- I'm sorry about that. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order the May meeting of
- the Monroe County Plan Commission. So Jackie, to get us started, would you call the roll?
- Sure. David Bush?
- Here. Margaret Clements?
- Tron Enright-Randolph? Scott Ferris?
- Here. Rudy Fields?
- And I see Rudy's online. Rudy, are you able to speak?
- Yes. Okay, here. Thank you.
- David Henry? Here.
- Jeff Morris? Here.
- Edward Olman? Julie Thomas? Here. Okay, so we have six members attending five in person in a quorum.
- Thank you, Jackie. Could you please introduce the evidence for tonight?
- Sure. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County
- Development Ordinance as adopted and amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted
- and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission Rules of Procedure as adopted and amended,
- and the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda.
- Move approval. Second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to introduce and approve the introduction of evidence. A vote
- yes is a vote to approve. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes.
- He has to be on camera. Yes, just a reminder, Rudy, if you can turn,
- if you're able to turn your camera on to vote, that would be appreciated.
- David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes.
- David Bush? Yes. Okay, so it definitely passed five to zero,
- and Rudy, are you able to turn your camera on? Are you permitted to do so?
- I believe I am. Okay. Am I on now? No. I do not see your camera on
- at this point. Yes, now you are. Okay, great. Thank you.
- Okay, moving on to the approval of the agenda,
- can we get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Move approval.
- Second. Okay, I will go ahead and call the
- roll on approving the agenda as published. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
- Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes.
- Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is approved. Scott Barres?
- Yes. Motion is approved, six to zero.
- It's okay. Hey, we have two sets of minutes to approve tonight, March 18,
- 2025 and April 15, 2025. Do we have a motion for approval?
- Move approval of both sets of minutes,
- March 18th and April 15th, 2025.
- Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve
- both March 18th and April 15th, 2025 minutes.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve both sets of minutes.
- David Henry?
- Yes.
- Jeff Morse?
- Yes.
- Thomas?
- Yes.
- David Bush?
- Yes.
- Scott Ferris?
- Yes.
- Rudy Fields?
- Yes.
- A motion is approved six to zero.
- Hey, moving on to administrative business.
- Jackie, are there any updates
- on the CDO amendment prioritization list this month?
- No updates.
- We are continuing on with the prioritization list.
- There's actually one item on tonight's agenda
- that relates to this.
- So just as a reminder,
- we are reviewing these first
- at the ordinance review committee,
- which is a subcommittee of the plan commission
- that meets the second Monday of each month at four o'clock
- as presented on the events calendar, so.
- Hey, thank you, Jackie.
- Moving on to unfinished business.
- Are we taking the two Holland Field requests together
- or do you want to do those separately?
- Let's go ahead and do those together.
- SIA-22-7 and SIA-22-9.
- Okay, and I will go ahead and cover these
- for Tammy Bierman.
- And I'll just provide with a few updates
- and then an updated recommendation.
- So we do have some updates from the petitioner.
- They have been working diligently on making some progress
- to tonight's deadline with the meeting.
- So, so far we've communicated with them
- and they've submitted as-builts of phases one and two
- to the Monroe County Highway Department.
- They received feedback on those as-builts
- and then Smith Design, their engineering firm,
- they were able to get a finished draft of a new design plan
- and that was submitted back to the developers on May 12th.
- We do plan to meet with Hybrid Investment Group,
- the developer in this case,
- and they would like to meet after tonight's meeting
- and before the admin meeting
- to review the new design plans, related cost estimates,
- and to make sure that we can procedurally move forward
- without any other planning process.
- And then they have been working through Smith Design Group
- with the developers of the Holland Three Lot Miner,
- which is Blackwell Contractors, Inc.
- Blackwell Contractors did not meet their deadline,
- but we have been in contact with them
- and through Smith Design,
- I believe we can still make progress on this.
- So just a reminder,
- this is an outline of Holland Field's phase two
- and this is the outline of Holland Field's phase one.
- And then this right here where my cursor is
- is the Holland Three Lot Miner.
- So there is some overlap of public improvements
- between the Holland Three Lot Miner
- and the Holland Field's phase one,
- which is what is primarily needing some of the redesign work.
- So just another quick update.
- So we did, the Plan Commission did vote to continue this
- to April 15th and then again to tonight's meeting
- and they have completed the requests
- that we've asked so far.
- So they did, they have been providing us
- with updated status reports, both the attorney,
- the develop, all of them, the developer, the attorney
- and the engineering firm have provided us updates.
- They have been meeting with the developer
- of the Holland Three Lot Miner through their design firm
- and they do have the new estimate
- but they are waiting for a meeting to review that
- with the county to make sure it would be agreeable
- and then they've identified missing
- or incorrect requirements and we have received
- the new letters of credit with another year extension
- as requested so they do have those,
- they have submitted both of those for phase one and two
- and then performance period, you know,
- pending tonight's decision if it's continued
- or if it's decided upon, that would be based on
- tonight's decision or a future night's decision.
- So we have updated the recommendation
- after speaking with them to continue this
- an additional time, ideally because we do not yet
- have the new design in our hands with the cost estimate
- and so it's challenging at this point to provide
- a correct performance period end date
- and to request a certain financial guarantee amount
- that includes inflation adjustments.
- So without the new design and the new cost estimate
- that we believe they have those in hand,
- we don't feel that it would be helpful
- to vote on this tonight.
- So with that, I could take any questions.
- Yeah, Commissioner Thomas.
- Okay, I've just moved my cursor and I've lost my place,
- but there was something about how this had to be done now.
- So does that still hold?
- There was some urgency because of the connection
- with the other development, sorry, yes.
- Yes, there was a timeline for the Holland three lot minor
- to give us a new subdivision improvement agreement
- to get us new designs, new estimates.
- We talked with Smith Design, they do have that,
- but they haven't heard back from Blackwell Contractors
- that they need to approve of the design and the cost estimate
- before it can get sent to the county.
- Okay, so there isn't a deadline with that specifically
- that is going to be impacted by a continuance here.
- Right, we have approved a performance period end date
- for that subdivision till next year,
- but we're hoping that if we could get some of that information
- by tonight, we could then vote tonight on this subdivision.
- Gotcha, okay, thank you.
- Any other questions for Jackie?
- Okay, so we can turn now to the petitioner
- or petitioner's representative.
- If you're here and wish to speak, you'll have 15 minutes.
- And we do have their attorney online, Angela Parker.
- I believe she has her hand raised.
- Okay, Ms. Parker, if you'd like to speak on this petition,
- you'll have 15 minutes if tech services
- could allow you to unmute.
- I just did, thank you very much.
- I'm Angela Parker, I represent Hybrid Investments LLC,
- which is the developer in this matter, as you know.
- Don Turner is somewhere on this Teams call with us,
- so if there's specific questions,
- he can certainly answer those.
- Our time will not take 15 minutes
- because we concur with the report as Ms. Dillon
- has given it tonight.
- We're working feverishly and I think very productively
- to get the subdivision improvement agreement,
- look at the bond and the cost and the site plan
- and get all of that lined out and approved,
- which is why we'd like to meet with planning
- after this meeting but before the next
- so that we can hopefully get some agreement
- around those topics and we've met with Mr. Blackwell,
- we've met with his attorney
- and they are also working with Smith Design Group
- so we think this will all dovetail at the end
- and we'll be able to come up with a plan
- and an allocation of costs that makes sense,
- which of course then will also impact the bond determination
- for those two phases.
- So we appreciate the opportunity
- to have an update before the commission.
- We certainly appreciate our work
- and I've expressed this to Ms. Gellin as well
- with her staff but also with the highway department
- because a lot of what's going on here
- impacts their review and approvals
- and I wasn't at the meeting last week
- but I understand it was a very productive meeting
- to review some of the detail and some consensus
- about how to handle some of the site plan improvements
- that need to occur.
- So with all of that being said,
- we would respectfully request
- that we be given a little bit more time
- so that we can bring you a more complete final,
- hopefully with the planning and highway approval agreement
- about proceeding forward with the performance period
- to cost the bond and the plan.
- And with that, we're happy to entertain any questions
- that you might have this evening and thank you.
- Thank you for your time.
- Thank you, Ms. Parker.
- Do any members of the plan commission have questions?
- Okay, it doesn't look like we have any.
- Thank you, Ms. Parker.
- We can turn now to public comment.
- If there's anybody here in the room that wishes to speak
- either for or against this petition,
- you're welcome to come to the podium
- and you'll have three minutes.
- If there's anybody online who wishes to speak
- in favor or against, please raise your virtual hand.
- Okay, seeing no one,
- we will come back now to the plan commission
- for any comments or a motion.
- Comments, if anybody would be willing to make a motion.
- So I'll attempt to make a motion.
- So for SIA 22, seven and nine,
- I'll make a motion that we continue this petition
- for 22, seven until 17 June.
- And the same for SIA 22, nine,
- we'll continue that to 17 June.
- Second.
- That's good.
- It's been moved and seconded
- to continue both petitions SIA-22-7 and SIA-22-9,
- which is Holland Fields phase two
- and phase one performance period extension to the June,
- continue this to the June 17th, 2025 regular meeting
- of the plan commission.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve the continuance to June.
- David Henry?
- Yes.
- Jeff Morris?
- Yes.
- Julie Thomas?
- Yes.
- David Bush?
- Yes.
- Scott Ferris?
- Yes.
- Rudy Fields?
- Yes.
- Motion is approved six to zero.
- Thank you, Jackie.
- And before we continue, I meant to mention earlier
- that case PUD-25-1, the North part two PUD development plan
- has been continued to a future meeting.
- So if you're here to speak to that case tonight,
- we will not be hearing that.
- I apologize that I just now brought that up,
- but moving on to the next item on the agenda,
- we have ZOA-25-2, which is amendments to the CDO.
- This is the final hearing.
- Thank you.
- Okay, so this is an amendment to the CDO
- regarding the impervious cover maximums.
- We've heard this at the last planned commission meeting,
- and this is now the final hearing for this case.
- We brought back to you some changes
- that we described in the administrative meeting
- that I'll go over again tonight,
- and also a few additional aerials
- that will describe or illustrate the types of properties
- that would be able to be approved
- with the maximum impervious cover square footages
- that we've now set out.
- So I did wanna update the planned commission.
- We did update the cover page just briefly,
- but importantly, we have taken now 33 variance filings
- this year, and 16 have included requests
- for impervious cover.
- So we are trying to move forward with the new estimates,
- and again, the goal is not to remove all needed variances,
- but just to fine tune it to work with the changeover
- of the CDO and to try and stay with the purpose
- of the maximum impervious cover
- for new development moving forward.
- So I'll go ahead and start with our text amendment,
- and then I'll go through some of the aerials
- I think that will be helpful thereafter.
- So this text amendment, as I mentioned,
- is working with primarily what we call the two-pagers
- or summary tables for the different zoning districts.
- We have amended several of the zoning districts
- with different numbers, and then we've also amended
- some of the superscripts for all of the zones.
- So the biggest change on the screen
- is that we are recommending breaking out
- the maximum impervious cover based on lot size,
- and then also increasing that amount
- that's permitted based on each lot size
- and whether it's in a critical watershed or not.
- So there are those changes there.
- And then the superscript number two is being added,
- it did say before excluding agricultural buildings,
- but now it's going to also point people to chapter 813,
- which I will go through for some additional exceptions
- that are for discussion tonight.
- So these numbers are pretty consistent
- between the different zones.
- I will mention that Forest Residential,
- since it has a five acre minimum lot size,
- we did take consideration that since the other zone,
- AGR and CVR have a zero to 2.5 range
- and then a 2.5 to five range.
- We tried to meet what the middle ground would be
- for those properties since they're starting out
- at five acres.
- And primarily the Forest Residential and the CVR,
- the Conservation Residential,
- those are located more on the east side of the county,
- which is sometimes also corresponding with the eco area.
- So that's also in our minds as we look at this.
- Here's the Conservation Residential,
- two and a half acre minimum lot size.
- So very similar to the AGR as well.
- And then for some of the zones
- where we didn't make much change to the numbers,
- we just added, as I mentioned,
- the C Chapter 813 for exceptions
- and made sure that it said to exclude agricultural buildings
- in all zones where there were agricultural buildings
- from the impervious cover.
- And then this is for the residential zone.
- So we have changed those numbers as well.
- Those have a one acre minimum lot size.
- And then the footnote would be
- for most of the other properties.
- I think there's another change to the community development
- as well for number change.
- And then the rest are just the superscript changes,
- additions there for C Chapter 813 for exceptions.
- So I will go ahead and scroll down to Chapter 813
- at this point.
- We did not make any substantial changes
- to the non-residential zones.
- So I'll skip over those except for the superscripts.
- Okay, so in Chapter 813,
- we are recommending a section for impervious cover.
- We wanted to add a purpose statement,
- which includes that the purpose
- of the impervious cover maximum standards
- are to encourage compact development
- and therefore reduce overall impervious cover
- to implement open space requirements on individual lots
- and possibly reduce negative stormwater impacts,
- reduce erosion related to excessive sheet flow runoff
- as a result of greater impervious cover,
- reduce ponding of water on properties,
- reduce impacts to adjacent neighbors,
- protect critical watershed areas,
- and areas prone to flooding from increased flash flooding
- as a result of large impervious cover with some exceptions.
- So if any of these exceptions apply,
- we would not count these against your total impervious cover.
- So exception number one is driveways in existence
- on March 11th, 2024, which is the last update
- of our flyover aerial that we have
- on our publicly available GIS system.
- So those driveways would be exempt as well as,
- in addition, driveways that had proper approvals
- for installation prior to December 19th, 2024.
- And then number two, driveways within access and utility
- easements or utilized to access another lot of record
- shall be considered exempt from this provision.
- And three, sidewalks within private property
- that are for public use are exempt
- from the impervious cover calculation.
- I also want to bring up that we are requesting an edit
- to the impervious cover definition.
- This gets rid of some duplication,
- but also makes it a little bit clear about the types
- of things that we are looking at
- counting towards impervious cover.
- There's been an extensive discussion by the planned
- commission, and I think at staff level as well,
- as to whether to include gravel in the impervious cover.
- So it's still drafted as being in here,
- including driveways.
- And so right now we have asphalt or concrete,
- private access road, driveways, parking lots,
- decks, patio areas, things like that.
- So I think that something that we're looking for tonight
- is just to make sure that the planned commission agrees
- upon this definition, or if there's any further modification.
- So I can pause here, or I can go on
- to some of the visual examples,
- and then come back to this part.
- I have a question.
- Okay, what was the take of the Drainage Board
- and the stormwater staff,
- and the stormwater director about gravel?
- What did they say about that?
- Yes, and I do believe we do have Erica Penn,
- a stormwater program manager online.
- So Erica, if you wanted to answer this question,
- or I'm happy to answer from my perspective
- of attending Drainage Board.
- Yeah, sorry, I just had to move away from my toddler
- that was playing very loudly.
- In our perspective, gravel acts as an impervious surface,
- because it does not allow the full infiltration,
- and it compacts over time,
- so it acts like an impervious surface
- just through the compaction.
- And Drainage Board was under the same definition.
- Okay, so to clarify, you believe that gravel
- should be listed as part of the impervious surfaces
- in this ordinance.
- Yes, when we look at impervious cover
- from a stormwater perspective,
- gravel counts as impervious.
- Okay, all right.
- So Ms. Nesterjellen,
- on this list, there is previous pavers,
- asphalt, or concrete,
- and then it lists a bunch of other things.
- So it almost seems like if we want to insert gravel,
- it should go in that section,
- asphalt, gravel, or concrete, or something like that, right?
- Okay, all right, I will hold from that, thank you.
- Yep, Mr. Farris.
- I still have an issue.
- And like I've stated the last two times,
- we've talked about it.
- I mean, there are gonna be situations,
- I think others have commented that grass does grow
- through gravel.
- If you are going to include gravel in here,
- you need to define what gravel is, the density, the depth,
- because there is situations, as we all know,
- where you see, in rural properties,
- you're going to see buildings where you have strips
- of gravel, but not complete gravel,
- with grass growing in between it.
- And I can make the argument, like I think I just did,
- that that is not an impervious service.
- So that would be my argument.
- Now, I'm welcome to any other debate around here,
- to convince me that I don't know.
- I don't know that we can get into,
- or should get into width, or depth, or type,
- because I think that just makes things less clear.
- I will say, yes, I have moss growing in my gravel,
- on my driveway, and I'm gonna leave it there,
- and it's great, I like having it.
- But I would still consider it an impervious service,
- because as Ms. Penna noted,
- water can pool because it's compacted.
- So, boy, what are your thoughts on that?
- What are your thoughts on that?
- So I think that one of the challenges
- is either you can get the numbers right,
- or you can get the exceptions right.
- And I think that right now,
- we're trying to target the numbers,
- and the exceptions will help for properties
- that already have existing driveways.
- So what we're seeing is really long driveways with a house,
- and then they wanna add one more garage,
- but they're already 10,000 square feet over the impervious.
- Obviously, we can't ask people to pick up their house
- and move it to shorten up their driveway
- and then put the garage.
- That's just not reasonable.
- But for new development, the way that this would work
- is that we would hopefully have the conversation earlier
- to say, is it possible that you could build
- closer towards the roadway?
- Is it possible that you could, in some scenarios,
- prevent more tree removal or more grading
- or more utility installation?
- So the goal of this is really to compact people's development
- in an area that's already disturbed.
- It's closer to the road.
- But understanding that a lot of people in the county
- have longer driveways.
- So this discussion started back in, I think, 2010.
- We had a memo with the Drainage Board
- and the Monroe County stormwater team about
- what is contributing to most impervious cover in the county?
- And it was long driveways through and through.
- So long driveways are pretty consistent.
- And sometimes long driveways are needed
- because there's non-buildable area
- to get to the area that's buildable.
- We don't have a perfectly flat county.
- We don't have perfectly square properties.
- So I think that moving forward,
- getting the numbers right
- or trying to get the exceptions right, both would help.
- And I can go through some of the visual examples
- with an update if that also helps.
- I think Mr. Bush has a comment
- and then Council Member Henry.
- Thank you.
- I was one of the members I think initially opposed
- to counting gravel as an impervious service.
- And I can think of a whole lot of reasons
- why it would be hard to lump all different types
- of gravels together as one.
- And I'd spent quite a bit of time the last couple of weeks
- trying to figure out a different way to slice this
- and dice it to where you could quantify it.
- And I can't come up with any sort of a reasonable
- and manageable and enforceable way to do that.
- So I'm leaning toward counting gravel
- as an impervious surface.
- And if a homeowner or a builder wants to contest that,
- they can request the variance and it will come before
- the Planning Commission or the Planning Department
- and Stormwater and they can have a more depth review
- of that unique situation.
- So that's my thoughts.
- Thank you, Mr. Bush.
- Council Member Henry.
- Thank you.
- I think as I'm hearing comment,
- I'm trying to move away from anecdotal ideas about this
- and just maybe back to Stormwater to ask,
- like is there a standard or an engineering standard
- that says the gravel of a certain quality
- or depth is impervious?
- I heard it and I mean, I'm gonna go with what I heard
- with the Stormwater mentioning this,
- but I'm just kind of curious what the engineering standard
- is if there is one we're looking at to say,
- yeah, gravel is impervious based on X versus not on Y.
- Do we have a quick answer on that?
- I'm not sure I have a quick answer.
- I'm not an engineer, so I don't know at what compaction
- level it really solidifies itself as impervious.
- But just over time, back and forth,
- it will compact and become no infiltration.
- Yeah, Mr. Ferris.
- I'm not giving up yet.
- Can we amplify the word gravel?
- Yeah, so one thing I wanna add to this discussion
- is that if we exclude gravel driveways,
- but not asphalt or concrete driveways,
- what we're going to have is everyone telling us
- they're gonna put in a gravel driveway
- and then converting it to asphalt or concrete
- because that doesn't require a permit.
- So I think that if we're going to exclude gravel driveways,
- I would suggest for ease of our enforcement,
- for ease of communication, we then just exclude driveways.
- But I don't think that that's in line with
- what Stormwater would like to see with,
- what planning would like to see.
- So it is tricky.
- Excellent point.
- I wish I could argue with that.
- (laughing)
- All right.
- Yeah, Mr. Henry.
- I just have maybe one more observation
- that didn't come to me until this week.
- So do we have examples of like rubberized aggregate
- or the use of like rubberized asphalt
- where people are using that in the county for,
- would we want to count that as impervious?
- I don't know what a residential use of that would be,
- but I could imagine other applications where we have that,
- basically like the high school track material, right?
- The recycled rubber that's been asphalt,
- you know what I'm talking about, right?
- I've never seen that.
- That would fit under pervious pavers.
- We would just call it, well, not pavers, it's--
- But that's a similar material.
- Okay, if that's the animal, vegetable, mineral of it,
- that's fine by me, okay.
- People use that as an application
- for to create a pervious paver in commercial settings.
- And so that's, it would fit with what's up there now,
- but yeah.
- I reason to get that.
- Yeah, you don't see a lot of it though.
- No. - Yeah.
- Okay.
- I'll offer a quick comment before we move on.
- I'm stuck on the gravel conversation,
- similar to Mr. Ferris,
- but I see a lot of value in moving this forward
- because looking at the number of cases
- that are coming before the BZA and getting approved,
- it feels like there's some unnecessary steps
- that are in place the longer we take
- to make a decision on this.
- So my thought is I'm gonna vote in favor of this tonight,
- but I would also like to see it added back
- to maybe the bottom of the CDO list
- for us to revisit six months to a year from now
- so we can see in that period of time
- how many people this is really impacting
- because I'm curious from a real world perspective,
- just how many people that are truly impacted
- by the gravel conversation, yeah.
- Can I comment on that?
- I think you make a really good point
- that I think we do need to move forward.
- But if we move forward, even if we add gravel back in,
- we're still gonna be ahead because it's still going
- to change a lot of those variances won't be needed.
- So, okay, all right, thank you.
- Just to clarify, I think we should keep gravel in there
- tonight as in previous. - Oh, okay, okay.
- But I think we should revisit a year from now.
- And it may be a quick conversation if none of the outcomes
- of the variances would have changed if gravel was removed.
- Thank you. - I agree.
- So I do have just a quick visual of some of the properties
- that if they were to be built today,
- without this exception of the existing driveway,
- they would be coming up against the maximum previous.
- So this is still an example here of a property
- with what would be too much impervious.
- And then this is an example here,
- which is a community development zone.
- We did alter those numbers a little bit,
- but without that previous exception of existing driveways,
- it could be getting close.
- And then this example here, unfortunately,
- since the driveway just does not serve other properties as well,
- it's just a long driveway because of the way
- the lot is shaped.
- This property here, they were wanting
- to put in a new proposed pole structure that
- was pretty significant, 72 by 48.
- And then with the existing impervious,
- that was requiring a variance.
- And if not for the exception of the existing drives,
- would still require a variance.
- And then this is also an example.
- It is a more institutional use in a forest residential zone.
- This is Camp Rock, but they did have quite a bit of driveways
- that were coming against impervious.
- And then this is an example here where
- there was a new garage built in this area,
- not off of the existing driveway.
- So they were building another extension of the driveway.
- And then there was a question about, well,
- what will meet the new requirements?
- So we put in a few green ones.
- These would be able to be developed
- new without the need for a variance
- based on the new percentages and the new numbers.
- So this example here, this is a residential zone example.
- So I tried to get one for each zone.
- This is a forest residential property, forest five.
- So I added in, along with this driveway and this house,
- which I counted all the imperviouss here,
- there was also an ability to add another 100
- by 100 structure or impervious area that would still
- meet the requirements because it was over five acres.
- So that was showing right about 45,000 square feet
- of impervious on this lot.
- And then this is a example in a conservation residential.
- This is over 25 acres.
- This is the highest square footage that we're allowing.
- So anything beyond this was still capped
- at the same square footage right now,
- unless a future text amendment were to be proposed
- or a change, but this is about 55,000
- if you exclude the two agricultural buildings
- on the north side, but count all of the driveways
- and all other structures.
- I think that was all my examples.
- Before we continue, Mr. Fields,
- did you have any comments that you wanted to make?
- I know we didn't give you an opportunity a second ago.
- Oh no, that's good.
- I struggle with the notion to Jackie's point
- of the numbers or the exemptions or the exceptions.
- And it's, I think that gravel is gonna be
- an impermeable service if it's put in
- because if it's there and then work gets,
- even if it's not, work down the road is gonna be,
- somebody is gonna bring in tri-axles of more stone
- and that's the way you fix a gravel road is just add to it.
- So I think that it's a thing where,
- you know, the whole definition of a driveway,
- you know, I mean, it's, you know,
- is there a way to look at this thing to say that,
- okay, the minimum, you know,
- everybody has a right to have a driveway to their home.
- And then is that a fixed thing?
- And then do you take all the other impervious surfaces
- and add those together and work on that,
- excluding the notion of a driveway.
- But again, what Ms. Jellum said was that
- it's the big player.
- So I think if you buy the science and you believe
- that it's something that we need to do for the,
- you know, better of our world,
- I think that's one potential way to do it
- is with the how you define a driveway.
- Thank you, Mr. Fields.
- Any other questions from members of the planning commission?
- I'll make another comment.
- So one of the things I thought of as we were talking was,
- well, maybe what if we count gravel as half, you know?
- But here's the thing.
- When you have a driveway on a slope
- and that slope goes down to the street every time it rains,
- it's better to have pavement than gravel
- because the gravel ends up on the roadway
- and causes hazards.
- So in some cases, gravel's not the best option.
- But in some of the examples we saw,
- there are just these unnecessary loops
- and, you know, driveways and all, you know,
- that's the kind of thing that really makes me say,
- leave driveways in, add gravel,
- and move on and see what happens
- with the variance process after that.
- So thank you.
- Any further questions?
- If not, we will turn to public comments.
- So if there's anybody here in the room
- that wishes to speak for or against this petition,
- please come to the podium and you'll have three minutes.
- Or anybody online, please raise your virtual hand.
- Okay, seeing none.
- We'll come back to the plan commission
- for further comment or motion.
- I would like to move, first of all,
- that we modify the ZOA 25-2
- in the section on description to add the word gravel
- to the sentence that has concrete asphalt
- added in the asphalt or concrete.
- Asphalt, gravel or concrete, however you want to do it.
- That would be, my first motion would be to amend this
- so that we include gravel.
- Do we have a second on amending this?
- I see the word there as a point of order.
- Is it the word already there?
- I thought it was scratched out.
- A duplicate.
- Here's where gravel was removed.
- It appears at the beginning of the sentence.
- I'm sorry.
- I saw it in the later section where it was scratched,
- so it is there.
- Nevermind.
- Sorry.
- So nice you'll say it twice.
- Must be, must be my day.
- Thank you.
- I saw where it was removed.
- I'm like, oh, well, it's not there anymore.
- Okay, are you revoking that motion?
- I'm revoking it.
- It's gone.
- Okay, do we have a motion for approval or denial?
- That we approve or we forward to the county commissioners,
- the amendment CDO as we have discussed,
- and that's ZOA 25-2.
- Second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to forward
- to the county development ordinance for impervious cover to be a favorable recommendation to
- the county commissioners. This is the final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to forward a
- favorable recommendation. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Scott
- Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Okay. Motion is approved 6-0. Hey, moving
- on to new business, we have REZ-25-4. This is the Hunter Valley Historic Landscape HP
- overlay. This is the preliminary hearing with a waiver of final hearing requested. So Mr.
- Myers, I will turn it over to you. Before he begins, may I ask a question? Since the
- other part of this is continued, is that okay? Yes. This is unrelated to the development
- plan. This is just the HP overlay for a portion of the site. All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
- So this is REZ-25-4, the Hunter Valley Landscape HP overlay. This is the preliminary hearing
- and a waiver of final hearing has been requested. It is consisting of two parcels, one of those
- parcels being 98.6 acres and the other being 9.629 acres owned by Packinghouse Road LLC
- and Milestone Contractors LP respectively. So here on the screen, you can see the historic
- preservation area highlighted in green. This comes from exhibit B of their written commitment
- from the previously approved planned unit development outline plan amendment that this
- body and the board of commissioners passed. And as you can see on the screen, there is
- a portion of the site that was originally identified through a multiple property listing
- by state officials as a area that is eligible for historic preservation designation on potentially
- the state, national and local levels. So that's what those darker borders are. And working
- through the channels with the historic preservation board as well as the planning commission and
- county commissioners, the petitioners for that outline plan amendment came up with this
- green area and all parties agreed that that area would be suitable for historic preservation
- overlay on the local level. Now on the screen, we have several images as well as some snippets
- from comments made by various entities in the county. So on the location map, you can
- see the property's location. It is northwest of town, just south of the I-69 and State
- Road interchange. And then on the right side of the screen, we have the site conditions
- map and you will note, or you might have some memory of this petition, there are a number
- of cars features as well as some hydraulic features, hydrological features on the property
- that have received a lot of discussion through the channels. And there's been a lot of debates
- and conversations with the stormwater and the contractors about protecting those cars
- features as well as the existing quarry landscape that is mostly in the portion of the site
- that will be designated with the HP overlay. Ben Ayers from the Highway Department stated
- that there are no comments at this time, given that it is outside of Monroe County right-of-way.
- And then Eric Pena, the stormwater program manager, stated that there are no stormwater
- concerns with the designation of the HP overlay. And as a reminder, the proposed Mass Fill
- project was part of the Planning and Development Outline Plan Amendment, is required to implement
- appropriate stormwater pollution prevention measures in accordance with the Monroe County
- Stormwater Management Ordinance and conditions placed on stormwater grading permits. These
- additional measures may be required around sensitive geologic features.
- So now on the screen, we have some historical imagery of the Hunter-Verily quarry field
- as well as some other quarries, mills that were located in this area long ago. And here
- on the screen we have an image as well that shows the approximate locations of several
- mills that were in existence in the area or are still in operation in the area as well.
- The greater area is often referred to as the Hunter Valley Historic Landscape or Quarry
- District.
- And then the next few slides are some information about the Historic Preservation Overlay. This
- all comes from the County Development Ordinance. So on the screen now is the purpose statement
- for the Historic Preservation Overlay detailing its purpose, if you will. And I will leave
- on the screen for a moment just to familiarize yourself for those who are experiencing the
- HP overlay for their first time.
- All right. And now on the screen is the criteria for historic district designation coming from
- Chapter 823. So these are the criteria that are evaluated by the Historic Preservation
- Board as well as put forth from the petitioner of what items on this can be classified for
- that particular property to receive designation.
- So speaking on this topic, a lot of the information that came forth for this designation came from
- that multiple property listing that I mentioned that is available in one of the links of the
- exhibits in your packet. And that came from some state officials as they reviewed these
- areas as part of the I-69 study.
- On the screen now we have the letter from the petitioners stating their request for the
- historic preservation overlay. I'll now take a moment to reiterate that all of this came
- up as part of a condition of approval for that outline plan amendment that I've spoke
- on. So this is just one of those conditions of approval that was attributed to the approval
- of that outline plan amendment. So the petitioners are just moving through those motions to satisfy
- the historic preservation board as well as the other entities that reviewed this request
- for that outline plan amendment.
- Now on the screen is another diagram that shows that historic preservation zone. It
- is 11.45 acres and does extend across those two parcels that I mentioned at the beginning.
- The larger parcel being the 98.6 acres and then this smaller parcel owned by Milestone
- has a lot of that area under the HP overlay as well. And then this is just another diagram
- that will show that shows the proposed contour lines of the mass fill activity that they
- needed the outline plan amendment to get approval for.
- And then this is a zoomed in version of that same diagram. You can also see that this hatching
- on the side here on the western side of the property says development free zone. That
- is a remnant from the original PUD North Park 2 outline plan. They when they created that
- outline plan they had decided that this area would be development free. So you can see
- that a portion of that area is also being captured in the historic preservation overlay.
- And I will say that the historic preservation overlay does not override any of the underlying
- zoning. That would be the PUD North Park 2. But it does provide protections for historic
- structures, historic landscapes, things like that, rather than affect the underlying zoning,
- which is the PUD with respect to uses and things like that.
- And then now on the screen I included the original letter that was provided by the historic
- preservation board of review for that outline plan amendment procedure. So this letter was
- presented to the plan commission and the county commissioners as part of those meeting packets
- that kind of generated the discussion and the push to request the HP overlay for this
- portion of the property. And then this is a historical map of the Hunter
- Valley limestone district that I spoke on earlier.
- Also in this presentation, as well as in the staff packet, I included a PDF of the report
- from the state historical archaeological and research database or shard. So it does have
- some contributing resources that are located within this area that is proposed to have
- that HP overlay. So this is some of those structures that will be protected and those
- other resources that may exist in this area. You'll note on the second side of the screen
- it says number of contributing resources 18. This survey was conducted in 2014. So things
- might have changed since then, but at least this is a good report to go off of what number
- of contributing resources are present on the property and will be protected through this
- HP overlay. And then finally on the right side of the
- screen again, it gives an architectural description that gives you a bit of a history of the
- section
- of the property with respect to the quarrying that happened there in the late 1800s through
- the 1900s. Okay. That brings me to the recommendation
- to the plan commission. Staff recommends approval of the historic preservation overlay request
- subject to the conditions of approval requested by the historic preservation board of review.
- And those are number one, the petitioner adds information on the historic preservation exhibit
- that accurately names and identifies each of the historic resources within the proposed
- designation area. Number two, the petitioner locates and documents
- all existing historic structures within the proposed designation area.
- And number three, the petitioner shall submit a written commitment and work with the legal
- department to consider the feasibility of the following. Should the petitioner locate
- any historic limestone quarry equipment outside of the proposed designation area, the petitioner
- shall arrange said equipment to be given to the Monroe County Board of Commissioners for
- use in the county owned quarry property on the north side of state route 46.
- I will now take any questions.
- Are there any questions for Drew?
- Hey, doesn't look like we have any. Thank you, Drew.
- So we will turn now to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative.
- If you're here in the room, you're welcome to come to the podium or if you're online,
- please raise your virtual hand.
- We're expecting a petitioner.
- I don't see Mr. Butler on the call, but I can say that he is aware of these conditions
- because he was present for that historic preservation board review meeting where these conditions
- of approval were generated.
- And I believe he has already started working on establishing getting some of those satisfied.
- Okay, thank you.
- So we will turn now to public comment if there's anybody here in the room or online that wishes
- to speak in favor or against this, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand.
- Seeing no one will come back to the plan commission for comments, questions or emotion.
- Before Mr. Ferris makes a motion, I just want to say I'm really grateful for the way this
- got done and especially point three, I think that's going to be one of the things we definitely
- want to include in the quarry in the uplands property is an outdoor quarry historic exhibit
- and that's that is wonderful.
- So thank you to everybody for working on that.
- Thank you.
- I concur with Commissioner Thomas on that.
- This does seem like a unique win-win situation for both the parcel owner and the overlay
- not being too prescriptive or trying to consume the entire parcel.
- First blush, that's very satisfactory to me.
- I wish the petitioner were here so I could hear it from them tonight, but I take staff's
- good word here and obviously good work here with the presentation that things are amenable
- for all concerned and moving forward here, but no, this is good.
- I appreciate the work.
- Any other comments or questions?
- Okay.
- I'll also say, you know, the petitioner I think is amenable because of the outline plan condition
- to do this.
- So I think that, you know, as far as the additional conditions on this historic preservation
- overlay,
- they are amenable to that, but the actual rezone in the historic preservation overlay
- was a condition to get the use.
- So, yeah.
- Yeah.
- Doesn't look like we have any other questions or comments, so could we get a motion?
- It must be my week to make motions.
- With respect to case number REZ254 and county commissioners for approval, a favorable
- recommendation
- of the historic preservation overlay request, which is subject to the conditions of approval
- requested by the historic preservation border review, I will not restate one, two, and three.
- You all can state what I just said.
- Does that include a waiver of the final hearing?
- That includes a waiver of a final request, yes.
- Second.
- Okay.
- Moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation to the board of commissioners for REZ-25-4,
- the Hunter Valley Historic Landscape Historic Preservation Overlay.
- This includes a waiver of the final hearing and the following conditions as stated in
- the staff report, which I will reread for the record.
- These include the conditions of approval requested by the historic preservation review board,
- border review.
- One, the petitioner adds information on the historic preservation exhibit that accurately
- names and identifies each of the historic resources within the proposed designation
- area.
- Two, the petitioner locates and documents all existing historic structures within the
- proposed designation area.
- Three, the petitioner shall submit a written commitment and work with the legal department
- to consider the feasibility of the following.
- Should the petitioner locate any historic limestone quarry equipment outside of the
- proposed designation area, the petitioner shall arrange said equipment to be given to the
- Monroe County Board of Commissioners for use in the county-owned quarry property on the
- north side of State Road 46.
- A vote yes is a vote to send the favorable recommendation with those conditions.
- Julie Thomas?
- Yes.
- David Bush?
- Yes.
- Scott Farris?
- Yes.
- Rudy Fields?
- Yes.
- David Henry?
- Yes.
- Jeff Morris?
- Yes.
- Okay.
- The vote passes 6-0.
- Hey, moving on to case SIA-22-20, the Stone Lake Park Phase 6, request for an extension
- of performance period.
- Ms. Nestor-Jellen, I think that one's yours.
- Thank you very much.
- So this is the performance period completion extension request for Stone Lake Park.
- This is for Phase 6.
- This subdivision has a bit of an interesting history, as you read in the staff report.
- I won't go too deeply into that, but note that this is the only phase that was approved
- within the county jurisdiction.
- So it's primarily built out.
- This is the last phase, and they are working on finishing the final improvements.
- It has taken a while since it's gone lot by lot of development.
- I think there's only about two or three lots total left for development, so they're pretty
- close.
- So I'm going to go through just quickly some of the findings and considerations that we
- have.
- The current letter of credit for this project expires August 15, 2025.
- We are recommending that the project completion date be extended one year, so August 15, 2026.
- We hope that by that time period they would be able to complete the remaining improvements,
- which we understand per the preliminary plat approval, to be sidewalks, street trees, sidewalk,
- and inlet repair, and then we are asking for vegetation along the pond and swale.
- So those are numbers that relate back to the original estimate that we have in place.
- Since this was not further released or reduced, we have an amount that does exceed the amount
- left of what they have to do.
- So we are comfortable with the amount, but we are hopeful that we can get this to full
- completion and that they can get to a point where they ask for a release of all funds
- on or before August 15, 2026.
- We did speak with the petitioner, and I believe the petitioner's representative is online,
- so they may wish to speak.
- One addition was that the petitioner's representative did submit a letter, which I have included
- in the packet that gives some information as to why they are requesting an extension due
- to other circumstances.
- So we did also have the stormwater team go out and make an inspection, since this is
- sort of an interesting drain adjustment into a pond situation, since it's surrounding by
- all homes.
- We wanted to make sure that that was in good shape.
- So they did believe that the detention area was adequate and that they had recommended
- some planted vegetation, definitely in the area of the swale, just to reduce any possible
- erosion in the future.
- And then they also made a recommendation around the actual pond to put vegetation, because
- something I did not know.
- If you do vegetate the exterior of the pond, it's less likely that geese will inhabit the
- pond, so it just helps with water quality, as well as other complaints that come along
- with a lot of geese.
- So that was something that we are working with them on as sort of a nice thing to have,
- not necessarily a required thing, but we do see it as something that we could potentially
- see complaints about in the future.
- So if they're willing and able to do it out of the estimate that they already have on
- file, we think it could definitely be covered.
- And then there was also some erosion issues that our stormwater inspector notified us of
- and we've included in the report.
- So it just needs some re removal repair to be able to make sure that this is sustained
- long term.
- Now, I did note that the entire loop of Stone Lake Circle is plotted as private.
- So this is something where we do still require that performance guarantee to install those
- improvements per the ordinance, but it's not something that if once they complete it and
- finish it, we would be as the county liable to replace or repair any deficiencies.
- That said, we still want to turn over to the HOA the best possible conditions and that
- meet the plans.
- So yes, that's pretty much the gist of it.
- We did have part of the roadway is approved in the city jurisdiction.
- So it's partially city maintained in the yellow.
- Then it was county approved a certain extension in the blue.
- And then there's a light blue section here that was plotted as public but did not meet
- county standards and was not taken in.
- And so there are some things that we see we may want to work with the petitioner's representative
- such as the requirement for full installation of sidewalk on the north side of Stone Lake
- Circle just in phase six.
- It's currently not there at all.
- And so I think they would like to work with us to try to see if they can remove that requirement,
- for instance, and just keep sidewalk on the internal loop of Stone Lake Circle for which
- it goes all the way around.
- So with that, I can take any questions and I know the petitioner's representative may
- have something they'd like to add as well.
- Thank you, Ms. Nestor-Gellin.
- Are there any questions from, yeah, Mr. Farris?
- This is really education for me.
- Extend the completion date out till 2026 and the line of credit expires a year prior and
- there's a shortfall of, I don't know, looks like a little over 12K, something like that.
- How do you address that?
- So we are taking the performance period end date and using that as our documents that
- we're having the developer sign.
- We're telling them, please sign this with a performance guarantee of this amount.
- The letter of credit, we are working diligently with every developer to renew those, but we
- want those to be renewed under an active and valid performance period, if that makes sense.
- So we will renew those letters of credit as, unfortunately, as frequently as every three
- months with some developers.
- So you need an updated period of performance before you can do that.
- Got it.
- I understand.
- Any additional questions?
- If not, we can turn to the petitioner's representative if he could raise your virtual hand.
- Public services can allow you to unmute.
- Kevin Shaw has his hand raised.
- Mr. Shaw, are you able to unmute yourself?
- There you go.
- Yeah, I can.
- You have 15 minutes if you wish to use that time.
- Well I wasn't really prepared to speak, but yeah, I unfortunately, Mr. Shaw, my father
- was not feeling well, was unable to attend this evening, but anyway, as far as the extension
- of sidewalks on the north side, that is a sticking issue because the original approval
- did not bring into, did not plan for, so that is a sticking point, and also, as far as street
- trees, often times we wait to complete a construction on, put new street trees in, but often times
- it conflicts with the construction, plus the possibility of damaging, you know, endeavor
- to complete, things like that, so that is why there has been a delay, as was brought
- out, there are two additional lots there, that was the intent, to go ahead and build
- the structure, but you know, often times, because of demand for housing and plus the
- market at times, it, we are not able to sit on the wall, generally build several houses
- and then sit on them, so that is why this development has taken a number, and as far
- as the repair, that is not a problem, that is pretty much sums up what I had to say about
- that.
- Okay, thank you Mr. Shaw, do any members of the planning commission have questions for
- Mr. Shaw?
- Okay, I'm not seeing any thank you Mr. Shaw, so we can turn now to public comment, if there's
- anybody here in the room or online that wishes to speak in favor or against this petition,
- please either come to the podium or raise your virtual hand if you're online.
- Seeing no one, we'll come back to the planning commission for discussion, questions or a
- motion.
- I have a motion.
- I don't see any questions, so go ahead Mr. Ferris.
- All right, with respect to SIA 2220, I recommend that we approve the new period of performance
- extending to August 15, 2026, so the petitioner can complete all remaining improvements.
- And so this include a waiver of the final hearing and also, is it up there?
- Okay.
- Also wave a final hearing if there's, I don't see it on the form there, but it's been moved
- and seconded to approve SIA-22-20, which is the Stone Lake Park phase six request for
- a performance period until August 15, 2026, and this includes a waiver of the final hearing.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve. David Bush? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes.
- David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Motion is approved six to zero.
- Hey, moving on to our final petition of the night. This is PUO-25-2. This is the Westgate
- on third plan unit development outline plan, amendment three. This is the preliminary hearing
- with a waiver of final hearing requested. So, Ms. Crisillus, I'll turn it over to you.
- Thank you. All right. So, this is a request for Westgate on third PUD to amend their phasing
- plan. So, as you're familiar, this is a 37.99 acre property located plan unit development
- on West State Road 48 or West third. And I have updated this PowerPoint. So, I'm going
- to stop sharing for just a second, hit refresh. Hopefully, my PowerPoint will be ready. Okay.
- There we go. So, they are proposing a change to the phasing plan only. Traditionally, we
- would see a change to the PUD ordinance itself, but with the ordinance under amendment number
- two in 2024, they adopted a phasing plan that outlines their construction and when they
- would be able to receive their conditional and final land use certificates, which allows
- them to occupy buildings. So, the property is one lot of record. It's not platted and
- it was split up into eight construction phases. So, that's what's on screen. So, throughout
- the phasing document, there are kind of certain checkpoints along the way. So, you can obtain
- phase, if you get a conditional use certificate for phase three, for example, you cannot get
- it before phase, you could not get phase four. You have to get phase three and then four
- and then five. They've received a conditional land use certificate for phases one and two
- and are very close for phase three. Throughout the document, there are some checkpoint completion.
- There's some checkpoint standards within each of the phases that kind of wrap up items that
- were not completed in the phases before them. So, not everything within phase one has to
- be done when they get phase one. So, they've described what needs to be done when they
- can get their occupancy. So, in phase three, point three, they state that landscaping,
- permanent stabilization complete in phases one, two, and three. That's fine. That's complete.
- It goes on to say that pond number one, number three A, and number four are fully finished,
- parentheses including a perforated drain, crushed stone, special soil mix, and pond
- plantings. It says no more land disturbing activities in phase three. Submit as billed
- to pond number four for review by the stormwater program prior to the installation of underdrain
- system and final pond plantings. So, completing a bioretention pond is quite a big task. So,
- that's moving on. So, currently at this point within their phasing narrative as adopted,
- they would have to finish three ponds. Number three is pond number four, which is a very
- large pond. So, because of 2025 and the rainfall that they've experienced, they've encountered
- some delays with staying on the timeline that they wrote back in early 2024. In order to
- install an underdrain and finalize a bioretention pond, they have to excavate the pond, wait
- for it to dry, excavate out the sediment that's run into it and is being held there during
- construction. They have to install the underdrain, have stormwater, inspect the drain, they
- complete
- the installation, and then they add amended soils and then do plantings. It is quite a
- process that normally requires many days in advance of dry weather and dry soils. Because
- of the weather, they have not been able to complete the ponds. They have been eager,
- they have attempted it once before, and then was met with weather that pushed them back.
- Since they filed this amendment, they have taken active strides with some of the weather
- on the ponds. I don't know as of now with the rain that just happened yesterday and
- today if they were able to make any completions, but I know the petitioner is here and they
- could give us an update. As a reminder, within the entire development plan, it does include
- eight buyer retention ponds. This is something that could come up again in the future. Planning
- staff worked with the petitioner and the legal department to come up with language that would
- offer some flexibility in case of weather delays. They have added the language, "If weather
- conditions prevent these actions from occurring prior of the completion of phase X, the following
- shall apply. If the proposed use, building, or other structure is in conformity with provisions
- of this ordinance except for final landscaping and final stormwater infrastructure improvements,
- a conditional land use certificate may be granted at the administrator's discretion.
- The conditional land use certificate shall be valid for no longer than six months, but
- may be renewed for an additional six month period at the administrator's discretion."
- They have added this language to multiple points within their phasing narrative. They've
- added it for pond completion. They've added it for final asphalt surfacing, which they
- could encounter delays because, as we know, asphalt plants close during the winter and
- the phases, the construction, the current timing of their end phases could put them
- in winter. And then also completion of the fountain and fountain walkway. So, planning
- helped craft this language with the legal department and stormwater has reviewed this
- language as well and is in support of this. And I have some comments from Erica Pena that
- I can read off in just a moment. So, I have quite a few comments, but the first one I
- really like, which is stormwater is in favor of phasing adjustments as it will provide
- them the flexibility they need to continue making progress and finish requirements under
- the most ideal weather conditions. And that they want the ponds to be finished correctly
- and not quickly and that they want to work with the site as much as possible. That they
- are and have been communicative throughout this whole process and that ponds are currently
- functional, receiving drainage and discharging as designed. So, adding this into the phasing
- narrative, there is, of course, the site would have to reach a final completion point. So,
- at Phase 8, when a final LUC would be issued, we have in that same discussion with legal,
- it was recommended we do have a letter of credit. Stormwater holds a letter of credit
- for some infrastructure that could be held if, for some reason, stormwater infrastructure
- had not been installed to the plan and as approved by stormwater. The petitioner has
- been working diligently on this, so we don't think it would ever get to that point, but
- it is a safety net that's already built in. The letter of credit is already held by the
- county. So staff does recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the county commissioners
- for this planned unit outline plan amendment request, subject to the Monroe County Highway
- and Department reports. Does anybody have any questions?
- Commissioner Thomas. It's more of a comment. You know, this is
- concerning because there's construction going on and more impervious surface being put down,
- yet the drainage isn't complete and that worries me, but however, if since the stormwater director
- planning staff and legal are okay with this and don't see this as an issue, I'm fine with
- it and the petitioner as well, of course, so I'm going to vote yes on this. Thank you.
- Further questions or comments for staff? Thank you, Ann. We can turn now to the petitioner
- or the petitioner's representative. If you'd be willing to sign in, state your name, you'll
- have 15 minutes. Good evening, everyone. I'm Ryan Huffman with Sunstone Construction, the
- general contractor on the project. I don't have much to add this evening. I feel like
- we have come together as a team and changed the plan. We're working hard to complete construction
- as quickly as possible. When we drafted this, like Ann said, in early 2024, had an idea
- but very little understanding of where we would be in terms of time of the year. This
- is a process that typically does better in the summer or the early fall, but in the last
- couple weeks since we created this amendment, we were able to get pond 3A. Ann, do you have
- any of the pictures that we can show that we have been working? We have the pond underdrain
- system installed, the amended soils sprayed in, as well as blanketing on top. That one
- is, for lack of a better term, is done. But as Ann has said, pond 4 is a very large pond.
- It has taken quite a long time to dry out, but we really haven't had it. Every time we
- try to watch it dry out, it just rains more in it. It's been a very odd and very wet spring,
- so it's kind of set us back a little bit. I won't add any more than that, but if you
- have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Are there any members
- of the planning commission who have questions? Okay, not seeing anything. Thank you, sir.
- We will turn now to public comments. So if there's anyone here in the room who wishes
- to speak for or against this, please come forward. We do have one virtual hand raised,
- so if tech services could allow you to unmute, you can go ahead.
- Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes, now we can. Oh, hi, Lisa. Hi. I just have a question
- on the timing of the road improvements and how far that is moved back. The reason why
- I ask that is because the counties worked really close with the residents out there,
- the school system. We put a thin layer of asphalt last year at our expense for some
- of the road improvements, and now we have it out for bid for a full paving for the rest
- of the project. And I know there's some ponding of water and some issues that need to be addressed
- at the entrances. So I wondered about the coordination of that with us paving the rest
- of Park Square. Well, I will say, Lisa, this phasing narrative change will not be impacting
- any of the road improvement requirement timelines. I was under the impression under the latest
- LUC, I thought that they, Paul did sign off on the Park Square improvements. So if there
- are active issues there on Park Square, I think we could work to address those. I wasn't
- aware that there were still issues on Park Square, so we could work with the developer
- on those. Okay. And that's fine. They've been good to work with and we've, Lance Asphalt
- is their paving company and we've reached out to him multiple times on the issues that
- we've seen. So, and they've been great to work with. I just didn't want to delay something
- that could come back and harm the condition of the roadway after it's fully paved. Yeah.
- All the requests for changes of the narrative are internal to the site, so they will not
- involve Park Square. Yeah. Good question. Okay. I just saw your road improvements to
- Park Square on there, so. Okay. Thank you, Lisa, for chiming in. Are there? Thank you.
- Any other members of the public who wish to speak? Okay. Seeing none, we can come back
- to the Plan Commission for comments, questions. I don't want to ruin your streak of making
- all the motions tonight. Okay. With respect to case number PUO 25-2, which is a request
- for Westgate on 3rd PUD Outline Plan Amendment Number 3. This also includes a request for
- waiver of the final hearing. See, I got it right this time, so. A favorable recommendation
- to the County Commissioners for PUD Outline Amendment Number 3, which is also subject
- to the County Highway Department reports. We have a, do we have a second? Second. Okay.
- It's been moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation for PUO-25-2, Westgate on 3rd
- Plan Unit Development Outline Plan Amendment 3. With a waiver of final hearing, a vote
- yes is a vote to send a favorable recommendation and approve the waiver of final hearing. Scott
- Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David
- Bush? Yes. Okay, motion is approved 6-0. Do we have any planning or legal reports tonight?
- Not from legal. Great. I do not have anything just for those that sustain any storm damage.
- We're, you know, obviously happy to talk with anyone on the rebuilding process and hope
- to make it as easy as we can in terms of any CDO changes. So, happy to speak with anyone
- on the phone or in person Monday through Friday, 8-4 at our office and answer questions. Thank
- you, Jackie. Do we have a motion for adjournment? I'm moved. Okay, have a good evening, everyone.
- (upbeat orchestral music)
- ("Pomp and Circumstance")