- and so it's 5.30 and this is the regular meeting of the Monroe County Plan Commission. I'd like to call it to order. Would you kindly call the roll? David Bush? Here. Margaret Clements? Here. John Enright Randolph? Scott Ferris? Here. Rudy Fields? Here. Dave Henry? Here. Jeff Morris? Here. Edward Olman? Julie Thomas? Here.
- All right, so we have seven members in attendance, six in person in a quorum. And I have one announcement to make the item number two under business, which is Southern Meadows, major subdivision preliminary plat amendment two has been continued by the petitioner. So we will not be hearing that tonight that concerns, um,
- property on South Rogers Street and South College Drive so we will not be hearing that tonight so if possible would one of my would you please read into the record the introduction of evidence
- 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. The cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Margaret Clements? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is approved, seven to zero. It appears that Mr. Ullman doesn't have a microphone. Is that correct or is the
- He's online, but I don't know if he can be heard. I do have a microphone. And so I apologize. I'm not finishing my field scouting for the day. So I apologize. I was slow getting the microphone on there. Do you bring the introduction of evidence? I do. Okay. And is there a motion to approve the agenda as adopted in amended or advertised in amended motion to approve second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as presented. A vote yes is a vote to approve the agenda. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Edward Oman. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. John Henry Randolph.
- Yes. Motion is approved nine to zero. And we have on our agenda, the approval of the minutes from the May 20th, 25 meeting. Is there a motion to approve? I move approval of the minutes for May 20th, 2025. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the meeting minutes. A vote. Yes. Is a vote to approve Rudy fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Edward Olman.
- Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes. John Enright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Motion is approved nine to zero. Under administrative business, we have an item under the CDO amendment prioritization list. If you would kindly give an update to the public of where we are and what we're going to be doing next, Jackie, I'd be most grateful.
- that we are making continued progress and edits to this document. It is located on the MonroeCDO.com website. It's also in the SharePoint file folder. But just a point of note, I've added some ordinance numbers and some language around complete or substantially complete to several items. So as you'll see here, number two, number seven,
- and number 13 have all been addressed with a recent text amendment. So we're continuing to make progress and the ordinance review committee is continuing to assess the priority of these remaining items and those discussions will lead to eventual text amendments or discussions that will go before the full plan commission.
- That's just wonderful. I think we're making good progress. I'm really proud of the way you've been helping guide us through that. And thank you for your good direction on prioritizing those remaining items. Now with regard to the plan commission rules of procedure, did you have anything that you wanted to discuss with us here? Sure.
- So I would like to just take a moment to review article 10 of the rules of procedure. This is regarding conduct of hearings. So we did review the rules of procedure last updated on January 21st, 2025. And the plan commission did take a lot of time to review this pre 2025 as well as even this year to make sure that this section was extra
- it was it was very clear so it followed the procedure that we had in place there's been some recent discussion just by a member or two about maybe revisiting this and I have some discussion questions that may lead to a later amendment or
- some clarity as to part of the rules and procedures, so under J. After the public hearing is formally closed, the commission shall consider the petition. Plan commission members shall discuss the merits of the petition, seeking clarification from staff, department heads, and participants as appropriate. The conduct is as follows. There's been some discussion in the past, I think,
- we could add to the rules of procedure. I know that sometimes when this part takes place, plan commission members may intertwine comments with motions. And then by the time a motion is made, maybe some members wouldn't have had a chance to make their full comments.
- Also you know in the Roberts rules of procedure which we do not follow there's also a subsection under motions that includes a section for debate so someone could put a motion on the table and that debate could happen before a vote is then made so we could further break this section out
- If that would be helpful, typically we have a planned commission PowerPoint that has different highlighted portions to kind of guide the public on where we are on the hearing procedure. So the five minute rebuttal period or the three minute support or demonstrator period. So we could add something in here such as planned commission comments and then close that section, move on to planned commission motions.
- close that section. If there's need for debate, we can do that. And then we can move to a vote. And I wonder if that might be helpful to keep us
- moving forward and also to be clear to all the other members which part we're on in order to allow for orderly procedure. So that was something I wanted to bring to your attention. I don't have a red line version in front of you. I wanted to first discuss a possible amendment and then see if that's something you would like to see maybe by the next administrative meeting.
- So I refer to my colleagues to my left if there's anything that you would like to discuss on this item that is before us. Yes, Mr. Morris. I'll just make one comment. I think that all plan commission members should have the opportunity to speak before a motion is made. So maybe it's as simple as the chair of the meeting ensuring that everybody's had an opportunity to speak and then calling for a motion.
- aren't any comments that could be fairly quick. But I think maybe separating that step out a little bit would be helpful. That's a good point. And to my right, any comments, Mr. Enright-Randall? I agree with Mr. Morris. There's been moments where we had a motion prior to comments where
- did want to contribute some more dialogue and some thoughts. And I think if we kind of space those out, that would be a good first step to, you know, appreciating everyone's time and effort into the deliberation that is at hand. Thank you.
- I concur with my colleagues there. I think the rounds of discussion are interesting. There's a sort of first pass or take on an item that I think it would be nice to have everyone's voice on. The value of including an option for debate, I think, would resolve some of the crosstalk that sometimes occurs. I mean, we had some of that in the last meeting where
- For having a debate about whatever it is that were either the motion or the item and making sure that people are called upon they speak their piece what I would hate to have I think an example that.
- just talked about is we all say one word about it and then we move to a motion if there's a member that has made a challenge or a point of contention to another member about a point that they brought up that there's an opportunity to reply to that you know in a structured way. So having said that I think this is a good start I do think you know also probably needs to be clear who the
- who gets the appeal from up here in terms of if there was a procedural violation that's usually a parliamentarian or someone who's identified to be the arbiter of whether or not we followed that procedure. So I'd be curious if that's another item to add in terms of who is the referee when we had a point of impasse. Thought about that being either staff or a member of the body to be that parliamentarian. Yes, Colonel Farris.
- First comment I would have is, what's the difference between the Plant Commission having the ability to comment and the Plant Commission having the ability to debate? To me, it's one and the same. As long as during the comment section by members of the Plant Commission is robust and everybody has a chance to take and view their point, I don't see any value in adding an additional step called debate.
- I am not a fan of endless discussions where we get into a loop and we just, we get to the point where we're just repeating everything. So adding additional steps in my mind is not the solution. Amplifying how we do the comment, the Planning Commission comment portion, making sure that all comments are heard prior to allowing a motion on the table might be the way to go.
- Thank you, Colonel Ferris. Commissioner Thomas, do you have anything to add? I think what Colonel Ferris said was spot on. I mean, if it's questions for staff, sometimes it's helpful to lay out concerns before the petitioner presents their item. I'm also not a fan of making our process more rigid. I think debate is good.
- If you don't get to speak the minute you want to, you get to speak before the vote, you have a chance to speak. I don't want to conflate as well. I don't want to conflate our formal hearing process, which is what we're talking about here with the admin meeting, which is really a conversation and adding rules to things where we're supposed to be having a conversation
- I think limits that conversation. It doesn't allow for that open dialogue that we all crave. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Thomas. Mr. Allman. I think, uh, I really echo it. Some of the stuff that Jeff Morris said, and, uh, I don't feel the need to repeat some of the comments have already been said, but yeah, I think just making sure that people have a chance to speak, but thank you. Thank you. I would like to add a comment and that is,
- You know here in the county, one of the hallmarks that I'm most proud of in our deliberation is how openly we listen to each other and to the public.
- And if we engineer rules that inhibit that or structure that in a way that it can prematurely shut it down, that I would be opposed to that because the main thing is to get the ideas on the table and to embrace those and ponder them and then vote and take our procedure. Yes, Mr. Henry.
- Thank you, Dr. Clements. At this point, I feel obliged to say that if we're going to use titles, it's Councilmember Henry. I think it's really important if we're going to stick to that kind of decorum, we do it consistently. I appreciate the comments that are made, but I think that we're talking past why we're having this discussion, which is in an administrative meeting, we did not have that free-spirited debate. We had people that were cut off in a hybrid discussion.
- We had people that were able to over speak others and others that were told to wait a turn. And if that is going to be the process by which some members think that that is open discussion, like that's a problem. We also have a problem where the across talk happens. And I'll admit I've whispered things to both people on both sides of me during the course of a discussion from a member of the public or staffs talking to get clarification.
- So if we're not going to have kind of a self-imposed discipline for that, the only other solution to make sure all those voices are heard in an open discussion is to have some procedure around it. I would also add just procedurally when it comes to debate rules, the debate is about the motion, not the item. And so if we had a discussion about the item, if a motion is made, the opportunity to have a discussion about that motion is important. For example, someone might want to divide the question or to make an amendment.
- And those would be points of debate about the motion. Procedure is designed to give us the ground rules. It's the referee on the field. I don't find it to be restrictive because its intent is to protect speech and to make sure all the voices are heard. And I have no further remarks on the exploration of this. I appreciate staff taking time to explore it. But I do think some amendments are necessary to make sure we get through some more contentious issues. Thank you.
- So does anyone else have any comments here? No? No? And I just wonder what are you looking for from us, Jackie? So it sounds like there could be some room for us to bring back a red line draft for your review at the administrative meeting on July 1st. I just wanted to make sure that everyone agreed with amending these again to further
- codify some of the discussions that we've had tonight I know that you know this is conduct of hearings so Commissioner Thomas brought up that administrative meetings where we may have had some issues with this in the past would not necessarily be a hearing it's a public meeting I do think
- just from what I've heard and some experience on the staff side, it does help to separate out some of these discussion points. For instance, if by the time we call for a motion and someone starts making a comment or asks a question, I feel like some of the commission members feel a little bit stuck in that we've already gotten past the point and we need to just make a vote at that point. So it would be helpful to get some clarity on even if it's comments before a motion, how many times can each person make a comment?
- there's a time limit to that that's necessary or I understand not wanting to be repetitive but as councilmember Henry brought up there's some instances where someone speaks last and that may be a benefit and we can only switch that around so many times so the last person maybe has the most information to make the most informed comment that could lead to somebody else having a comment so we want to maintain order we want to help you all and we just don't want to over
- We don't want to over complicate things, but we also want to make sure that, you know, everyone has a chance to speak and we can do so peacefully and respect. So I'll bring this for the July 1st meeting and try and separate out what I've heard tonight and bring it for your vote on July 1st. Thank you very much.
- Okay, so we're moving on to unfinished business, and the first item under unfinished business is SIA 22-7, Holland Fields Major Subdivision Phase II Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and this is a request for performance period extension, and this is the final hearing concerning a property of 4300 South Rotterdam Drive in Perry Township. So Ms. Baierman, would you please review this with us?
- All right. So this petition. This is the location of phase two of the Holland field subdivision that we're discussing this evening. And I just wanted to kind of throw the petition timeline up here we were first introduced to this back in March, and it was continued.
- It was continued in April and May and June. And I will say that the staff motion is to yet again continue this specific phase to September 25th, 2025. So we do have an update from June 10th, 2025. County staff met with the developer of Holland Fields, their legal counsel and engineer on June 10th, 2025. They have submitted as built to the highway department for review and they are confident that
- after review that a reduction would be possible. At that time of the reduction request, they would address the performance period for phase two, which is what they are currently here for. It was also noted that only one lot remains under the developer's ownership at this time. And so based upon that update that we got
- for phase two, the staff recommendation is to continue this petition to September 25th, 2025. The goal is to bring the performance period extension and the reduction request together during this meeting. This timeline gives the highway department time to review upcoming as-builts for the installed infrastructure and associated cost estimates for any remaining improvements. This would also give planning a sense of if a reduction is appropriate or if inflation is to be required to the next level
- letter of credit. And a performance period still needs to be set for this subdivision. And I will say that Holland fields phase three, which you have not heard about yet, that will be introduced in September at that time as well. Any questions for staff? Members of the time commission have questions for staff. Anyone online? Well, is the petitioner here?
- or is there, will we be hearing? Larry Allen might be online. Yes, so Mr. Allen will have 15 minutes to discuss this with us. So Mr. Allen, welcome. I don't know if you can unmute yourself or if tech services has,
- unmuted you, I think you can press Windows plus Alt plus K to toggle the mute button if you don't see a microphone icon to unmute. So it'd be Window plus Alt plus K or microphone image on your screen.
- Larry, we can see you on screen, but you'll have to press the unmute button. We have on our screen a mute button. Do you see that down at the bottom? I don't know if you can see that, Jackie. But on our screen, which is pretty much the Windows screen, the microphone button is muted or slashed through.
- And the speaker button is also X'd out. So I don't know if tech services can unmute the speaker or the microphone. Unfortunately, we can't. So we've promoted Mr. Allen, but we cannot unmute for him. He has to unmute. But he's saying he doesn't have the option to do that, I don't think.
- tech services is there any other promotion to be made for Larry Allen to be able to unmute. Madam President, I was wondering, he turned off his mic I was going to see if he could indicate yes or no if it was still grayed out on his end. I just left another board meeting and I had to have TSD come in.
- and even our ability to promote them or allow them to un-mic wasn't successful. So there's some glitches with the teams right now. What I did is I left and came back in. So if it's still grayed out for you, just leave and come back and that might give you the opportunity. Mr. Allen, it's been suggested that you leave the meeting in return. And I think you just did that. Yeah, he gave a thumbs up.
- Oh, great. We can see you. And so you'll have 15 minutes when you start speaking, Mr. Allen. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for the tech support. Sorry for the requiring live tech support there. I appreciate it. I think just to echo and reiterate it, we won't take 15 minutes here. But it makes a lot of sense to rejoin this with the potential reduction. We've made some progress. And obviously, as staff has indicated, as Tammy has indicated,
- working with highway department, we are fairly confident that we will be successful in getting a reduction potentially. And then also this allows us to present to you phase three, roughly on the same timeline to consider what's been done there and the potential reduction, but happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Do members of the plan commission have questions for Mr. Allen?
- Okay, we'll hear from the public now, and if there's any opposition, you'll have an opportunity to rebut. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this request? We see none. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this request? We don't see anyone, so I come back to my colleagues for further discussion and or emotion.
- Mr. Enright Randolph. I'm ready for a motion if that seems appropriate. Sure. Okay. In case number SIA-22-7 I move that we continue this petition to September 25th. Second. Motion and a second.
- Phase two only. So this is to continue SIA-22-7 to September 25th, 2025. A vote yes is a vote to continue. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Edward Oman? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. John Henry Randolph?
- yes scott ferris yes rudy fields yes motion is approved nine to zero okay thank you we move on to the next item under unfinished business and that's sia-22-9 holland fields major subdivision phase one subdivision improvement
- agreement request for performance period extension and this is the final hearing concerning a property at 700 east holland drive and 4200 south windmill lane in perry township section 21 miss bareman yeah so this one's a little more complex as it's intertwined with another uh the holland three lot minor development and i do have some updates that occurred just a few hours ago in a different meeting right before this one
- So Holland Fields phase one is the highlighted lots here in yellow. And then just to point out that the intersection at South Walnut Street Pike and East Holland Drive and those three lots there, the Holland three lot minor, that's the specific part that we're kind of working through to get remedy.
- Again, we have a petition timeline that follows the other one, but in this one we're going to kind of keep the pressure on and we're going to recommend a continuance to August 19th, 2025, so they get a month off, and then we're going to come right back at it again and keep at it. So the update from June 10th, county staff met with the developer, so this was a week ago, right, just as the packet was being
- published so county staff met with the developer of Holland fields, their legal counsel engineer on June 10 2025. The developer for Holland three lot minor was not in attendance at the time of this report and there is a meeting scheduled that did occur today. At the June 10 meeting.
- The proposed plans to correct the intersection at South Wilmot Street Pike and East Holland Drive were brought to the meeting on paper, but were not shared with planning and legal staff. The reason being is that neither county planning nor county legal could state that the requirement to fix the sidewalk on East Holland Drive would be the sole responsibility of the Holland Three Lot Minor developer.
- However, the plans have been preliminarily reviewed on paper with the Highway Department staff, and there have been favorable recommendations for a new design. The two developers have been unable to come to an agreement as to who is responsible for installing and paying for the required infrastructure. This includes the sidewalk on East Holland Drive,
- or driveway corrections for two driveways within Holland Three Lot Minor, a possible retaining wall on East Holland Drive, utility corrections, and curb and gutters into South Walnut Street Pike. It was indicated during the meeting that a cost estimate for the improvements does exist, but it would not be shared with planning staff until there was a determination of who is responsible for installing the improvements.
- The reason being is that the developer of Holland Fields phase one does not want to be solely responsible for the entire cost to correct the deficiencies. The developer of Holland Fields hired the developer of Holland Three Lot Minor as the contractor to install the original sidewalks on East Holland Drive, which were done incorrectly. To complicate matters, two houses were constructed in the Holland Three Lot Minor
- Lot two is privately owned by the developer himself of Holland three lot minor, and the other is an outside party of lot one. Therefore, any corrections to the sidewalk and driveways impact existing homes and make the drive slopes even less desirable. As an aside, lot one is on the market. Any staff is currently researching previous records to determine if a planning process
- is required to move forward with the possible changes to Holland Three Lot Miner. And then I've got another update as to what occurred today. The update from this afternoon's meeting was that we met with the Holland Three Lot Miner developer, their legal counsel and engineer.
- The developer of Three Lot Minor did sign today a subdivision improvement agreement to have their improvements completed by June 30th, 2026. They had a deadline of May 20th to sign this document, so we're glad that they made a step forward on that part of complying with the ordinance. Staff was able to review a paper draft plans for sidewalk along South Walnut Street Pike, but no estimate was provided.
- There is a meeting that is supposed to occur as early as Saturday, June 21st to meet with the owner of lot one of the Holland three lot minor. The developer would like to ask them if they could get permission to adjust the grades on their lot to match with the South Walnut Street Pike sidewalks and do the driveway correction.
- If they do get some consent, this would allow some further design considerations. Also noted, lot one is on the market. They're trying to sell their property, and having that further kind of construction happening on their property could be not as desirable while they're trying to sell it. And then we also still have some more updates.
- So if there is some consent with lot one, and if it's feasible, the developers engineer will aim for the August 6, 2025 filing deadline to submit a primary plot amendment. This we have filing for the Holland three lot minor to change the road design from 28 feet to 32 feet, because it is built to 28 feet currently. And this is supported by the highway department currently.
- They would also ask to reduce the right of way width through a waiver request. So it would include the retaining walls that really need to be built here because of the topography. And the retaining walls would then be on private property and not the county's responsibility to maintain over time.
- This would also require a right-of-way vacation that would require commissioner approval. So it's not an easy process. There's still a long way to go with this. Also during the meeting, we discussed complications of the fiber, curb and gutter design considerations, and two driveway designs that do not extend beyond the current right-of-way.
- The engineer has sort of designed something that will work within the right of way, but then you have to extend that grade up onto the private property and that has not been designed yet. So that's still up in the air. And then the attorney for Holland Three Lot Minor expressed that he was really wanting to reach out to the Holland Field subdivision attorney and have maybe meet to discuss releasing
- other design considerations because I think they're both, they both each have designs in their hands, but they haven't shared them with each other, although they are using the same engineering company. So kind of puts the engineering company in a bit of a awkward situation.
- So with that, the recommendation for si a dash 22 dash nine this is Holland fields phase one is to continue this petition until August 19 2025. This will give time for planning staff to work with the developer of Holland three lot minor and the developer of Holland three lot minor.
- So this I didn't update because they did miss their initial requirement deadline of May 30th, 2025. This was to provide staff with certain required items that impact the process upon fields phase one. So though they did sign their SIA document today, they still need to come up with updated estimates. They still need to get a performance bond document on file with us. So does anyone have any questions? Members of the plan commission have questions for staff at this time.
- Yes. Could you roll your PowerPoint back to the previous page? June 10th meeting or June 17th? 17th. Okay, this first page maybe? Yes. Or the second page? My question is, okay, the developer signed a subdivision improvement agreement to have the improvements completed by June 30th, 2026. Who set that date?
- The developer agreed to that date it's About a year from when their letter of credit would be due and from when they would have to basically come before you all again, so He expressed a lot of interest in getting this work done. He just kind of wants to be told What's his portion and get that worked out? The the the date seems very generous to me So by giving them a year
- to get a design in place to have an agreed upon, you know, to have an agreement with the other developer as to who does what, and then to actually make all those installations and corrections. I think staff thinks we hope that this is a reasonable timeline. It also
- I mean, they still do need to submit us a new estimate and possibly an updated letter of credit. But it was at the time when they came up with this date, that's what they felt like they could do. So there are some circumstances still out there, especially with their Saturday meeting that they intend to have with the owner of lot one, which is their neighbor. We'll see how that goes.
- Thank you. Like I said, it seems very generous. That timeline, I'll just add, David, that we did take this to the March 18th, 2025 Plan Commission meeting. So that is the new performance period end date that was voted on by the Plan Commission. So the other developer, the Holland Fields developer, was at that meeting and was considering and agreed upon that date as well. So they wanted that date to be before their end date. So I think that
- everyone was agreeable at the time. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Morris. Yeah, I have a comment and a question. I agree with Mr. Bush's comment that the timeline feels generous. I think at high level, this is taking a lot of county staff time, both planning and highway. And I think that any deadline that's extended will just continue to take up more of the county's time. So there's my comment. My question is, can you remind me
- where this went wrong and to further kind of expand on that you know was this not built according to plan or how how did this end up in this situation um so correct holland fields drive initially was built um and the highway department when they did an inspection realized that the grade was off and that if an
- If a car was approaching that intersection coming towards South Walnut Street Pike, it was too steep and it would be unsafe. So the developer, the developer's contractor, which is the developer for the Holland Three Lot Miner, dropped the road, did not drop the sidewalk at that time, which is part of the problem. And I think fiber was maybe also already in place, which would have been a big expense. It's still going to be a big expense. And then we also had very,
- quickly the hall and three lot minor was approved and a house was built on that lot that kind of squeaked through the planning department's review process when maybe it should not have. And so that has been part of the issue as well as, you know, not following plans and then also pushing through things that weren't ready, so. Other questions?
- So we'll move to the petitioner, the petitioner's representative. If you would kindly come to the microphone or identify yourself online, you'll have 15 minutes to review this with us. Do you know if the petitioner, the petitioner's representative is here? Okay. Still Larry. Oh, it's still Larry. Okay. Hi, Larry.
- Hello, thank you very much. Larry Allen representing. Well, I think technically planning staff is the petitioner on this, but this is involving the Holland phase one. I think in terms of describing a very complicated situation, staff has done a very good job just to, again, distinguish these are different developers. I represent the developer.
- for the phase one, not the Holland fields three lot minor. That is technically not part of this agenda item, although intertwined with the improvements that we have to make. I think one of the things we wanted to see out of this. So the last time I was before you, when we talked about this way back, maybe in March or April, we talked about kind of having a stepwise plan to get this towards
- Being complete, which is everybody's interest here. Certainly we've made progress towards that and having the highway department review those plans and kind of Working with them. We've also had we had one meeting that we were able to successfully have with the developer of the three lot minor and then we kind of didn't hear from them anymore. So it's very encouraging that
- First of all, that they've met with planning staff, but also that they're willing to reach out to us at this point because I think that that's something that needs to happen, and that we've been kind of anticipating and waiting for. Because as as also described by staff there's some problems with the three lot minor that have that have
- kind of leaked into what's needed to do for phase one. And so we really do have to kind of take these together and try to work together to come to a solution. And I think we anticipate doing that and taking this time to try to come to what needs to happen, at least for the best possible solution for the sidewalk, which we've talked about at length, and the redoing. Now, of course, in terms of phase one,
- My client was not responsible for developing the houses or installing those driveways on the three lot minor whatsoever. They did happen subsequent to approval of phase one. And so that is obviously complicating things, but we appreciate that staff's been willing to sit down with us and to listen to us and also to encourage the developer of the three lot minor to come and actually be present, which I don't believe they've been to any meetings so far of the plan commission. So thank you. Thank you.
- And is the developer of the three lot minor here? No. Okay. Are members of the public who are in favor of this? Are they would they like to speak? If so, please come to the microphone in the Matt Hill room or raise your virtual hand. Are there opponents to this? Please raise your virtual hand or come to the microphone in the Matt Hill room. So we come back to the plan commission for further discussion and or emotion.
- Yes, Mr. Enright, Randolph. I just wanted, I guess, make a comment based off of some of the discussion. I feel like if we ever need to take action and not continue this, that we really need some good direction and recommendations from planning. This is still something kind of new for the plan commission, so I'm going
- their recommendation and guidance into consideration, but just know if we have to make the hard decision and that's recommended by planning also. Is there a motion here? Is anyone willing to make a motion? For case SIA-22-9, I move that we continue this petition to August 19, 2025. Second.
- It's been moved and seconded to continue SIA-22-9, Hall and Fields Phase 1 to August 19, 2025. A vote yes is a vote to continue this petition to August. Jeff Morris? Yes. Edward Ullman? Yes. Edward, can you potentially put your camera on one more time? Sorry, I might have missed it.
- Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes, I apologize. Okay, I got it. Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Motion is approved nine to zero.
- We're moving on to the last item on the agenda and this is an item under new business called PUD-25-1 and this is a North Park 2 PUD development plan and this is a preliminary hearing although a waiver of final hearing has been requested for 198.6 plus or minus acre parcel in Bloomington Township section 30 at North Packinghouse Road. I believe Ms. Creselius will be reviewing this with us. Thank you.
- Yes, thank you. Okay, so not every day we see a development plan review, but this is a requirement of the North Park to PUD outline plan amendment. So you all saw this last year and in 2023. We are looking at the 98.6 acre site off of North Packing House Road. This is a separate PUD than the rest of what we know as North Park. It is accessed off of North Packing House Road.
- On screen is a site conditions map to make yourself familiar again, a former quarry site with multiple open pits, etc. Largely it is undeveloped.
- So they did an amendment and that was completed in 2024 to add the use masquerading with filling operations. It was added for only the 27 and a half acre portion of the site that's on screen. So they have returned to us with the development plan to have it reviewed by highway the stormwater program and planning and for you to also look at it. It has gone to drainage board as well. So the plan has not
- changed from in any way significant that I have seen from what we we saw as a draft under the outline plan amendment so it should look largely familiar so on screen just another view of the the site the portion of the site that is allowed to have that mass grading with filling operations so with that outline plan amendment there was of course the recorded ordinance that required a recorded written commitment
- So, within that written commitment we did have, there are some activities that are to take place during the use as it's being conducted on site. So, fairly quick reminder, the commitment includes, number one, that the owner will perform fill activities specifically only on that 27 and a half acre area, that they will not
- fill or develop the former quarried areas, which is, if you recall, an area that was to the north and also offsite that had some historic structures and it has a quarry hole on it. Number three has requirements regarding testing of the fill being brought in and submitting those test requirements to stormwater for review. And then point number four is about testing surface water and, again, submitting those
- results to stormwater and planning. It goes on to say that the fill will be placed and compacted at the direction of a geotechnical engineer, which will be submitted to planning and stormwater. It states that six all-cars features will not be filled or altered and will include a 50-foot sinkhole conservancy area.
- Number seven is that any regulated wetland streams or other environmental features will be avoided or mitigated. Number eight, that temporary stockpiles on the site will not exceed 20 feet in height, and that any on-site crushing will take place only between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. So that was recorded in a timely manner. One of those points was the avoiding of fill in a historic area.
- It was a requirement before we accepted this development plan that they go ahead and file that application for historic designation. So you did see this on May 20th. Drew Myers brought it and it will be, you forwarded it with a positive recommendation to the board of commissioners. So that final hearing at the commissioners is pending. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, still going.
- The development plan was reviewed by Drainage Board. They heard it briefly before and then it was reviewed more formally at the May 23rd meeting. There was no vote held as there were no changes to the previously heard site plan and they went on to state that at the time of site
- development or if conditions change during fill operations the project may need to return to the drainage board for recommendation and then they state that they should contact stormwater program at the time of spring box installation so that stormwater program staff member can be on site. And then stormwater program manager Erica Pena has completed her review and has stated that the development plan as submitted
- under this filing and also under the stormwater grading permit meets stormwater review and then reiterates that if any site conditions change during fill operations that they may want to take that back to drainage board to perform a follow-up review. They have pursued
- The proper right of way activity permits and those are pending issuance it would be for a temporary construction driveway and on screen it just simply states some some canned language that the highway department uses that kind of discusses what needs to be done on site. For example, the last in states of flagman are required for ingress and egress of construction traffic.
- So staff does recommend approving this development plan and the waiver of final hearing subject to any highway department stormwater reports. And we do have two conditions. The first is that the petitioner use the stormwater grading permit SW 25 seven to upload the required documentation during the fill use. And that's per that written commitment. And then condition number two is to update the development plan
- the karst conservancy areas or sinkhole conservancy areas to reflect that 50 foot requirement per the written commitment. One of the sinkholes or two of the sinkholes on the development plan still share 25 feet. So that is our recommendations. Does anybody have any questions? Members of the plan. Oh, yes. Commissioner Thomas.
- Well, I was actually going to talk about the requirements. As you've been speaking, I've been reading through the exhibit of the commitment. Just to clarify, there will be at least quarterly testing done on fill and at least quarterly testing done on surface water.
- I understand that the fill testing is really only if they're bringing in, actively bringing in fill, but how about this? I guess my question maybe if Erica's online, I cannot tell, or for you if you know, the surface water flow that flows there will be tested at least quarterly
- But is that even after the fill operations done? Is it only during a fill operation? How is that, how does that work? Thanks. I believe it would be monitored as they have an active stormwater grading permit. So anytime that they would be filling on site, that permit would have to be active. So therefore they would have to be submitting the quarterly reports. Okay, thank you.
- Any other questions? If not, we return to the, oh yes, Mr. Enright-Randolph, did you, no, to the petitioner, Mr. Butler, I assume that's you. Yeah, you'll have, if you'll sign in, you'll have 15 minutes, as you know. It's good to see you. As well. Thanks.
- I'm Daniel Butler. I'm with Bynum, Fanion and Associates, registered professional engineer here in the state of Indiana. I'll just kind of reiterate some of the stuff. If you're new to this, it's been going on for quite some time to try to get you a plan that is responsible but also provides a future for this area. So we've been trying to work hard for years now to make that happen. And rightfully so, many of
- of you and other, you know, the planning department have asked for different things, testing, ongoing, and we believe that we are at the point where we're ready to fill. So with me tonight is A.J. Chandler. He's with Milestone Heritage Group, if you recall those two. We've worked to this point also with the historical board, with the drainage board,
- with our Karst expert, with our wetland expert, with environmental, other environmental reports, geotechnical. We do intend to follow all guidelines and conditions that have been placed forward. To this point, we think those are reasonable. We have agreed to them and we've put them in, you know,
- We've recorded those so that those can be enacted as this fill site is happening. We want this to be done right. I think you've heard that out of my mouth before as you've heard this project at different times so that there could be a future someday on this. Now this particular plan doesn't have any structures, roads, anything like that, but all the testing is so that that can be done in the future and we don't have problems. So we're as interested
- ourselves in doing these reports and having the testing done ongoing so we don't run into environmental issues so we don't run into compaction issues as something someday can be worked out here what will that be we don't know and that's for you know zoning to you know whatever is best for the county at that point.
- I don't think there's anything else if there's, this is a project that maybe if you have additional questions, if you haven't heard before, but I think we're at the place now where I think we're okay with all conditions and we'd like to start fill operations if you deem okay. Members of the plan commission have questions for Mr. Butler.
- Okay, are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please raise your virtual hand or come to the podium in the Nat Hill room. Are there members of the public who are opposed to this petition? If so, please raise your virtual hand or come to the podium in the Nat Hill courtroom. So there's none. It comes back to us for further discussion and or a motion. Yes, Mr. Enright-Randall.
- Mine is just kind of a real brief comment. I just wanted to thank planner for all of her time and effort with this petition. I believe she's been part of it since it's in conception and with figuring out how to monitor the site and do appropriate testing and working with the various departments and boards. It was a lot and just wanted to
- express my gratitude and also, you know, showcase her level of detail and professionalism to this petition. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chriselius for all of your hard work and I do see that Commissioner Thomas has her hand raised. Yes, Mr. Enright-Randolph made a good point that this has taken a lot and there is the
- Corollary petition regarding historic preservation. So this this development plan doesn't go to the commissioners, of course, but they have to wait until all the other pieces are in place. Is that correct?
- interpretation is that we want we made sure that the historic designation was filed so the application was accepted for review we do not have any specific language from the approval from the planned outline development amendment that required it to be completed got it so the fact that it's filed and it has passed through obviously passed your planning commission is sufficient yes we believe so great thank you so much
- OK, I return to us for a motion. For case PUD-25-1, I move that we approve the request and waive the final hearing. Do you want to add the conditions on there? Yes. Thank you. It's two right here. OK.
- Condition number one is the petitioner use the stormwater grading permit SW-25-7 to upload the required documentation during fill per written commitment INST-2024012456 and number two is update the karst conservancy areas to reflect the 50 foot requirement per the recorded written commitment. I'll second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve PUD-25-1, North Park 2 PUD development plan with a waiver of final hearing and the following two conditions as stated by commission member Morris. A vote yes is a vote to approve with those two conditions as stated. Edward Ullman? Yes. Julie Thomas?
- Yes. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. The vote is approved, nine to zero. Thank you so much. We're looking so forward to that project coming to fruition and thank you for all of your hard work and the consideration of all the constraints on that property. Thank you.
- Thank you. Okay, with that being said, are there any reports from staff or from legal? Is there anything else that we need to tend to? Okay, so is there a motion to adjourn? Okay, so thank you, everyone. We made it in record time.