area makes up 15% of the proposed subdivision, an attribute that is not required under RS3.5 zoning;
Structures may not cover more than 65 percent of the lot;
The surrounding uses are residential or vacant in nature;
A Sinkhole Conservancy Area has been included on the plat next to Lots 31 & 32;
S Rotterdam Dr was designed to avoid the Sinkhole Conservancy Area;
See findings under Section A;
(D) To protect the compatibility, character, economic stability and orderliness of all development through reasonable design standards.
Findings
The property is currently zoned Single Dwelling Residential 3.5/PRO6 (RE3.5/PRO6);
Adjacent properties are zoned Single Dwelling Residential 3.5/PRO6 (RE3.5/PRO6), Planned Unit Development, Single Dwelling Residential 3.5 and Estate Residential 1 (RE1);
The developer is choosing to not use the PRO6 overlay;
Within a quarter square mile that are three major subdivisions: Cardinal Glen Phase 1 has an average lot size of 0.25 acres, Sutton Place Subdivision lots sizes are 0.22 acres and Bridlewood lots are about 0.33 acres in size;
Approval of the subdivision would create thirty-five (35) lots that meet the design standards for the zoning designation RE3.5;
The proposed subdivision is within proximity and has access to shopping, schools, roads, utilities and fire protection;
See findings under Sections A & C;
(E) To guide public and private policy and action to ensure that adequate public and private facilities will be provided, in an efficient manner, in conjunction with new development, to promote an aesthetically pleasing and beneficial interrelationship between land uses, and to promote the conservation of natural resources (e.g., natural beauty, woodlands, open spaces, energy and areas subject to environmental constraints, both during and after development).
Findings
P
ag
e
14
The Comprehensive Plan states, “These neighborhoods are intended to serve growing market demand for new housing choices among the full spectrum of demographic groups. Residential buildings should be compatible in height and overall scale, but with varied architectural character. These neighborhoods are often located immediately adjacent to mixed-Use districts, providing a residential base to support nearby commercial activity within a walkable or transit-accessible distance.”
There are tree preservation areas along the north, south and east boundary lines for the proposed subdivision;
Two lots are designated as Common Area and make up 15% of the proposed subdivision;
One of the Common Area lots will consist of vegetated bioretention and are designed to capture stormwater and release it slowly over 24 hours after storm events.
(F) To provide proper land boundary records, i.e.:
(1) to provide for the survey, documentation, and permanent monumentation of land boundaries and property;
Findings:
The petitioner has submitted a preliminary plat drawn by a registered surveyor;
A condition of approval is to incorporate monuments that clearly delineate the common areas;
(2) to provide for the identification of property; and, Findings:
The petitioner submitted a survey with correct references, to township, section, and range to locate parcel. Further, the petitioner has provided staff with a copy the recorded deed of the petition site.
(3) to provide public access to land boundary records. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF – 2008-SPP-08-Holland Fields
Clements: Commissioner Thomas, should all of those conditions be read into the record or when we approve it or? Or can we can we just make it a matter of fact here in the, refer to it as the presentation in the report that is filed?
Nester Jelen: You are on mute, Julie. Thomas: Sorry, that is a question for legal.
P
ag
e
15
Pittsford: I am sorry, I walked on Julie. My apologies, Julie. As a matter of experience I think that it is in the written record and I think that we are fine without reading then all.
Clements: Thank you Mr. Pittsford. So, that being said, do members of the Plan Commission have questions for staff? Yes, Commissioner Thomas?
Thomas: I have a few questions and if you would like I can drop one now and you then you come back to me. I was trying to reopen the packet it closed on my other computer here. But the no parking that was listed as sort of a new condition on one of the earlier slides, there you go, no parking signs, where is that going, on what streets is that going on?
Behrman: Paul is here. I think it is cul-de-sacs but lets him go on record for that.
Satterly: Yes, it is just the cul-de-sacs. There is a request for no parking on the cul-de-sacs. Thomas: Is that because of emergency vehicles?
Satterly: Well, school buses, garage trucks, emergency vehicles. Pittsford: Snow removal.
Satterly: Snow removal, right.
Thomas: Right but on the actual street itself in front of the house. Satterly: No. Just the cul-de-sacs.
Thomas: So, is there sufficient room on the streets because they didn’t ask for a waiver it seems like their streets are the correct size, the correct width, right, they are standard width streets, right? Satterly: Yeah, they are 30 feet back to back curb or 26 feet of pavement.
Thomas: Ok. Alright. Thank you.
Clements: Anyone else? Mr. Warren? I can’t see everyone so Jackie if you could help that would be great. Mr. Warren?
Warren: I just had a question on the potential addition conditions related to HOA and there was another potential condition related to deed covenant. Were those sort of recommended by county legal as pick one of these 3 were they recommended as you could pick one of these 2 that are on the screen here plus the deed covenant?
Behrman: I am going to let Jackie help out with this one. She had the actual conversation with Dave. Unless is Dave here. I didn’t see him.
P
ag
e
16
Nester Jelen: Dave is here. Let me tell you first off that the condition to add the deed covenant Dave, that is kind of a standalone, you should do that just to notify the person buying the lot that there is a conservancy on there. The question about the written commitment and Dave can chime in here is more so to address the fact that there was a concern about a bond or some sort of funding mechanism for that private property owner if that sinkhole were to create some sort of issue in the future that there would be a funding mechanism in the HOA.
Warren: Ok. Thank you. Clements: Anyone else?
Pittsford: I have a follow up to that if I might. Clements: Thank you Mr. Pittsford.
Pittsford: Thank you Jackie for that answer and Dave. One of the things that occurred to me today based on a few years of experience here, we have now got to the point where we have dealt with, excuse me, sinkhole conservancy area over and over again and how do we make sure that it is going to be guarded in perpetuity and it occurred to be today that one of things we do when bring in these situations as far as the road we always make sure the road is built to county standards. Do we see a point in time where we are going to be able to create county standards for sinkho le conservancy areas so that they are constructed in a way that the county is comfortable that they are done in way that they are sufficient and all drainage is sufficient? I suppose this is a question for our Drainage Engineer so that when we are done we can say ok you have built this to county standards, this is what we expect, this what we think will last and it if fails somewhere 20 or 30 years down the road then the county can be responsible for it as we are with roads. Are we anywhere near that or are we going to continue to constantly ask for a bond or some kind of homeowner association agreement, which is flimsy as the paper that it is written on in terms of maintaining these things and I hate to be that guy but tonight I just decided I have just decided that I have seen this so many times I am going to be that guy.
Nester Jelen: Thanks Jerry. Terry, do want to answer that? Then I have Julie and Jim Stainbrook with questions.
Quillman: Jerry that is a big question. One of the thing that I am looking at in the new ordinance is to first of all it is my feeling we don’t want to all any kind of construction whether it is under drains or even minimal construction within the SCA. I am reviewing what is an appropriate SCA widths right now, we have got 25 and 50 but is there something more or less appropriate. Once we define in the ordinance and our technical standards that would give us a boundary for which we are looking at them. In my opinion we should be allowing any additional drainage to go into the sinkhole other than what was going in there before and I think we should exclude all other impervious surfaces from going into and what was other things that was going into my mind, providing outfalls for the sinkholes because these are all going to open up and close and I think there needs to be an emergency routing for when that plugs and where is the water going flow. There is should be an easement for that to be an outfall. These are all things that I am working with now to define in the technical standards of the new ordinance. Those are the things that come to
P
ag
e
17
mind but in my mind with the slopes that are in this county there is no reason why we can’t bypass any drainage upstream from them, around them and limit what we are allowing into the sinkholes which I feel should be nothing other than the SCA area. So that is the direction I am trying to go. I don’t know if I answered you’re questioned indirectly or directly.
Pittsford: Well, Terry I think you probably did as well as you could for a spontaneous pop quiz here after over 20 years in the classroom I realize that I really put you on the spot and I didn’t mean to do that.
Quillman: That’s all right.
Pittsford: In terms of a final exam but this is definitely a pop quiz for the final exam. I just, today, it just rang with me so solidly. I can just can tell you I have a 7 acre lot here adjoining my lot here that I purchased and I had a swallow hole open up and it had just continued to grow. I treat it with respect because I know so much about this thanks in large part to my experience on the Plan Commission that the typical property owner doesn’t have, which with no respect to developers which they have disregard. But at some point I just feel like and I just don’t know where the science is on this and I am truly relying on you and it may not exist, the science may not exist for this kind of develop for karst topography like what we have here but I cannot help but feel like at some point we have to come with a method and a means of holding developers responsible for mitigating the negative effects of sinkhole conservation areas and for anticipating those events that can occur in a karst topography and I don’t know if that is possible but heavens we need to find some way to at least start that conversation.
Quillman: I agree. There is 2 points you made there that I would like to expand on. First is, in the last couple of years I have been called out on 4 different sinkholes that just opened up. One was in a guy’s yard. He had mowing the grass over it the day before or whatever and there was no sign and I have had a couple like that. I had one that opened up on the edge of one of the little county roads that we tried to fill or seal and that is another thing that I am trying to address is what is an official county policy for a sinkhole that opens up if there is no development that is going on and there is a situation where what if it opens up during or is exposed or opens during construction there is another situation and I think these can be defined in black and white in my mind and in the ordinance and how you are going to deal with it. Doing an analysis on these sites Margaret has brought up the point that some of these site where you see multiple sinkholes is it prone to more sinkholes and we had a representative come from IU Geology Department who specializes in sinkholes, if you can believe that and he started talking about some things that we can check on and his point was to come up with some perimeters in the analysis of this site where if it’s a smaller site it may not justify a more thorough investigation just because of the cost but on a larger site you may want to do a more thorough investigation and he mentioned that there are different types of imaging that might help potential sinkholes beyond lidar and he admitted those are costly, so those might not be something we can ask of a developer of a project but if we get into another project where the commission feel uneasy about it we might push for a little more there. I am hoping to identify that imaging that he said is available and get that in the technical standards too so that the MS4 Coordinator and the Consultant for the developer can do early coordination and agree and which of those sources they are going to pursue to give the best estimate we can for potential hazards of sinkholes.
P
ag
e
18
Pittsford: Ok, and I am going to say again I really think that given our topography that the karst formations throughout the county and I am being very selfish here as a Planning Commission Member because I have heard this conversation at nosism and it is a conversation that we need to have. But at what point are we able to say that the technology exists where we can lean forward and address these things in the development phase so that we are proactive instead of reactive and we know for a fact in terms of legal requirements we can’t bond these. You can’t bond for an event that is not predictable or you cannot anticipate realistically, so I really feel like we need to investigate that a little bit more deeply. I guess I am giving you the biggest homework assignment I have ever thrown out there but whatever you can give us over whatever time frame I really think it needs to be investigated. Based on what you said I don’t think we are at a point where we can write anything into our ordinance I certainly hope that we are looking at the moment in time where we can anticipate this where we can still encourage development that we still have to have. Because we continue to have a need for residential development but we cannot continue to ignore to fact that we are putting residential development in situations where we are in grave risk of losing residential structures of roadway infrastructures and that is all that I have. Thank you for indulging me everyone.
Quillman: I understand what you are saying and it is a big assignment.
Nester Jelen: Ok, we have Julie, Jim Stainbrook, Margaret and then Dave, so go ahead Julie. Thomas: Piggy backing on what Mr. Pittsford was taking about this was sort of the discussion we had at the Admin Meeting and it relates back and thank you for putting that link in the packet to the Stormwater Board Meeting where we had that discussion with the person from IU who has expertise in recognizing that based on the information received it is not just a matter of saying well 25 feet it is fine, 50 feet it is fine, 100 feet it is fine, it is a very difficult thing it figure this out and that is exactly the issue. I am very concerned with homes that would potentially be in harm’s way and that fact that a developer may find things are just find and we don’t even know what to ask them to look for or what test to run at that point, so we have a lot to learn at this point. We feel like we are behind and we feel like are reactive but really we are ahead of the curve on this because we are thinking about this as soon as we can and trying to develop something is going to be really hard. It is going to be a difficult process and we need to be fair for everybody. But these larger development are problematic and it really is, you know my bigger concern is not if a sinkhole opens up on a common area, which can be fenced off for safety, my concern is why the sinkhole is opening up in the common area or wherever it is opening up and every time we develop, every time we build, every time we road, every time we change the trajectory of where drainage goes we are rolling dice and sometimes that is fine and most times that is fine but given with climate change and with drought cycle that we seem to be under the last coupe falls, we have had very droughty falls and then get a lot of rain and then get drought and that leads to why these are opening up Mr. Quillman pointed out. We are seeing more of these opening up in the community and we have got to figure out a way to protect homeowners. That is really the goal. I don’t really know that this is the way out of it either. I don’t know that this is the way out of it. I am not sure. But if, Mr. Quillman let’s say they are in the process of grading for the roadways in this particle development id they discover anther sinkhole, if another sinkhole opens up, what happens? What do they do
P
ag
e
19
then? Do they have to stop construction or do they have to alert you? What is the process just so we are aware?
Quillman: Honestly, the way the system is set up now if a sinkhole opens I would hope that they would contact our office but more than likely they would bury it real quick and go on, truth of the matter. There is no incentive for there not to.
Thomas: It’s not saying that they would, it’s just that they can and it’s not just these folks it’s a hypothetical. I am not casting disoperation on any developments. But we don’t even have that basic stopgap in place. So I am hopeful that we can work on that. I have a couples other really quick questions if I might just for clarification on this project. Looking at the drawing of the plotted lot on the southern edge, Lot 48, # 33 which is common area and # 32 at the bottom, Rotterdam on the right there is designed to become a through street correct, if need be? It is sort of drawn in there. Or not? If there is future development to the south is that why it’s drawn in that way? Behrman: It will be dedicated right of way and it can be easily be designed and connected if the land to the south develops.
Thomas: Ok, but that is not true on the one on the west which is Windmill Lane. Correct?
Behrman: Correct and it might be 2 slides up but we have a cul-de-sac design that allows for that 50 foot right of way connectivity to still occur. It might be on a page that I did not include. I have it. There is a design.
Clements: I thought it was an inset on that paper we were looking at 3 pages forward. One more. There. Is that not is?
Behrman: No. That is for Rotterdam. We do have one, they are going to hopefully use it for 2 other places Holland Drive and to the south on the plat. I don’t know if I included it in this presentation though but it does have a design where the developer actually has to take out part of the cul-de-sac so it won’t have that bulbous look to is and install some more grass, that person then gets more grass to mow but they won’t have that odd bulb out shape if that road continues.
Thomas: Ok. So, that is true on Windmill as well as Rotterdam. Right? Behrman: Well, good question. Would we take out the bulb?
Thomas: It is in the common area, most of it.
Behrman: The sidewalks are going to have to continue to the south so I imagine there is going to have to be some adjustment and it will be just a variation of other cul-de-sac design. The condition that we add a more specific connectivity plan and make that a condition that that be included and the Highway Department signs off on it.
P
ag
e
20
Thomas: Ok, that would be good. The other question is on a totally different subject. We have gone sinkholes, cul-de-sacs and now I am going to ask the question about density. This property is former AIFA, area intended for annexation, so it is city zoning. It is called PRO6.
Behrman: No, this is a Former Fringe zone. So it is Chapter 833 and it does have, no one has ever used PRO6 that we can find in our records, so really everyone is just developing under the RS3.5, which is basically 3.5 lots per acre is what you can get.
Thomas: And what is the density where the housing is? I know you take the whole area and you look at the total number of acres of the area and the number of lots minus commons areas and you come up with the density. What is density here?
Behrman: It would maybe be stated in the previous staff report from 2016 but that would also include Phase 1 lots, which are a little bit different in size. I don’t have that specific number at this time.
Thomas: I am curious about it because it lapse then it goes back to 3.5 and then that is an important thing for this Plan Commission to know, right because they still have that underlying zoning right by right of 3.5 PRO6. So, that is an important thing for us to know whether that is more dense or less dense than what is presented there in this particle section.
Behrman: I am going to say it is less dense because a lot size could be 0.22 acre that is the minimum lot size. A lot of these lots are exceeding that and the common area lots are kind of reducing the amount of density really because they are taking of space as well as the roads.
Thomas: Right because common lots are not counts as part of the built lots so it is not part of the density.
Behrman: Correct.
Thomas: I just wanted to throw that out there so that everybody knows what we are talking about and what our options are.
Behrman: Now you have me flipping through my other report.
Thomas: Sorry: I did look at the first phase and I was like the density is different, right and it is on the very first.
Behrman: It has a common area lot too though on the northeast corner that you would see on the final plat.
Thomas: Just curious.
Behrman: It also has one other larger lot to the west. That was because there was an old farm pond that they said was an old farm pond but we are treating it as a sinkhole conservancy area on that lot. I think it was a farm pond but we are just calling it a SCA just to be safe.
P
ag
e
21
Nester Jelen: Maybe we will come back to that question Tammy if you get a chance to look at it or I will look at it too. Jim Stainbrook, you had a question.
Stainbrook: Jackie, thank you. President, Margaret thank you. I didn’t think I did but Jackie and Tammy I do have a question now the street on the east side the possible connectivity or extension to the south is the curvature in the street just as projected? Is that a possible indication about a concern for the sinkhole conservancy area there and then before I asked that question Tammy I was going to say I apologize or not having a question but I did want to express myself and the degree of concern that I have and I suppose in part with something Commission Thomas had said and others Jerry for that matter that I would be very concerned about have a house with or without children but having a house in Lot 32 or really perhaps a little further norther there. So originally that was my intent, Jackie. Not to ask a question but to express that very strong concern about the sinkhole having been a former resident of Florida, I don’t know if they declare theirs sinkholes but there the earth opens up and I think they have yet to find one gentleman that retired to his bed in his bedroom and he disappeared for perpetuity. I don’t know that our sinkholes do that. I have a question Tammy. Is there recognition that someone doesn’t want to pave over that sinkhole? Behrman: Yes and that was recommended at the Plat Committee. The original design that was presented to staff had part of the right of way in the sinkhole conservancy area and staff wasn’t extremely comfortable with that so we took that to the Plat Committee and kind of gave them the choice to do it this way or we can have them redesign and they chose to re-design, which I think was a good thing. I will say that our karst is a little bit different than Florida’s karst and Dr. Lee Flory he was in that link, he mentions that as well. It may be a little more stable than Florida’s karsts features.
Nester Jelen: Margaret, you had a question and then David.
Clements: Thank you and I would like to first of all thank all of the staff and members of the Plan Commission and the MS4 Coordinator, Terry Quillman for all of the good and hard work that you have been doing on this. This is really to be the essence of our responsibly and that is to protect our community, to further responsible development and do the best with the features we must contend with. That being said regarding setting aside funds for potential sinkhole failures in the future, as a tax payer I would like to say I do not want to pay for or subsidize the remediation of further failure when a forefront we are seeing you know that is a very fragile area and as we are in the mist of development other sinkholes are developing up and I think that we should revert to our stated market driven solutions that the buyer should beware and perhaps some properties should not be developed and that homeowners associates should put funds aside anything we can do to prevent the disturbance of topsoil is good. Also I would like to assert that sure that it is possible to develop anything. It is just a matter of money. The question is who is going to pay the money? I would like to protect the homeowners. I would like to protect myself as a county member. But I don’t want to pay for this. I see it now in the plan. I know we are doing our best but if this becomes a problem in the future I don’t want to hold the bill for it and I don’t want to pay the bill for it. Whatever has to be done now at this point to build on this real estate, it should be the home owners and the builders expense. That is my complete feeling on that.
P
ag
e
22
Warren: I really like this conversation and I second Jerry’s thoughts there on finding some way through the ordinance to make this a more predictable process because I think we probably all agree petition is in compliance with our ordinances and yet sinkholes issues come up a lot. We spend a lot of time talking about sinkholes and so anything to sort of make this a more predictable process so that it doesn’t take up as much time in these meeting would be good. Also, that Stormwater Meeting was really good and so if you haven’t seen that it was a really good discussion on sinkholes and karst and I feel like a learn quite a bit just watching that. One thing that was brought up a lot up a lot in that meeting was impervious surfaces and how important impervious surfaces are with respect to sinkholes and just want to make the point that impervious surface density is not the same is housing density and so on this piece of land for instance I can’t remember how many housing units there are. Is it roughly 50? You could have the same number of housing units and only take up 50 percent of the land if that. I think the implications of wanting to deal with sinkholes in a more comprehensive manor, one of implications are as we for the areas that are closer to the City of Bloomington for the areas that are more urban and where higher densities make sense, allowing those higher densities gives us more flexibilities to build area, further away from people because we are eating up less land for the same amount of housing. Those are just some points that I wanted to make but I appreciate this conversation and again that stormwater
meeting I think it was from September 9th was really good.
Nester Jelen: Thanks Dave. Jerry, you have got your hand raised.
Pittsford: Yes, thank you. I wanted to get back on video because I wanted you to see my face and see the sincerity on this and humor as well I don’t know if Margaret and I have bragging right or disavow responsibilities but we are in total agreement on this. If anybody thought it was impossible we have found common ground. I have watched for decades roads go in that were built by contractors or developers who put in really substandard roads and they knew darn good and well what they were doing was not acceptable and somehow or another they got them accepted into the county and we are repairing then at tens of thousands of dollars every year, sometimes more. It goes on and on for decades. We constantly go back and readdress these issues and to borrow a popular phrase I really think that we are at a point where we should be able to follow some signs on karst development. There should be some signs out there on sinkholes and all of this stuff. The fact that we continue to hold up development and that fact that we continue to labor through our Plan Commission meetings on these things that really are a matter of science. They are not meant for common people appointed to a county board address these things and we need some science, we need facts. We need a method that is not just a financial responsibly for failures. We need some development standards that we hold people to so we don’t have, for those of you that have been around a few years, Furrows was built over on the west side and a huge sinkhole open up on their parking lot of crying out loud. That was predictable. That was not an accident. The sinkhole that developed in that parking lot should have been anticipated. I am an old English teacher and school teacher and now I fortunate and blessed enough to be a school administrator but I could have even looked at that property and when they had the earth move and known that we were going to have a problem there and quite honestly I am just sick and tired of spending hour upon hour discussing these developments with issues that should be addressed with people who really know what they are talking about and who should give us some solid answers. All I am asking is can we start to look at a way where we look at this in a reasonable fashion, protect homeowners, which we all want to do, and we protect the county tax payers who don’t want to foot the bill for development
P
ag
e
23
that go through either disregarding or unaware of hydro mechanics of the property that they developing. I just think that in 2020 we should be past this. I have been in this board for longer than I can even tell you but I am tired of it and I really think it is time that we start getting to a point where we can do something right to protect property owners, to protect developers from making mistakes that are preventable and to protect county tax payers from remediating incidents that should have been anticipated and never been allowed to occur. Thank you for indulging me and again I am sorry, I know this should have been a really quick meeting but I just could not stand this any longer. Thank you.
Nester Jelen: Ok, I know we have Larry wants to bring up a point. Tammy has an answer to the density question and then a see Margaret’s hand raised. So, we will start with Larry and then go to Tammy.
Wilson: I just wanted to comment a couple of things. One the availability of data since this ordinance was for created as greatly increased. In addition I69 created a mass of data through testing a evaluation of the entire corridor of the I69, which goes right through our predominate area where we have sinkholes. One thing we may want to think about when updating the ordinance and updating the zoning map is perhaps it’s time to develop a karst protection layer, where the sinkhole prone areas, the karst areas where we know there are known karst and known propensity for sinkholes is identified on the map and basically that would give people, homeowners and developers a heads up prior to purchasing the property and would also allow us to do some of the things that we have already talked about in the Urbanizing Area Plan, which is to chancel low density growth, allow only low density growth in those areas where there is known karst to add an additional layer of protection. Right now it is just an after the fact discover that there is karst on the property when somebody comes in to do a subdivision or an improvement location permit. I think it will be really good to try to deal with that to the best ability we have with the current technology and current knowledge to identify these areas in advance, to them into our zoning map and then utilize that to develop standards for development of those areas.
Nester Jelen: Thanks you Larry. Tammy, did you have an answer Julie’s, density question? Behrman: I think so and I think my math is correct. Maybe Jerry can check me on this one later. This Phase 2 and Phase 3 is 14.18 acres and by right you can create lots that are 0.22 acres in size, so if you do the division you get 64 lots. They could do 64s. What they are proposing is 35 lot, 2 of which are common area, so I just wanted to put that one out there. Phase 1 which is just to the north was 9 acres. They could have done 41 lots up there and instead there is 20 that are platted so I know that we are not taking into consideration the road right of way and some of the other infrastructure but they could have designed this a little differently and gotten a lot more density. They are almost losing not quite half density but a little over a third I would say, of what they could have done. Does that help answer your question Julie?
Nester Jelen: She is raising her thumb. Then Margaret you had a question.
Clements: Just going forward I would just like to be able to protect the rest of the county for having to pay for failure. So, in a subdivision like this before it sells there should be some mechanism for collecting some kind of escrow or bond or insurance policy that is born by the home owners so
P
ag
e
24
that they are protected from, so that the rest of the county is protected from having to pay for this failure. I appreciate everyone’s patience and indulgence. I think the nature of this is difficult because we do have moving lands, we have imperfect information and on things like this we may never have perfect information. So, caution to me is important and then I think having more importantly than an answer but a process by which we evaluate what kind of certified engineer certified in which areas could evaluate and say yes or no we build and if the answer is yes how do we remediate and that we should have this process of evaluation done professionally. I know that Terry Quillman has done a great job but the burdens lie too heavily on his shoulders and I think that we need to be aware of that as well. Ok, so is there any more discussion from members of the Plan Commission? If there is none, is the petitioner present and would the petitioner like to address the Plan Commission?
PETITIONER/PETITIONER’S REPRESENTATIVE – 2008-SPP-08 – Holland Fields Turner: Yes, this is Don Turner with Hybrid Investment Group.
Nester Jelen: Don, you’re a little bit quiet. Can you move a little closer to the microphone? Turner: Let me try this. Ok, can you hear me now?
Clements: Little bit.
Nester Jelen: Still pretty quiet. Turner: How about now? Nester Jelen: Yes.
Turner: Better? Ok, great. Just in general, obviously that was a lot to take in, in terms of obviously what we need to look at here is insurance is going to be the most effective way to handle this in terms of the sinkhole. Obviously you are going to require the deed covenants which we would automatically do any way in a situation like this. The best way to take care of it is I think Margaret you talked about it’s our risk, the developers risk until such time as it’s sold or potentially sold on some type of contract. I would assume that anyone that would buy this would want to look, you know, have had some kind of soil exploration done but they would be the only ones that could get an insurance program because they own the lot. The homeowners association would not necessarily be able to take care of it whereas an insurance program of some sort would be able to handle this. That is kind of what I have to say on that. Other than that I have heard a lot of good things about what, our concerns are your concerns of selling these properties if these is a potential problem on it. We certainly don’t want to do that either and the other thing I would say is get Geo Technical Engineers involved in your discussions as you move forward because they are the ones who are able to define what is down there, how to repair, just as we hired Patriot Engineering to do this, you should include those types of people in your discussions because they know how to fix them. They are on top of how to investigate sub-surfaces conditions and might help you in designing something for future. Other than that I am comfortable with everything that has been said and I think that is all that I have got to say. Thank you very much.
P
ag
e
25
Clements: Thank you. Is another member in favor of the petition present that would like to address the Plan Commission? If there is none, is there anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to the petition? Jackie, do you see anybody?
PUBLIC COMMENT– 2008-SPP-08-Holland Fields: None
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF – 2008-SPP-08 – Holland Fields: None FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF – 2008-SPP-08 – Holland Field
Nester Jelen: I am not seeing anyone. If anyone would wishes to speak just unmute you mic or put something in the chat.
Clements: Ok, well, I come back to the Commission and see if there is any further discussion and if not we are ready for a motion.
Pittsford: Madam Chair I am prepared to make a motion when you are ready. Clements: Thank you Mr. Pittsford.
Pittsford: There being no comments further; In case number 2008-SPP-08, Holland Fields Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Phases 2 & 3, this is a request for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat to subdivision 1 parcel into 35 parcels based on that fact that this has been previously reviewed and with further information I should say this is located at 790 East Holland Drive, in the zone of RE3.5/PRO6, 14.8 acres in Perry Township, based on the fact that has been previously been reviewed and this is renewal of that previous approval, given the findings of fact numbers 1-15 tonight’s packet, I move approval, based on the findings of fact and subject to any conditions therein. That is my motion.
Guerrettaz: I will second that.
Clements: Mr. Wilson, will you please call the roll?
Wilson: Just to clarify, does that include a waiver of final hearing?
Pittsford: Yes. I didn’t see that in my heading but yes that includes waiver of final hearing and just an additional that we all hope that the developer will proceed will all do caution. Wilson: And Bernie did you second it?
Guerrettaz: I seconded, yes.
Wilson: The motion is on to approve 2008-SPP-03, the Holland Fields Major Subdivision, Phase 2 & 3 Preliminary Plat, including a waiver of the final hearing, for 35 parcels in 13 acres located in Section 21 of Perry Township.
P
ag
e
26
Pittsford: Correct, that is 14.18 acres.
Wilson: The agenda may be wrong then. A vote in favor is a vote to approve the Primary Plat subject to the conditions set forth in the report. Bernie Guerrettaz?
Guerrettaz: Yes. Wilson: Yes.
Wilson: Geoff McKim? Jerry Pittsford? Pittsford: Yes.
Wilson: Jim Stainbrook? Stainbrook: No.
Wilson: Julie Thomas? Thomas: A reluctant yes. Wilson: Amy Thompson? Thompson: Yes.
Wilson: David Warren? Warren: Yes.
Wilson: Margaret Clements?
Clements: Only because the by right ability is a worst case scenario than the one presented before us. I feel compelled to reluctantly vote yes.
Wilson: Ok. Trohn Enright-Randolph?
Enright-Randolph: First, I apologize I am on my phone, my power just went out. But luckily I was able to jump back on for the vote. I kind of want to echo what Margaret just said. It feels like we don’t have everything sorted out I loved the discussion today but I am going to vote in favor. I have one additional comment because I don’t want to drag the meeting on. I love the presentation. This is the first time I stared at the computer screen, looking at the presentation the whole time and thank you so much for making it better for us to view during these digital meetings. My complements to the Planning Department. Thank you and my vote is yes.
P
ag
e
27
The motion in case 2008-SPP-03, Holland Fields Major Subdivision Phase 2 & 3 Preliminary Plat, Waiver of Final Hearing Requested, approve request subject to conditions in contained in report, carried (7-1)
