WEBVTT

00:00:00.962 --> 00:00:11.123
- Okay. It's a five 30. Let's go ahead and start the two March 17th, uh, Monroe County plan commission

00:00:11.123 --> 00:00:21.485
- meeting and director would take and conduct the call. The roll call. That'd be great. Okay. David Bush

00:00:21.485 --> 00:00:30.238
- here. Margaret Clements here. Ronan Ray Randolph here. Scott Ferris here. David Henry.

00:00:35.010 --> 00:00:46.191
- Morris here Julie Thomas Joe Van Dieventer Stephen Bishop okay so we have seven members seven voting

00:00:46.191 --> 00:00:57.262
- members in attendance one non-voting member in attendance and six members in person so while you're

00:00:57.262 --> 00:01:04.126
- at it go ahead and introduce the evidence if you would please

00:01:04.674 --> 00:01:10.128
- I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence. The Monroe County Development Ordinance

00:01:10.128 --> 00:01:15.529
- has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance has adopted and

00:01:15.529 --> 00:01:21.199
- amended. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has adopted and amended. The Monroe County Plan Commission

00:01:21.199 --> 00:01:26.654
- Rules or Procedure has adopted and amended. And the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled

00:01:26.654 --> 00:01:30.974
- for hearing for tonight. Move approval. Second. It's been moved and seconded to

00:01:31.106 --> 00:01:41.936
- Go ahead and approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Margaret Clements?

00:01:41.936 --> 00:01:52.766
- Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion

00:01:52.766 --> 00:01:58.654
- is approved, seven to zero. Okay, that brings us to the

00:01:59.298 --> 00:02:07.056
- agenda and we have a couple of changes to the agenda. It looks like PUO 25-4 which is the point PUD

00:02:07.056 --> 00:02:14.970
- outline plan for the Eagle Bay garage has been garages has been continued by the petitioner and right

00:02:14.970 --> 00:02:23.582
- before the meeting down under new business SAD 25-22 which is a Pratt Prince administrative subdivision type E

00:02:23.682 --> 00:02:30.948
- that also is continued by the petitioner as well. Other than that, there's no other changes to the agenda

00:02:30.948 --> 00:02:38.352
- unless anybody has something to note. I'd like to move approval. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded

00:02:38.352 --> 00:02:45.413
- to go ahead and continue two items from tonight's agenda. One was advertised, which is the EGLE point.

00:02:45.413 --> 00:02:52.542
- And the second is a new continuance, which is SAD-25-22 Pratt Prince Administrative Subdivision Type E.

00:02:52.802 --> 00:03:03.807
- A vote yes is a vote to amend the agenda to do the following continuances. Ron and Ray Randolph? Yes.

00:03:03.807 --> 00:03:13.624
- Scott Ferris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes.

00:03:13.624 --> 00:03:19.774
- Margaret Cummins? Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero.

00:03:21.698 --> 00:03:30.483
- Next up we have approval of the minutes and the minutes are dated February 17th of 2026. Do I have a

00:03:30.483 --> 00:03:39.181
- motion and a second to approve? Move approval. Second. It's been moved and seconded to go ahead and

00:03:39.181 --> 00:03:48.140
- approve the minutes, meeting minutes. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Scott Farris? Yes. David Henry?

00:03:48.140 --> 00:03:51.358
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas?

00:03:52.546 --> 00:03:59.745
- David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. John Henry Randolph. Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero.

00:03:59.745 --> 00:04:07.443
- That takes us to administrative business. We have one item. It looks like we have a change to the calendar.

00:04:07.443 --> 00:04:14.713
- If the director would explain the change, please. Sure. The only change that you'll see on the screen

00:04:14.713 --> 00:04:19.774
- here is to the meeting by the board of zoning appeals and that meeting

00:04:20.226 --> 00:04:29.282
- has changed from July 1st to now be July 8th. So if approved, that would be the only change to the meeting

00:04:29.282 --> 00:04:38.169
- calendar. Move approval. As stated. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the meeting calendar

00:04:38.169 --> 00:04:46.802
- with the one change for the meeting for the Board of Zoning Appeals. A vote yes is a vote to approve.

00:04:46.802 --> 00:04:47.902
- David Henry.

00:04:49.570 --> 00:05:01.498
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Tron Enright-Randolph?

00:05:01.498 --> 00:05:13.544
- Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Motion is approved, seven to zero. Hey, that takes us to our first item under

00:05:13.544 --> 00:05:18.622
- unfinished business, which is P.U.O. 23.5.

00:05:20.130 --> 00:05:28.544
- which is the planned unit development outline plan and the request is to revise the West Ranchview Circle

00:05:28.544 --> 00:05:36.879
- from a public to a private road classification. Sean, would you go ahead and lead us in that discussion?

00:05:36.879 --> 00:05:44.817
- That would be great. Sure. So this was heard at the February 17th Plan Commission meeting. It was a

00:05:44.817 --> 00:05:49.342
- preliminary meeting, so this would be the final meeting.

00:05:51.234 --> 00:06:00.013
- unless continued. So I'll just go through the request briefly. So for the public, this request is seeking

00:06:00.013 --> 00:06:08.295
- an outline plan amendment to the Highlands PUD to revise the inner loop known as range view circle.

00:06:08.295 --> 00:06:14.590
- And that request is to reclassify the road from a public to a private road.

00:06:19.554 --> 00:06:26.167
- If the planning commission were to approve this, or it would go to the county commissioners for final

00:06:26.167 --> 00:06:32.780
- approval, and if they were to approve it, then that would change the road classification to a private

00:06:32.780 --> 00:06:39.264
- road, which would mean that a private entity, in this case, the developer, would be responsible for

00:06:39.264 --> 00:06:45.877
- the upkeep and maintaining the road. Or if they were to sell that to an HOA, the HOA would become the

00:06:45.877 --> 00:06:49.054
- responsible entity for maintaining that roadway.

00:06:51.618 --> 00:06:58.779
- And just to briefly go over some of the issues with getting this accepted into the road inventory were

00:06:58.779 --> 00:07:06.288
- noted by the highway department. And those include the proposed buildings being built at a higher elevation

00:07:06.288 --> 00:07:13.379
- than what the plans called for, the cross slopes for the sidewalks and the right of way being greater

00:07:13.379 --> 00:07:19.358
- than 2%, which is not ADA compliant. Mailboxes being located within the right of way.

00:07:19.682 --> 00:07:27.580
- parking stripes being painted incorrectly, so they were painted perpendicularly and not parallel, and

00:07:27.580 --> 00:07:35.478
- also numerous sidewalk cracking. So the development otherwise has been completed, but to resolve many

00:07:35.478 --> 00:07:43.298
- of these issues would likely require significant either deconstruction of the existing buildings and

00:07:43.298 --> 00:07:44.382
- or driveways.

00:07:48.802 --> 00:07:57.132
- Again, I'll just go through this briefly as far as site conditions are concerned. There's not necessarily

00:07:57.132 --> 00:08:05.147
- anything that pokes out at us It is located in Perry Township located just off of South Rockport Road

00:08:05.147 --> 00:08:11.198
- Again it is located in a PUD that was created by the city of Bloomington and

00:08:17.058 --> 00:08:25.439
- This was originally approved in 2018. So the developer's intent at that time was to make Rangeview Circle

00:08:25.439 --> 00:08:33.504
- private. However, the Planning Commission did opt to vote to make it public. Much of that concern was

00:08:33.504 --> 00:08:41.648
- placing that burden of the cost of maintaining the roadway on homeowners. So that is the justification

00:08:41.648 --> 00:08:45.918
- the Planning Commission offered for making it public.

00:08:47.970 --> 00:08:56.999
- And that vote was ultimately voted upon to be public. The entire development is owned by the petitioner

00:08:56.999 --> 00:09:05.941
- and the units are currently being occupied. So those are being rented out as we speak. This was broken

00:09:05.941 --> 00:09:14.883
- up into three phases. Primarily the issues located within the development are located in phase one and

00:09:14.883 --> 00:09:15.838
- phase two.

00:09:21.698 --> 00:09:30.381
- This development does still have some final LUCs to be granted, but has received LUCs over time. Again,

00:09:30.381 --> 00:09:38.813
- we covered this at the previous planning commission meeting, so I'm just gonna go through it briefly

00:09:38.813 --> 00:09:47.245
- here. One thing to note is that the developer did meet with staff earlier this month, in March 2026,

00:09:47.245 --> 00:09:48.414
- and agreed to

00:09:48.674 --> 00:09:57.458
- some of the improvements that were noted as being deficient, and those are noted, are shown as green

00:09:57.458 --> 00:10:06.329
- in the staff report. However, the petitioner has not provided staff a timeframe or a status update on

00:10:06.329 --> 00:10:15.200
- getting South Wickens Street accepted into the road inventory. These are some site photos of the site

00:10:15.200 --> 00:10:17.374
- as it exists as of 2026,

00:10:40.098 --> 00:10:47.257
- And then this brings me to additional information that was provided to staff from the prior meeting.

00:10:47.257 --> 00:10:54.415
- And I will just go through these since this is new information. On the left-hand side of the screen,

00:10:54.415 --> 00:11:01.078
- I have a table with noted deficiencies that was recorded by the Highway Department from their

00:11:01.078 --> 00:11:05.118
- site inspection. And then on the right-hand side, I have

00:11:05.314 --> 00:11:12.878
- the action that the petitioner is either willing or not willing to take. So in this case, I have noted

00:11:12.878 --> 00:11:20.663
- the deficiencies that the petitioner is unwilling to make. And then on the right hand side of the screen,

00:11:20.663 --> 00:11:28.374
- I have the location of said deficiencies. One deficiency in particular that staff is primarily concerned

00:11:28.374 --> 00:11:33.662
- with are the parking stripes and the six foot ADA sidewalk requirement.

00:11:33.826 --> 00:11:42.281
- So that section was otherwise not part of the original approved plans. The original approved plans showed

00:11:42.281 --> 00:11:50.257
- parallel parking, did not show perpendicular parking. And then of course, the sidewalks are not ADA

00:11:50.257 --> 00:11:58.313
- compliant. So as stated previously, the only way to correct that would be to restripe the area to be

00:11:58.313 --> 00:12:01.822
- parallel parking per the approved plan set.

00:12:02.082 --> 00:12:10.811
- as well as potentially taking out the sidewalk and redoing it. This is not something that the petitioner

00:12:10.811 --> 00:12:19.540
- has cited he is willing to do. So some of those deficiencies that the highway department had noted being

00:12:19.540 --> 00:12:28.020
- that they mill down and overlay a 48 by 20 foot, 21 foot area section of asphalt. And that is located

00:12:28.020 --> 00:12:31.262
- down here in the corner of the screen.

00:12:31.906 --> 00:12:40.029
- Replace the six-foot section of curb and gutter. Install a riser on a manhole located here where my

00:12:40.029 --> 00:12:48.395
- cursor is. Remove pavement parkings for angled parking. That's what we had discussed with that parking

00:12:48.395 --> 00:12:56.842
- stripes. Remove private signage from within the right-of-way located on the south section of Range View

00:12:56.842 --> 00:13:00.254
- Circle here. Replace 139 feet of sidewalk

00:13:00.866 --> 00:13:10.110
- Located along the addresses between 1284 and 1290 West Rangeview Circle. New private water lines located

00:13:10.110 --> 00:13:19.090
- within the right of way. I don't have additional information on exactly what private line that is and

00:13:19.090 --> 00:13:27.454
- exactly where it is located other than it is located on the south portion of Rangeview Circle.

00:13:30.594 --> 00:13:39.718
- We do believe that that might actually be an irrigation system. Sidewalks between 1214 and 1242 West

00:13:39.718 --> 00:13:48.843
- Rangeview Circle. Again, that's the six foot ADA sidewalk requirement. And then also replace 20 feet

00:13:48.843 --> 00:13:58.238
- of sidewalk due to cracking. And you'll notice that those are in several different areas. I have arrows

00:13:58.238 --> 00:13:59.774
- pointing to each

00:13:59.906 --> 00:14:11.214
- of the different cracked sidewalk location noted by Ben Ayers in his highway report. The other deficiencies

00:14:11.214 --> 00:14:21.790
- that were noted in Rangeview Circle, the petitioner has agreed to make those improvements as well as

00:14:22.114 --> 00:14:29.967
- Completing all of the remaining outstanding deficiencies for South Wiccan Street to be accepted into

00:14:29.967 --> 00:14:37.820
- the county road inventory as a public road. The petitioner's engineer did provide a response to some

00:14:37.820 --> 00:14:46.218
- of staff's questions that the plan commission had asked from the prior meeting. And those are his responses

00:14:46.218 --> 00:14:50.494
- up on the screen. I've also included it in the packet.

00:14:52.930 --> 00:15:01.950
- and I can come back to this if the Planning Commission would like. Lisa Ridge, the Monroe County Highway

00:15:01.950 --> 00:15:10.884
- Department Director, did provide this letter addressed to the Planning Commission members stating their

00:15:10.884 --> 00:15:19.474
- agreeance to making the roadway private as it would not in any way meet their requirements to bring

00:15:19.474 --> 00:15:22.910
- the road into the county road inventory

00:15:23.330 --> 00:15:31.649
- She listed three different items here, basically stating that they are happy to have the developer take

00:15:31.649 --> 00:15:39.728
- over maintenance responsibility. Since the road was not constructed according to the approved plans,

00:15:39.728 --> 00:15:47.726
- they do not feel comfortable with county snow plow trucks going through the areas they believe that

00:15:47.726 --> 00:15:50.046
- they may not necessarily fit

00:15:50.434 --> 00:15:57.344
- perfectly through that roadway, and that might pose a hazard. And then also, since the sidewalks were

00:15:57.344 --> 00:16:04.118
- not built to ADA specifications, they are not going to take responsibility for taking that into the

00:16:04.118 --> 00:16:10.893
- road inventory, as that responsibility would fall on them. And this is also included in the packet,

00:16:10.893 --> 00:16:15.838
- and I'm happy to come back to it, if the Planning Commission would like.

00:16:20.610 --> 00:16:29.000
- This leads us into staff's recommendation. So staff's initial recommendation is to recommend sending

00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:37.474
- a positive recommendation to the county commissioners if Wiccans was accepted into the road inventory

00:16:37.474 --> 00:16:45.781
- by today's date, March 17th, 2026. To our knowledge, this has not occurred. So planning staff would

00:16:45.781 --> 00:16:48.606
- recommend continuing the petition

00:16:49.442 --> 00:16:57.134
- However, it is up to the Planning Commission members to decide how they want to vote, whether to continue

00:16:57.134 --> 00:17:04.899
- the petition, to send a positive recommendation with staff's conditions, or send a negative recommendation

00:17:04.899 --> 00:17:12.228
- with staff's conditions. And I will take any questions. All right, we come back up to the commission

00:17:12.228 --> 00:17:18.686
- now. Anybody on my left? Mr. Right? Yeah, you covered a couple of this, Sean. Thank you.

00:17:18.978 --> 00:17:28.590
- go over a few things. First will be kind of a process question. Whatever the Planning Commission determines,

00:17:28.590 --> 00:17:37.850
- as stated, a positive, negative. There's also a no recommendation out there. This continues to the Board

00:17:37.850 --> 00:17:47.550
- of Commissioners for their final decision, regardless of the position the Planning Commission takes, correct?

00:17:48.290 --> 00:17:55.414
- That is correct. Although I think that the conditions are substantially changed between the, let's say

00:17:55.414 --> 00:18:02.815
- there's a positive recommendation with conditions sent to the board of commissioners. If the commissioners

00:18:02.815 --> 00:18:09.248
- chose to, I think, um, strike some of those positive recommendation conditions or make those

00:18:09.248 --> 00:18:16.510
- less restrictive, it may come back to the plan commission for your final vote or understanding of those.

00:18:16.738 --> 00:18:24.313
- Right and if the plan commission let's say hypothetically says yes to this and the board of commissioner

00:18:24.313 --> 00:18:31.672
- says no they're still within what they committed to and have to kind of resolve that and we might see

00:18:31.672 --> 00:18:38.887
- this in a different iteration moving forward in the future. If the final decision is to say no then

00:18:38.887 --> 00:18:46.174
- the road would remain public and they'd still be required to fix all the deficiencies not just some.

00:18:46.594 --> 00:18:56.265
- and there's a possibility we might see some other requests, but I'll take a step back from that hypothetical.

00:18:56.265 --> 00:19:05.233
- So, plan commission recommendation is to continue it since they weren't able to meet it, get into the

00:19:05.233 --> 00:19:14.200
- inventory, correct? And I know you've covered this already, just- Planning staff recommendation, yes.

00:19:14.200 --> 00:19:16.574
- And Highway is supporting,

00:19:17.666 --> 00:19:29.056
- allowing this to remain private due to kind of some of the deficiencies or it's not consistent with

00:19:29.056 --> 00:19:40.675
- highway standards, so that's correct, right? Correct. Okay. I know it's questions. I have like a five

00:19:40.675 --> 00:19:46.142
- second comment that goes really well with this.

00:19:47.714 --> 00:19:54.937
- Planning and highway are the two bodies that I'm really looking towards to figure out where I should

00:19:54.937 --> 00:20:02.804
- support my position on this. It's kind of split, so I'm really comfortable with continuing it, but ultimately

00:20:02.804 --> 00:20:10.098
- I'm in a position of making no recommendations and moving it forward to the board of commissioners to

00:20:10.098 --> 00:20:16.606
- see what they ultimately do because we're not the final say in this discussion and I think

00:20:16.770 --> 00:20:23.144
- with their role that they're going to do what they decide is the best for the county and the community.

00:20:23.144 --> 00:20:29.273
- So that's kind of where my cards are and that's all I have to say. Thank you for letting me make my

00:20:29.273 --> 00:20:35.524
- comment. Thank you. I just have maybe a procedural question as I'm reading the staff recommendations.

00:20:35.524 --> 00:20:41.714
- So and refresh my memory but recommending that Wickens be accepted in county inventory prior to plan

00:20:41.714 --> 00:20:43.614
- commission making a vote isn't

00:20:43.746 --> 00:20:49.227
- the Planning Commission who accepts it in inventory or is that the Board of Commissioners? So we would

00:20:49.227 --> 00:20:54.708
- expect the Board of Commissioners to accept or decline bringing Wickens in and then come back to this?

00:20:54.708 --> 00:21:00.242
- Is that the way the procedure, you envision the procedure going? That was the original discussion point

00:21:00.242 --> 00:21:05.776
- for this petition, yes. And I may have just restated what Mr. Andrei Randolph asked just in a different

00:21:05.776 --> 00:21:09.182
- way, but thank you for entertaining it. Thank you. On my right.

00:21:12.386 --> 00:21:19.391
- Yes, I don't know if highway County highway is on line because I have a question for them I Think that

00:21:19.391 --> 00:21:26.261
- they're all at the Purdue Road School conference this week So I don't Lisa stayed in her letter that

00:21:26.261 --> 00:21:33.470
- she would not be present I don't see anyone else from highway in attendance because I believe they're all

00:21:33.602 --> 00:21:42.729
- at that conference. Is there any member of staff who would be able to provide me with just with a very

00:21:42.729 --> 00:21:51.590
- rough back of the envelope estimate of what it would cost to repave that road and upkeep it for the

00:21:51.590 --> 00:21:55.134
- length of the street and for, you know,

00:21:59.362 --> 00:22:05.826
- I think that the petitioner's engineer might be able to give us some quick numbers, but we can also

00:22:05.826 --> 00:22:12.548
- try to do that as well. Okay, great. I just would like to, in my mind, understand the cost differential

00:22:12.548 --> 00:22:19.076
- between public and private and all that that entails, because I know that there are a lot of options

00:22:19.076 --> 00:22:25.605
- out there and there are various calculations as far as cost to the private parties as well as to the

00:22:25.605 --> 00:22:28.190
- public parties, including the taxpayer.

00:22:28.706 --> 00:22:36.851
- And just to clarify your question, Margaret, is it to replace, remove and replace the surface coat of

00:22:36.851 --> 00:22:44.995
- Rangeview only or? You know, in my experience here in Monroe County as a homeowner and as someone who

00:22:44.995 --> 00:22:53.379
- is out and about, I hear stories from other members of the public who belong to homeowners associations.

00:22:53.379 --> 00:22:56.254
- And when they encounter a situation

00:22:56.386 --> 00:23:05.448
- where the roadway has to be replaced on a private road. They're set with the tax assessment, which in

00:23:05.448 --> 00:23:14.332
- some cases could result in a homeowner losing their property because the property could be attached

00:23:14.332 --> 00:23:23.572
- until that assessment would be paid. So I just don't know what the costs are for the difference between

00:23:23.572 --> 00:23:25.438
- the roadway being in

00:23:25.986 --> 00:23:35.847
- held privately or publicly? I mean, we've heard this year, for example, demands from different political

00:23:35.847 --> 00:23:45.521
- members of our community for snow removal in other privately held subdivisions where the roadways were

00:23:45.521 --> 00:23:53.598
- not accepted into the public inventory. And these costs to the public should be known

00:23:53.954 --> 00:24:03.622
- for us to be able to make, I think, an informed decision. Thank you. All right, that brings us to the

00:24:03.622 --> 00:24:11.678
- petitioner's rep or the petitioner, and you have 15 minutes. Please start the timer.

00:24:23.170 --> 00:24:29.675
- Daniel Butler, I'm with Bynum Fanion Associates. I'm a professional engineer here in Indiana. I won't

00:24:29.675 --> 00:24:36.372
- go through the presentation or the length that I did last time, but just try to give you a rundown again

00:24:36.372 --> 00:24:42.814
- from our point of view of everything that's transpired to this point to kind of, and then answer any

00:24:42.814 --> 00:24:49.319
- questions. Tom Weininger with ownership is with me here tonight, so if there's any questions for him.

00:24:49.319 --> 00:24:51.998
- Just as a reminder that this was designed

00:24:52.514 --> 00:25:03.456
- from a pavement depth, pavement width. Range view was designed as a public road. So everything was designed

00:25:03.456 --> 00:25:13.790
- that way and built that way with the exception of the deficiencies that you were laid out tonight, if

00:25:13.790 --> 00:25:16.222
- that makes sense. So...

00:25:18.370 --> 00:25:25.870
- We had discussion years ago on when this was being constructed and approved about back and forth on

00:25:25.870 --> 00:25:33.369
- Rangeview being a private versus public street. I think there was pros and cons to both of those. I

00:25:33.369 --> 00:25:41.469
- think at that time we didn't mind going either direction. And so we're asking now at that time the decision

00:25:41.469 --> 00:25:46.494
- was made that Rangeview should be public. So we're asking now that

00:25:46.786 --> 00:25:55.073
- because the owner would like to maintain, have control over that street themselves. Again, it was built

00:25:55.073 --> 00:26:03.441
- with, I think, Margaret, you had some questions about any type of upkeep on that road, but that pavement

00:26:03.441 --> 00:26:11.409
- depth was put in there with the intention that that would be taken over by the county, meaning that

00:26:11.409 --> 00:26:16.350
- I think it's gonna last a long time, so it wasn't put in with

00:26:16.450 --> 00:26:27.217
- lesser degree in that regard, if that helps at all. He wants to take on his own snow plowing, cleaning,

00:26:27.217 --> 00:26:37.777
- those types of things, you know, within the development, cleaning off sidewalks. To date, Bynum Fanio

00:26:37.777 --> 00:26:41.918
- has performed an as-built on Wickens to

00:26:42.018 --> 00:26:49.728
- see if there's any deficiencies on Wiccans, he'd like to address all deficiencies found by the highway

00:26:49.728 --> 00:26:57.438
- department on Wiccans so that that can become a public road and taken into the inventory. And then we,

00:26:57.438 --> 00:27:05.148
- as Biden fancies, no issue with it being with Rangeview becoming private and staying over. We just see

00:27:05.148 --> 00:27:10.238
- it from a standpoint that we don't see many from the actual public,

00:27:10.562 --> 00:27:18.632
- You know, it's not a collector road, it's just more of a local road in that regard, so staying private

00:27:18.632 --> 00:27:27.015
- makes sense to us. Many of the deficiencies that were listed, he is willing to make even within Rangeview,

00:27:27.015 --> 00:27:34.849
- there are some that he has indicated that he is not willing to make at this time, but everything on

00:27:34.849 --> 00:27:37.278
- Wickens he is willing to make.

00:27:39.650 --> 00:27:46.160
- I'll leave the rest for questions if there's anything that you want to ask. And we've progressed and

00:27:46.160 --> 00:27:52.669
- had a meeting with planning since then about deficiencies found and any of those types of questions,

00:27:52.669 --> 00:27:57.374
- I'm happy to answer. All right, questions from the commission, go ahead.

00:27:58.946 --> 00:28:05.824
- Hey Dan, thank you for coming up and speaking again. Just so I hear you honestly, you mentioned that

00:28:05.824 --> 00:28:12.769
- Rangeview was built to spec for public takeover into the county inventory. Can you help me understand

00:28:12.769 --> 00:28:19.919
- kind of how we got where we are, where it was intended to be taken to the county inventory and somewhere

00:28:19.919 --> 00:28:24.958
- it kind of went off the rails and became less as it was spec'd out to be?

00:28:25.090 --> 00:28:32.722
- Where did that happen? Can you kind of explain why it went that way? I don't know every bit in detail

00:28:32.722 --> 00:28:40.430
- on, but some of the deficiencies found are, you know, cracks and sidewalks, those types of things. And

00:28:40.430 --> 00:28:48.062
- so those are just something that was found. So not necessarily contributed to not wanting to build it

00:28:48.062 --> 00:28:52.926
- per standards, but just simple, you know, cracks. And there are,

00:28:53.282 --> 00:29:00.973
- codes that talk about, you know, cracks being less than a quarter inch, then, you know, that's really

00:29:00.973 --> 00:29:08.589
- acceptable. And when they get larger than that, those really need to be fixed. And so I think mainly

00:29:08.589 --> 00:29:16.507
- there was a desire from the owner to just want to maintain this in control and plow in at his own timing

00:29:16.507 --> 00:29:20.126
- and maintain the road to my understanding, sir.

00:29:21.090 --> 00:29:27.358
- I mean, there's more than just the cracks. I mean, there's a variety of things on here that the petitioner

00:29:27.358 --> 00:29:33.801
- is not willing to accommodate. So where did those things no longer become a focal point? And that calculation

00:29:33.801 --> 00:29:39.659
- became no longer for this to be a public road, but to be a private road, because that seems to have

00:29:39.659 --> 00:29:45.517
- been some sort of a change that was done unbeknownst to most of us up here. And so I'm just kind of

00:29:45.517 --> 00:29:48.446
- curious at what point since 2018 did that change?

00:29:50.434 --> 00:29:57.554
- I'm not sure to the extent, and it may not be for me to answer, I'm not sure to the extent that any

00:29:57.554 --> 00:30:04.745
- deficiencies found were a result of him wanting to maintain that road himself. I don't know if those

00:30:04.745 --> 00:30:10.654
- two are related. Could you speak at all as to why they would have transpired then?

00:30:11.362 --> 00:30:17.795
- Some of the deficiencies. Yeah, I mean, because they seem to be concerted efforts to not meet

00:30:17.795 --> 00:30:25.049
- the requirements. So I'm just kind of curious, you know, if it's a conscious effort, that says something.

00:30:25.049 --> 00:30:31.277
- Yeah, as the owner's representative, I was not there and understand some of why maybe some

00:30:31.277 --> 00:30:38.531
- of the deficiencies took place or how those came about or decisions made. They some of the as was stated,

00:30:38.531 --> 00:30:40.926
- some of those were not necessarily

00:30:41.090 --> 00:30:48.781
- per plan and those were made adjustments later. But if we need to, he's here and he asked. Were you

00:30:48.781 --> 00:30:56.473
- a party to any of those discussions? No, sir. And is part of the engineering team for this, I mean,

00:30:56.473 --> 00:31:04.318
- are those things that would have been instrumental as part of what you're doing with Tom? Some of the

00:31:04.318 --> 00:31:08.702
- deficiencies found certainly could have been a result of

00:31:08.834 --> 00:31:18.107
- reasoning that's unbeknown to me. The plans originally made it so that some of those could not have

00:31:18.107 --> 00:31:27.565
- happened, sure, but some of those can still be obtained or if it's not a public road, they're not the

00:31:27.565 --> 00:31:30.718
- same level of deficiency perhaps.

00:31:31.202 --> 00:31:38.677
- And is the engineer on this project, if you had known these deficiencies were going to come to be, would

00:31:38.677 --> 00:31:45.797
- you have been okay with going along with the engineering for this? You're saying if the deficiency,

00:31:45.797 --> 00:31:53.130
- if I would have known the deficiencies, I think some of them were simply construction type things that

00:31:53.130 --> 00:31:58.398
- if they would have been asked at me at the time, you know, we could have,

00:31:59.138 --> 00:32:06.312
- tried to figure out a solution or a different way, sure, but that's, you know, the efficiencies are

00:32:06.312 --> 00:32:13.987
- what they are at this point. And I think that some of them could have, you know, potentially been avoided,

00:32:13.987 --> 00:32:21.950
- but at the same time, I think that we understand from a construction standpoint that why some of them occurred

00:32:22.242 --> 00:32:29.389
- And on projects like this, is it routine for the builder to, to discuss with you or bring you in when

00:32:29.389 --> 00:32:36.605
- changes like this are made, or is it pretty much a unilateral thing and then you're just along for the

00:32:36.605 --> 00:32:43.752
- ride? Um, that varies from project to project on how something that might, might occur, but, um, give

00:32:43.752 --> 00:32:49.918
- me a rough percentage. Yeah. 50%. Okay. Cool. Thanks. We had a commissioner Thomas. Um,

00:32:50.434 --> 00:33:00.457
- Okay so one of the issues that's in our packet relates to Wiccans Drive and it has not yet been accepted

00:33:00.457 --> 00:33:10.003
- in the county road inventory as you noted right but the plan is to do that. Can you tell me when? I

00:33:10.003 --> 00:33:13.726
- believe that the steps are being taken

00:33:14.082 --> 00:33:20.560
- towards that now. So the first thing that was requested was an as built from our firm that gives an

00:33:20.560 --> 00:33:27.685
- exact measurement of everything that's actually built as compared to what the plan was. And then deficiencies

00:33:27.685 --> 00:33:34.163
- are found off of something that is more official rather than somebody just doing a site inspection.

00:33:34.163 --> 00:33:37.726
- And at this point, there's been no indication from our

00:33:38.050 --> 00:33:43.861
- from the owner that he's unwilling to make any of the deficiencies that are found on Wickens. And so

00:33:43.861 --> 00:33:49.787
- sometimes those construction processes can take a little bit of time, but it sounds like some of those

00:33:49.787 --> 00:33:55.714
- need to be fixed first before that might taken into inventory. For someone who's not in that business,

00:33:55.714 --> 00:34:01.525
- a little bit of time, are you talking a three month window, a six month window, a nine month window?

00:34:01.525 --> 00:34:04.862
- I mean, I'm not gonna hold you to a date, but a ballpark,

00:34:05.058 --> 00:34:12.811
- would be helpful for me here as I'm trying to make a decision. Right, as you're well aware that different

00:34:12.811 --> 00:34:20.345
- contractors have different times, I don't know if I feel comfortable unless there's, he wants to speak

00:34:20.345 --> 00:34:27.733
- directly to that on what he thinks the timelines might be. I don't wanna say something that, my best

00:34:27.733 --> 00:34:30.366
- guess is three to six months. Okay.

00:34:31.298 --> 00:34:38.418
- understand that there are a lot of schedules at play and that it's not entirely just, Hey, we want it

00:34:38.418 --> 00:34:45.607
- to happen. It'll happen. I get that. I, I just didn't know if we were two years out or five years out,

00:34:45.607 --> 00:34:48.190
- but it sounds like, okay. Thank you.

00:34:58.466 --> 00:35:07.069
- I'm gonna ask planning and then I'm pretty much gonna ask you the same question. So the recommendation

00:35:07.069 --> 00:35:15.671
- to continue this is in hopes that they can address wickets and bring that into the inventory so we can

00:35:15.671 --> 00:35:24.190
- kind of separate these two roads in a kind of in a different way of saying it. Is that correct? Yeah.

00:35:24.354 --> 00:35:34.133
- Also, it was in Lisa Ridge's letter that the Highway Department wants to see wickets accepted into the

00:35:34.133 --> 00:35:43.816
- inventory. Okay. Well, perfect. Like I said, those are two experts that are departments I really want

00:35:43.816 --> 00:35:53.310
- to hear from to help me weigh my decision. The question is pretty similar. What are you looking at?

00:35:53.922 --> 00:36:01.255
- Would you prefer this to be continued or would you like this to be moved forward to the board

00:36:01.255 --> 00:36:09.212
- of commissioners? And if you can't speak on their behalf, maybe you could ask real quick. I'm kind of

00:36:09.212 --> 00:36:17.481
- trying to understand what your position is, if this would be best to move in a continuation or? It seemed

00:36:17.481 --> 00:36:22.942
- to indicate from him that he's flexible, he's fine with what planning

00:36:23.330 --> 00:36:31.476
- would have. I think getting an answer on whether how everyone views Rangeview being private versus public

00:36:31.476 --> 00:36:39.238
- would be great, but it sounds like he's flexible. I foresee a lot of back and forth if Wickens isn't

00:36:39.238 --> 00:36:46.846
- to that standard to be accepted. So like I feel like we can kind of get this cart in order and I'm

00:36:47.010 --> 00:36:54.100
- at this point, and my position is to support the staff's recommendation and continue this forward as

00:36:54.100 --> 00:37:01.259
- you tried to work out the Wiccans thing. So maybe it's only a little less of a question when it makes

00:37:01.259 --> 00:37:08.349
- it to the board of commissioners to determine what they're gonna do about the other roadway. Yeah, I

00:37:08.349 --> 00:37:10.174
- think we would align with

00:37:10.978 --> 00:37:18.339
- I don't think there's any conditions in the positive recommendation that staff is giving that would

00:37:18.339 --> 00:37:25.774
- be, we would be against or anything. We've been trying our best to work with them as we've met to go

00:37:25.774 --> 00:37:33.209
- efficiencies found, find if with an as built, if that's true and what standards that they may or may

00:37:33.209 --> 00:37:40.350
- not meet public versus private. Awesome. And then one more question to planning since, you know,

00:37:40.450 --> 00:37:48.193
- it's hard to determine maybe when this wiccans can be built to highway standards and potentially be

00:37:48.193 --> 00:37:55.937
- accepted into the right of way. Is there any timeline that we need to be aware of that we're making

00:37:55.937 --> 00:38:03.990
- this decision prior to, or should we continue this to a certain meeting or give you discretion to bring

00:38:03.990 --> 00:38:08.094
- it back when maybe that portion of this is resolved?

00:38:09.730 --> 00:38:15.633
- I believe we'll have to state what meeting this gets continued to and what the date of that meeting

00:38:15.633 --> 00:38:21.596
- will be on record. If the petitioner's representative is saying three to six months, we could put it

00:38:21.596 --> 00:38:27.853
- on the agenda for three months from now. I do think that the two projects that are going to take a little

00:38:27.853 --> 00:38:32.222
- bit longer are the relocation of the mailboxes because we'll have to work

00:38:32.354 --> 00:38:40.332
- They'll have to work with the US Postal Service, and that can take a little bit of time. And the additional

00:38:40.332 --> 00:38:47.794
- construction of, I think it was 151 feet of sidewalk on the west side of South Wickens, that's going

00:38:47.794 --> 00:38:55.329
- to also require the developer to work with a private owner to get a driveway permit. And I don't know

00:38:55.329 --> 00:39:00.574
- how responsive that private developer will be. And they don't want to,

00:39:01.218 --> 00:39:07.394
- Tom doesn't want to put in the sidewalk to block their access. If they don't have a driveway permit,

00:39:07.394 --> 00:39:13.753
- it could get damaged. So it's going to be pretty quick turnaround. Once he gets the sidewalk in on that

00:39:13.753 --> 00:39:19.990
- side, he's going to quickly ask for that to be accepted. So I think three months check in is probably

00:39:19.990 --> 00:39:26.228
- as soon as it could be depending these changes. I don't know that we've seen any correspondence as of

00:39:26.228 --> 00:39:28.062
- late as to making progress on

00:39:28.162 --> 00:39:36.296
- those two specific items. So it will take some time. All right. And is there a particular date we need

00:39:36.296 --> 00:39:44.194
- to be aware of? So we don't go past that. I don't have a particular day. Um, okay. So, so, but even

00:39:44.194 --> 00:39:52.328
- if we moved it four, five months, that still kind of falls within what you're looking at. Right. Okay.

00:39:52.328 --> 00:39:56.830
- Thank you. Okay. Mr. Bush, I think my question has been.

00:39:59.330 --> 00:40:09.551
- Councilman Henry, you got anything? I have a follow-up question for staff, if I might, since you're

00:40:09.551 --> 00:40:20.589
- up here. I wonder if it's possible, since these really are two separate issues, if those could be addressed

00:40:20.589 --> 00:40:28.766
- separately. So for example, setting out a timeline for Wiccans that allows that

00:40:29.986 --> 00:40:42.360
- six or eight months or something to go by before instituting a letter of credit, a bond for the rest

00:40:42.360 --> 00:40:55.101
- of that Wickens project. And then separately, if this plan commission decides to address the range view

00:40:55.101 --> 00:40:58.654
- circle issue, we're urgently

00:40:59.010 --> 00:41:07.426
- if that's the decision here with a separate bond, inflation based bond for the range view circle. You

00:41:07.426 --> 00:41:15.843
- all see what I'm saying? Yes. I'm wondering if we could separate these two things out. And I think we

00:41:15.843 --> 00:41:24.590
- could, but I'm just throwing that out there. And if you have any concerns. So the specific request before

00:41:24.590 --> 00:41:27.230
- you that line plan amendment is

00:41:27.394 --> 00:41:35.860
- only for making Rangeview private by default, Wiccans would remain publicly classified. So we could,

00:41:35.860 --> 00:41:44.327
- the Planning Commission could come up with some sort of condition that states Wiccans has a timeline

00:41:44.327 --> 00:41:52.709
- for acceptance or possibly implementing some sort of letter of credit to that effect. I don't know.

00:41:52.709 --> 00:41:56.062
- I'm not sure, I'll have to talk to Lee.

00:42:02.466 --> 00:42:12.053
- could go either way and have them do the letter of credit and finish that up or set a timeline for that.

00:42:12.053 --> 00:42:21.276
- Could we set a timeline and if they don't meet that timeline then ask for the letter of credit? Yes.

00:42:21.276 --> 00:42:29.950
- Perfect. Thank you. Anybody else? Just to continue that, would that mean there's a chance that

00:42:30.434 --> 00:42:37.154
- planning could come back next month with it separated or were you thinking that we could take action

00:42:37.154 --> 00:42:44.206
- today, maybe move this to the end of the agenda, give them some time to provide a way forward to separate

00:42:44.206 --> 00:42:50.859
- the question? Because I'm in support of that. I'm just kind of trying to see if that's something we

00:42:50.859 --> 00:42:57.246
- should try to hash out today or just let them come back next month and address them separately.

00:43:02.306 --> 00:43:10.911
- question or is that a comment a discussion but it could be a question to planning to as far as what

00:43:10.911 --> 00:43:20.118
- they would prefer just clarify just a second under Clements repeat what I thought I heard planning already

00:43:20.118 --> 00:43:28.895
- say and that is that they recommended not separating them out but making whatever our motion is on on

00:43:28.895 --> 00:43:31.390
- range view to be conditioned

00:43:31.618 --> 00:43:40.833
- with the timeline as well as a letter of credit, if I heard correctly. So our initial thought is to

00:43:40.833 --> 00:43:50.232
- possibly continue this one month to see if we can get timelines and progress on WICMs being accepted.

00:43:50.232 --> 00:43:58.526
- The easiest thing for us would be to come with this petition with WICMs already accepted.

00:43:58.722 --> 00:44:05.256
- And then you could knock out that part of the conversation completely and know that it's been inspected.

00:44:05.256 --> 00:44:11.666
- It's been approved and it's in the inventory. So if there's not a rush on the petitioner's part to get

00:44:11.666 --> 00:44:17.889
- range, you reclassify as private and we don't have a timeline for which we have to make a decision.

00:44:17.889 --> 00:44:23.614
- It could be that this is the carrot to get this petition through. It's on everyone's radar.

00:44:23.810 --> 00:44:31.526
- And in the meantime, we make progress on the range view, voluntary improvements and wickets so that

00:44:31.526 --> 00:44:39.397
- you can make the informed decision. And I do have a number for you, Margaret, for your first question

00:44:39.397 --> 00:44:47.267
- on, I went back to the estimate that we had in place for range view and adding up just the quantities

00:44:47.267 --> 00:44:53.054
- and then using the 2025 end up pricing. This is strictly for surface coat.

00:44:53.282 --> 00:45:03.390
- The amount total for a range view alone would be $57,854.10. That's using the highway department's original

00:45:03.390 --> 00:45:12.749
- estimate and updating the unit pricing. How often would that quote need to be applied? You know, do

00:45:12.749 --> 00:45:20.798
- you have an idea? I do not know how long surface coat would last. The last few years.

00:45:24.354 --> 00:45:34.010
- question? I had a bit of a follow-up if I might. Go ahead. So the concern here is that we don't have,

00:45:34.010 --> 00:45:43.572
- when you have in your notes the negative recommendation, it says we do not have an accurate estimate

00:45:43.572 --> 00:45:54.270
- since we do not have a new engineered plan. So how do we get that done in a month? I don't think we're going to.

00:45:54.434 --> 00:46:01.995
- That's my concern is that this could just, you know, we could just be postponing the inevitable here.

00:46:01.995 --> 00:46:09.408
- Um, because they didn't, it didn't sound like there were plans to make range view public, right? So

00:46:09.408 --> 00:46:15.486
- that was clear. That's clear now. And that was clear. I mean, am I wrong on that?

00:46:16.674 --> 00:46:25.693
- No, I think we're okay. Now we prefer the to be private. Right. So it seems to me we're postponing the

00:46:25.693 --> 00:46:34.974
- inevitable here. But we don't have an estimate, but I don't think we need that to make a decision. Right.

00:46:35.202 --> 00:46:41.630
- the negative recommendation just to clarify we cannot do those aren't necessarily conditions we just

00:46:41.630 --> 00:46:48.186
- have to figure those out as staff but the the reality is a negative vote to continue to make range you

00:46:48.186 --> 00:46:55.059
- public instead of private is that we need to hold them to a letter of credit amount to fix the deficiencies

00:46:55.059 --> 00:47:01.870
- and i don't know that we got to the bottom of that because we did look through the manual for construction

00:47:01.870 --> 00:47:04.670
- in the right of way and there is some issue

00:47:04.770 --> 00:47:11.968
- for some of those driveways. And so it's going to be very difficult to come up with new plans, as you

00:47:11.968 --> 00:47:19.166
- saw with, for instance, another subdivision in the county where you already have a steep driveway and

00:47:19.166 --> 00:47:26.222
- you need to possibly make it steeper to fix the sidewalk. So I don't know to what extent that would

00:47:26.222 --> 00:47:32.926
- cost or if there's another engineering idea that would be factored into that letter of credit.

00:47:35.330 --> 00:47:42.677
- So a negative recommendation, put staff in a position to ask for a letter of credit, but we don't have

00:47:42.677 --> 00:47:50.310
- the engineered plans to remediate it. So then we don't have an amount yet to ask. But that's not necessary

00:47:50.310 --> 00:47:57.586
- to make a motion to that effect. It's just something that has to be done. It's a reality. Yeah. Okay.

00:47:57.586 --> 00:48:01.438
- Got it. Thank you. All right. I think it's important.

00:48:03.682 --> 00:48:10.211
- that Wickens and Rangeview be separated. I think they should have their own period of performance. I

00:48:10.211 --> 00:48:16.675
- think they should have their own letter of credit. I mean, it's important to Highway, after reading

00:48:16.675 --> 00:48:23.268
- this letter several times, that we bring that road, Wickens, into the inventory. So I think we should

00:48:23.268 --> 00:48:29.732
- do whatever we can do to get it into the inventory. That's one issue. Solve it. Put it to the side.

00:48:29.732 --> 00:48:32.318
- With respect to Rangeview, I still have

00:48:32.450 --> 00:48:43.611
- serious concern over the deficiencies. And if you'll go ahead and put page 10 back up there. I mean,

00:48:43.611 --> 00:48:54.773
- there are, if I counted these correctly, there's 15 deficiencies on this page. And nine of them have

00:48:54.773 --> 00:49:02.398
- not willing, six have willing. That's a serious noncompliance issue.

00:49:07.010 --> 00:49:13.803
- And they need to be addressed. And the last meeting, I brought up the words of systemic noncompliance.

00:49:13.803 --> 00:49:20.003
- And what I was hopeful for is that, and we had asked for, is to take and put in one place all

00:49:20.003 --> 00:49:26.730
- the deficiencies from the inspection reports and what are the comments going over the last few years,

00:49:26.730 --> 00:49:33.524
- put them in one place, let's go ahead and itemize them and then go down that list and figure out where

00:49:33.524 --> 00:49:36.030
- we are on each and every one of them.

00:49:37.666 --> 00:49:45.711
- Did that meeting take place between the last meeting and today on this, and this is the result of that

00:49:45.711 --> 00:49:53.677
- meeting? That is correct. Okay, and of the nine that say not willing, has there been, within the last

00:49:53.677 --> 00:50:01.487
- week or so, any movement whatsoever on whether or not you wanna come into compliance? And the one's

00:50:01.487 --> 00:50:03.518
- highlighted in red there.

00:50:06.338 --> 00:50:15.144
- Unless the owner wants to speak to these, I think what they have listed is correct. I'm seeing a nodding

00:50:15.144 --> 00:50:23.950
- nodding of your head back there. So I mean, even when you made reference to the positive recommendations

00:50:23.950 --> 00:50:29.150
- saying you were you could live with what those comments were.

00:50:32.354 --> 00:50:39.007
- Item three was amend the parking striping from perpendicular to parallel to match the approved plans

00:50:39.007 --> 00:50:45.792
- with West Ranchview circle. And of course that's in red here is that's conflict that comment. So which

00:50:45.792 --> 00:50:52.511
- is true? I think he originally was asking that he did not want to comply with that, but that would be

00:50:52.511 --> 00:50:59.230
- if there's a positive recommendation given and we move this forward, I think that's something that he

00:50:59.230 --> 00:51:00.350
- would live with.

00:51:02.274 --> 00:51:11.780
- I see them nodding yes in the back. Okay. The other thing I want to bring up and it's really in the

00:51:11.780 --> 00:51:21.665
- highway department's letter and it's very bold. It deals with the ADA noncompliance and I keep bringing

00:51:21.665 --> 00:51:31.646
- this up in many forms. That's the safety aspect of it. There's a real concern about people getting hurt.

00:51:32.834 --> 00:51:39.567
- Particularly when cars are parked a certain way and the roads are, I've driven out there a couple times

00:51:39.567 --> 00:51:46.106
- now. It's a really, really highly impacted area with vehicles. And I don't know how many kids are in

00:51:46.106 --> 00:51:52.709
- the neighborhood, but running between those cars, that's very, very dangerous. So there is a serious,

00:51:52.709 --> 00:51:59.248
- in my mind, safety issue. Another thing that Ms. Ridge brings up is a liability issue because of the

00:51:59.248 --> 00:52:00.478
- ADA noncompliance.

00:52:01.442 --> 00:52:11.333
- and the fact that the county does not want to assume that liability. I assume that would pass on to

00:52:11.333 --> 00:52:21.322
- the commissioner if in fact it becomes private, correct? That's correct. And those were my comments,

00:52:21.322 --> 00:52:28.542
- that's all. I was looking, honestly I was looking for, I was looking for

00:52:29.346 --> 00:52:39.351
- Changes to the items listed in red on that one deficiency sheet. Okay, anybody else before we proceed

00:52:39.351 --> 00:52:49.650
- with public comment? Okay, now we move into the public public comment portion for those in favor Anybody

00:52:49.650 --> 00:52:59.262
- online or in the room? Okay, anybody who's opposed online or in a room So now we come back to the

00:53:00.002 --> 00:53:06.380
- to the plan. On the left. Ready to make a motion, but I'll wait for comments. Councilman Henry.

00:53:06.380 --> 00:53:13.091
- Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, staff. I think it's important to focus on the positive that

00:53:13.091 --> 00:53:19.735
- I think not so much focusing on what's not being agreed to move forward with in terms of range use.

00:53:19.735 --> 00:53:26.445
- To say that it sounds like there was a good conversation between staff and developer on meeting some

00:53:26.445 --> 00:53:27.774
- standards. That's a

00:53:27.874 --> 00:53:34.321
- positive we should point out in this room today. There's also the fact that we have highway, of their

00:53:34.321 --> 00:53:40.705
- bulleted points, saying ultimately keeping the road or range view private is important as well based

00:53:40.705 --> 00:53:46.078
- on the conflict between what was developed and what's in the CDO. So I think there's

00:53:46.530 --> 00:53:52.165
- There's value in recognizing the work that was done to get to today and the recommendations were put

00:53:52.165 --> 00:53:57.799
- forth by staff. I appreciate the separation of the question because there are two conversations here

00:53:57.799 --> 00:54:03.601
- about the ingress with Wiccans and getting that close to finished and then where we are with Rangeview.

00:54:03.601 --> 00:54:08.734
- And I think for me, keeping centered on the question of the petition is more important than

00:54:08.898 --> 00:54:15.449
- Developing we are risking straw man discussions about safety and a compliance in the neighborhood. There

00:54:15.449 --> 00:54:22.000
- are plenty of neighborhoods in Monroe County where that slope is grandfathered in or previous iterations

00:54:22.000 --> 00:54:26.430
- of development ordinance that can be pointed to it so some of this is.

00:54:27.074 --> 00:54:32.719
- you know, intriguing when we get into children in the neighborhood or how many children in the neighborhood

00:54:32.719 --> 00:54:38.259
- or what safety concerns are. It sounds like keeping the road private puts that liability with a potential

00:54:38.259 --> 00:54:43.538
- successor or HOA that would take on that burden to maintain ingress and egress there. So I would say

00:54:43.538 --> 00:54:48.764
- that, you know, I think we have some positive motion here for continuance. I would agree with that,

00:54:48.764 --> 00:54:54.200
- you know, recommendation today to move forward with it. You know, the good news is we got some progress

00:54:54.200 --> 00:54:57.022
- between our experts at highway and planning and with,

00:54:57.186 --> 00:55:07.046
- the developer here to move forward. So I appreciate that good effort as we move forward here. I would

00:55:07.046 --> 00:55:17.099
- like to say something. Yes. For me, having this road in a private inventory has always been problematic

00:55:17.099 --> 00:55:24.542
- and we have an agreement that it would be entered into the public inventory.

00:55:24.738 --> 00:55:34.477
- And that was important to me when this PUD was approved and it remains important to me at this time.

00:55:34.477 --> 00:55:44.409
- I just want to say that, that it should be built to standard and it should be built to compliance. And

00:55:44.409 --> 00:55:52.798
- I just would like to affirm that. Mr. Bush? Yes. Appreciate your comments, Mr. Butler.

00:55:57.890 --> 00:56:06.872
- I am not opposed to continuing this. I still have a real problem with some construction results that

00:56:06.872 --> 00:56:15.854
- happened on Rangeview Circle. I know already and so I'm looking at the record as to how some of this

00:56:15.854 --> 00:56:24.925
- happened. I know that in some other developments I've heard there's been issues because they hit rock

00:56:24.925 --> 00:56:26.526
- and they couldn't

00:56:26.658 --> 00:56:36.926
- couldn't go as deep as they wanted. And on this one, it seems like I believe it's in the Mr. Smith's

00:56:36.926 --> 00:56:47.602
- comments that the as-built townhomes on the north side of the development were built too high, resulting

00:56:47.602 --> 00:56:52.990
- in sidewalk cross slopes that exceed the 2% maximum.

00:56:55.362 --> 00:57:03.707
- I'm suspicious as to whether that was, what the cause of that was. If it was that the subsurface

00:57:03.707 --> 00:57:12.568
- investigations weren't performed such that they realized that the, in the original design, that it was

00:57:12.568 --> 00:57:21.343
- realized that the bedrock was shallower than anticipated, that something's preventable. And something

00:57:21.343 --> 00:57:25.214
- that in with proper due diligence and proper

00:57:25.570 --> 00:57:34.885
- design on the front end would prevent those as-built from being built the way they were. Therefore,

00:57:34.885 --> 00:57:44.573
- I'm okay with continuing this, but I am going to be very wary of approving plan unit developments going

00:57:44.573 --> 00:57:55.006
- forward where there's not enough work done on the front end to assure me that the finished design will at least

00:57:55.202 --> 00:58:07.000
- closely mimic what is being proposed on the front. Thank you. Any other comments from the commission?

00:58:07.000 --> 00:58:18.682
- Motion? I would like to make a motion. With, I guess, one question of planning. I was thinking about

00:58:18.682 --> 00:58:24.350
- continuing this to the May meeting to give you a

00:58:24.642 --> 00:58:33.329
- couple of months. Do you see any urgency or are you planning to have a quite large workload where it'd

00:58:33.329 --> 00:58:41.342
- be nice to have kind of a two-month period because my motion is going to ask for a few things.

00:58:43.330 --> 00:58:50.314
- Depending on what you're looking for at that next meeting, the petitioner's representative is saying

00:58:50.314 --> 00:58:57.644
- three to six months for Wiccans improvements. So I don't know if in one month we would have a substantial

00:58:57.644 --> 00:59:04.766
- update. Let me make my motion and then I'll see what your thoughts are on what day we continue to. I'd

00:59:04.766 --> 00:59:08.638
- like to make a motion to continue case number PUD-23-5.

00:59:10.594 --> 00:59:24.195
- planning, looking at if they could possibly separate the two roads into two separate petitions, Winwick

00:59:24.195 --> 00:59:38.974
- and Rangeview Road, with the hopes that we can get Winwick Road into the county inventory prior to this meeting.

00:59:39.330 --> 00:59:48.696
- present that to us. And that's where I'm kind of going to ask that like the May admin meeting. So then

00:59:48.696 --> 00:59:58.244
- we can kind of discuss it at the May regular meeting. Would that be easier as far as a timeline? Because

00:59:58.244 --> 01:00:07.338
- it might take a little while for you to look at if you can separate these two different requests. I

01:00:07.338 --> 01:00:08.702
- think that the

01:00:08.898 --> 01:00:19.751
- motion is to continue the petition to give staff time to separate out range you and wiccans if possible

01:00:19.751 --> 01:00:30.395
- if possible and to maybe assign a little bit more detailed information like letter of credit costs or

01:00:30.395 --> 01:00:36.030
- something like that yes well yeah we could just if it

01:00:44.418 --> 01:00:51.849
- Yes. So the petitioner's request is to make range view private. They're not changing the classification

01:00:51.849 --> 01:00:59.494
- of wiccans to public, but we could come back for more information separating that out in the staff report.

01:00:59.494 --> 01:01:06.854
- And it won't be something you can vote on separately. Like there won't be a P U O 23 five a range view

01:01:06.854 --> 01:01:11.998
- P U O 23 five B wiccans because wiccans was never petitioned to change.

01:01:13.634 --> 01:01:22.575
- Okay, so maybe I kind of was following the conversation a little inaccurate. I thought that

01:01:22.575 --> 01:01:32.586
- was a possibility. If you're thinking now that it's not. So I would just ask to continue this petition

01:01:32.586 --> 01:01:42.110
- P U O dash 23 dash five. And I'm going to ask for it to be moved forward three months at the June

01:01:42.946 --> 01:01:51.545
- 16th and commission meeting in hopes that they're able to get to a point where when work could be accepted

01:01:51.545 --> 01:01:59.661
- into the inventory or we're pretty confident that that's going to occur. So basically spacing out to

01:01:59.661 --> 01:02:03.358
- that three months from now. That's my motion.

01:02:08.482 --> 01:02:16.526
- It's been moved and seconded to continue PUO-23-5 Highlands PUO outline plan amendment to parcel E to

01:02:16.526 --> 01:02:24.806
- June 16th. Point of order. Can I offer a friendly amendment now or we have to wait until after? Go ahead

01:02:24.806 --> 01:02:32.850
- and offer it. I thought we talked about having a period of performance for completion and a letter of

01:02:32.850 --> 01:02:36.478
- credit as well. Was that part of your motion?

01:02:39.426 --> 01:02:45.989
- Yeah, I'm okay with I think we need to do we have to stipulate that I thought that I think you do have

01:02:45.989 --> 01:02:52.615
- to stipulate that he's postponing our decision until June. So that includes that we do or we don't need

01:02:52.615 --> 01:02:59.050
- to add that. I wouldn't bother because what he's doing is continuing the petition. Correct me if I'm

01:02:59.050 --> 01:03:05.549
- wrong. You're continuing the petition. You're motioning to continue the petition till June. So we are

01:03:05.549 --> 01:03:08.798
- making a decision on anything. Yeah, pretty right.

01:03:10.626 --> 01:03:18.979
- I withdraw the federal amendment comment. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to continue PEO-23-5 to

01:03:18.979 --> 01:03:27.664
- June 16th, 2026. And the comment there is in hopes that the petitioner makes progress on getting wickets

01:03:27.664 --> 01:03:36.183
- and wickets accepted into the road inventory and voluntary improvements to range you completed. A vote

01:03:36.183 --> 01:03:40.318
- yes is about to continue this to June 16th, 2026.

01:03:41.026 --> 01:04:03.057
- Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? No. David Bush? Yes. Margaret Clements? No. Trenton Wright-Randolph?

01:04:03.057 --> 01:04:10.910
- Yes. Scott Farris? No. David Henry?

01:04:13.282 --> 01:04:25.866
- That motion does fail four to three. Sorry, did I call Julie Thomas? Yes, I did. Thank you. Oh, again,

01:04:25.866 --> 01:04:38.573
- point of order. What's the next step now that failed? Someone could do another motion. And if that also

01:04:38.573 --> 01:04:40.894
- fails, eventually,

01:04:41.442 --> 01:04:49.035
- We will get to the point where we just have to put this on the next agenda, which is in May. Sorry,

01:04:49.035 --> 01:04:56.627
- in April. May I ask a question for clarification? It seems like Wiccans really shouldn't be part of

01:04:56.627 --> 01:05:04.600
- this at all. And it's a separate issue, right? So that might help somebody make a motion. I'm just gonna

01:05:04.600 --> 01:05:06.270
- throw that out there.

01:05:07.042 --> 01:05:13.029
- I will say that it's been several years since these have been completed and the petitioner has been

01:05:13.029 --> 01:05:19.316
- made aware of the inspection report to get wickets in the inventory. And this these recent conversations

01:05:19.316 --> 01:05:25.423
- have been the most productive and getting them to move in that direction. But yes, they are separate.

01:05:25.423 --> 01:05:29.854
- It could become an enforcement action or something else. Okay. Thank you.

01:05:42.306 --> 01:05:59.123
- Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Mr. President. Point of information, Mr.

01:05:59.123 --> 01:06:09.886
- President. They're conferring. We were just discussing that the

01:06:10.818 --> 01:06:18.475
- The prior outline plan amendment and the underlying outline plan which was approved by the city so the

01:06:18.475 --> 01:06:26.057
- 2018 outline plan amendment to change those setbacks part of the Requirements for those approvals the

01:06:26.057 --> 01:06:34.012
- outline plan the development plan was to Post a letter of credit was to make sure wiccans is still public.

01:06:34.012 --> 01:06:35.870
- So none of that is being

01:06:36.098 --> 01:06:44.410
- eliminated here in this amendment. It's strictly just reviewing whether range you can be private. So

01:06:44.410 --> 01:06:52.723
- we do have the ability to still enforce or require all of those other improvements that are building

01:06:52.723 --> 01:07:01.776
- us up to this point. Absolutely. I certainly recognize that. Absolutely. But I just think for this particular

01:07:01.776 --> 01:07:03.998
- petition, maybe just if we

01:07:04.610 --> 01:07:12.460
- drop consideration of Wiccans, it doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done, but if we take that out of

01:07:12.460 --> 01:07:20.617
- the mix, then maybe somebody can make a motion that will pass. Councilman Henry, did you have a question?

01:07:20.617 --> 01:07:28.929
- It's related to this, so two parts. One is why was staff's recommendation conditional with Wiccans attached

01:07:28.929 --> 01:07:33.854
- to this? What was the origin of that request? So we wanna make,

01:07:34.146 --> 01:07:40.436
- So typically when we have a subdivider developer in front of us, we have a letter of credit on file

01:07:40.436 --> 01:07:47.039
- and a performance period and an inflation adjustment. We do not have that with this development anymore.

01:07:47.039 --> 01:07:53.895
- So we will need to reinstate that. One of the things that we've found is that with the inflation adjustment,

01:07:53.895 --> 01:07:59.870
- developers are coming to us and trying to get their developments finished in a timely fashion.

01:07:59.870 --> 01:08:03.518
- Whereas prior, where they could renew at the same amount,

01:08:03.746 --> 01:08:11.500
- they were not moving very quickly. So we have not seen a very quick move to make Wickens public. There

01:08:11.500 --> 01:08:19.179
- is a cost associated with making Wickens public, and we haven't seen that progress being made at all.

01:08:19.179 --> 01:08:26.708
- So, because that does track with Commissioner Thomas's question about dividing the question, right?

01:08:26.708 --> 01:08:33.182
- The planning staff are somewhere, we made a condition, Wickens being conditional for,

01:08:33.410 --> 01:08:41.148
- Rangeview Circle, right? But what prevents us from dividing the question and taking these as two different

01:08:41.148 --> 01:08:48.379
- cases? They have not requested any change to Wiccans from being public. So regardless, we can start

01:08:48.379 --> 01:08:56.117
- enforcement or do another pathway to get Wiccans accepted. Tying it to this petition has just been helpful

01:08:56.117 --> 01:09:00.094
- in that they seem motivated to turn Rangeview private.

01:09:00.354 --> 01:09:05.997
- And it seems like it would be prudent for you all to see progress being made on at least some portion

01:09:05.997 --> 01:09:11.530
- of the road, becoming public or being accepted into the inventory. But they would have to come back

01:09:11.530 --> 01:09:17.062
- to you to make it private. But we can't force them to do those improvements any faster. They're not

01:09:17.062 --> 01:09:22.706
- on a enforcement template. I follow that piece. That's the logic piece. So to the chairman, yeah, the

01:09:22.706 --> 01:09:28.681
- point of information is, is there anything that prevents the Planning Commission from dividing the question

01:09:28.681 --> 01:09:29.566
- and considering

01:09:30.338 --> 01:09:36.965
- range for you separately despite staff's recommendation? Can we divide the question and just take them

01:09:36.965 --> 01:09:43.462
- as separate? You could drop Wiccans all together. Yes, all these conditions are for you to consider.

01:09:43.462 --> 01:09:49.896
- And there's no petition on the table regarding Wiccans right now. So correct. Correct. So here's an

01:09:49.896 --> 01:09:56.844
- education for me. Isn't it between the highway department and the petitioner when it comes to the inventory

01:09:56.844 --> 01:10:00.254
- and satisfying the resolution of those deficiencies?

01:10:00.418 --> 01:10:06.264
- And assuming that the highway department works with a petitioner and they resolve all those things and

01:10:06.264 --> 01:10:11.997
- pass whatever inspections needs to pass that the highway department takes the action then to pull it

01:10:11.997 --> 01:10:17.900
- in the inventory. And if that is the case, and this is education for me, does it even have to come back

01:10:17.900 --> 01:10:21.022
- to the plan commission? No, it would not. For wickets.

01:10:21.538 --> 01:10:28.171
- Or Wiccans, if Wiccans was accepted into the inventory. OK, and so I would I would offer that's exactly

01:10:28.171 --> 01:10:34.932
- what we need to do then and separate these two, put it between the Highway Department and the petitioner,

01:10:34.932 --> 01:10:41.310
- let them resolve the deficiencies, do the inspection, pull it into the inventory. Now, do we need a

01:10:41.310 --> 01:10:48.070
- separate motion to do that or is that something that is already in play? The Highway Department typically

01:10:48.070 --> 01:10:50.494
- operates as people want to have their

01:10:50.690 --> 01:10:58.831
- roads taken into the inventory. They're not necessarily going and searching for roads that were dedicated

01:10:58.831 --> 01:11:07.050
- as being public and are still private. So I would say that if you could, as a comment, if not a condition,

01:11:07.050 --> 01:11:14.961
- state that, you know, with my motion, I would expect that, you know, that wiccans be accepted into the

01:11:14.961 --> 01:11:19.262
- inventory in six months' time, or else we could forward

01:11:19.458 --> 01:11:27.531
- legal to start an enforcement action or you could state or we could ask planning staff to give you a

01:11:27.531 --> 01:11:35.685
- status update in six months time on the agenda about whether it's been done and we can go from there.

01:11:35.685 --> 01:11:43.678
- Just to be clear, the bond that we hold for Wiccans is insufficient to finish the work for Wiccans.

01:11:44.258 --> 01:11:51.333
- So we do not have a letter of credit for this development. I don't know if the highway department still

01:11:51.333 --> 01:11:58.816
- has any kind of driveway surety, which is like the entry point for Wickens and Rockport. But to my knowledge,

01:11:58.816 --> 01:12:05.823
- we do not have any funds. But in speaking with Mr. Schilling, we can of course reinstate those because

01:12:05.823 --> 01:12:12.830
- it was requirement of the approval. Thank you. All right, so right now there's no motion on the table.

01:12:13.090 --> 01:12:37.719
- Do we have a new motion on the table? My left. All right. If we don't make a motion, it comes back before

01:12:37.719 --> 01:12:42.366
- us in April, right?

01:12:43.714 --> 01:12:54.547
- It comes back to us in April because we have no motion. What you're doing is we would try to keep it

01:12:54.547 --> 01:13:02.270
- to updates. But yes, we could hypothetically restart this conversation.

01:13:02.850 --> 01:13:12.738
- Just as a bellwether and with my finger up in the air, I'd like to make a motion on PUO-23-5 that we

01:13:12.738 --> 01:13:22.528
- send a negative recommendation to the commissioners. Is there a second for that? Second. Okay, it's

01:13:22.528 --> 01:13:32.318
- been moved and seconded to send a negative recommendation to the county commissioners for PUO-23-5.

01:13:33.442 --> 01:13:50.203
- Vote yes is a vote to send a negative recommendation. David Bush. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Tron

01:13:50.203 --> 01:14:02.942
- and Ray Randolph. No. Scott Ferris. Yes. David Henry. No. Jeff Morris. Yes.

01:14:04.482 --> 01:14:17.626
- Julie Thomas? Yes. Okay, so that motion does pass five to two. All right. So let's go ahead and move

01:14:17.626 --> 01:14:31.550
- on to new business. And this is the SMN 25-7, the Robert Maher Minor Subdivision Primary Plan Amendment 1.

01:14:32.130 --> 01:14:40.291
- And it looks like there's a with waiver request and also a waiver for a final hearing. And I think that's

01:14:40.291 --> 01:14:46.142
- you, Drew. So please proceed. One moment. Let me get the slideshow up here.

01:15:14.850 --> 01:15:28.089
- All right, one more moment while this page loads for me. While the page loads, and I just like to be

01:15:28.089 --> 01:15:41.197
- transparent. And I have no financial conflict of interest in this case. And I am an acquaintance of

01:15:41.197 --> 01:15:43.294
- the petitioner.

01:15:43.458 --> 01:15:50.475
- We have not spoken about this case. Um, and I wonder if the petitioner or if anyone on the commission

01:15:50.475 --> 01:15:57.699
- has an objection to me sitting on, uh, and hearing this case, I would just say that I'm going to support

01:15:57.699 --> 01:16:04.992
- this. I feel like it's going to be an easy one. So if it makes you more comfortable by excusing yourself,

01:16:04.992 --> 01:16:08.638
- I don't, I think it's going to fly through. So just.

01:16:08.898 --> 01:16:15.742
- I'm putting my cards out there. I'm supporting this. I don't feel like I have a conflict and I just

01:16:15.742 --> 01:16:22.722
- want to give the petitioner a chance to ask that I not sit in on it. But if it's okay, I will remain.

01:16:22.722 --> 01:16:29.634
- Thank you. All right. So this is SMN-25-7, the Robert Maher Minor Subdivision Primary Plot Amendment

01:16:29.634 --> 01:16:36.546
- 1. It does include a road with waiver request. This is the preliminary hearing and a waiver of final

01:16:36.546 --> 01:16:38.462
- hearing has been requested.

01:16:39.202 --> 01:16:46.608
- This is for two parcels on 31.57 acres in Indian Creek Township, Section 8, at 7626 South Birch Road.

01:16:46.608 --> 01:16:53.868
- The property is currently zoned Agricultural Residential 2.5. The petitioner is proposing a primary

01:16:53.868 --> 01:17:01.129
- plot amendment to the Robert Maher Minor subdivision in order to subdivide the existing 31.57 acres

01:17:01.129 --> 01:17:05.630
- of lot number two to create a new lot containing 10.19 acres.

01:17:05.794 --> 01:17:12.149
- The original Robert Maher minor subdivision established two lots across 41.77 acres, and this was done

01:17:12.149 --> 01:17:18.442
- under the previous zoning ordinance. The minor subdivision procedure allows to create up to four lots

01:17:18.442 --> 01:17:24.612
- as long as each lot contains a minimum of 10 acres when serviced by a septic system. So because the

01:17:24.612 --> 01:17:30.967
- original subdivision created only two lots, a third lot is possible through the primary plot amendment

01:17:30.967 --> 01:17:31.646
- procedure.

01:17:35.362 --> 01:17:43.530
- Proposed Lot 2A will contain 21.38 acres or 19.73 acres buildable and include the existing structures

01:17:43.530 --> 01:17:51.538
- at 7626 South Birch Road with existing road frontage and access to South Birch Road via an existing

01:17:51.538 --> 01:17:59.866
- platted 50-foot egress easement that cuts through Lot 1 of the original Robert Moore minor subdivision.

01:17:59.866 --> 01:18:03.870
- Lot 1 of that subdivision is not impacted by this

01:18:04.066 --> 01:18:11.156
- amendment as the existing access to lot two will remain and the dimensions of lot one are not being

01:18:11.156 --> 01:18:18.246
- adjusted through this amendment. The proposed new lot, lot 3A, will contain 10.19 acres, 9.77 acres

01:18:18.246 --> 01:18:25.123
- buildable and have road frontage and access to South Birch Road independently. The primary plot,

01:18:25.123 --> 01:18:32.638
- as I stated, does include the waiver request for road width as South Birch Road measures 17 feet in width

01:18:35.266 --> 01:18:42.215
- According to Chapter 832-8A, subdivisions accessed from existing roads less than 18 feet in width shall

01:18:42.215 --> 01:18:48.897
- be prohibited unless waived pursuant to subdivision waiver section, Chapter 830-10, and is reviewed

01:18:48.897 --> 01:18:55.780
- by the Plan Commission. So road widths less than or equal to 17 feet with an ADT of less than or equal

01:18:55.780 --> 01:19:00.190
- to 80 vehicles per day is the requirement for the waiver request.

01:19:00.962 --> 01:19:06.542
- The petitioner has submitted traffic data, which was provided to the Highway Department for ADT calculations,

01:19:06.542 --> 01:19:11.869
- and the Highway Department provided those calculations. They are included in this presentation, although

01:19:11.869 --> 01:19:17.297
- the exhibit itself did not make it into the staff packet, but I will show that on the screen here shortly.

01:19:17.297 --> 01:19:22.471
- The Highway Department, therefore, does support the road with waiver request citing the ADT data from

01:19:22.471 --> 01:19:23.486
- those calculations.

01:19:24.418 --> 01:19:29.425
- Also on the screen is the stormwater slash drainage board comments. The drainage board approved the

01:19:29.425 --> 01:19:34.433
- subdivision at their meeting on February 20th, 2026 with the following comments, one through three.

01:19:34.433 --> 01:19:39.540
- One being at a 30 foot drainage easement centered on the flow lines at the north end of the property.

01:19:39.540 --> 01:19:44.597
- Number two, place the pond in its outflow within a drainage easement that's on lot 3A. And they also

01:19:44.597 --> 01:19:49.805
- stated that there are no known sinkholes or karst features on the property. Each of those comments have

01:19:49.805 --> 01:19:53.310
- been addressed by the petitioner and the petitioner's representative.

01:19:54.914 --> 01:20:01.678
- Now on the screen is the memorandum from the Highway Department that verifies the ADT calculations and

01:20:01.678 --> 01:20:08.376
- their support for the road width waiver request. This was not included in the packet as I received it

01:20:08.376 --> 01:20:15.140
- after the date of the publishing, but I am showing to you now on the screen for the record. Now on the

01:20:15.140 --> 01:20:21.182
- screen is a summary of the two lots that are being changed here. We have lot 2A and lot 3A.

01:20:21.346 --> 01:20:27.558
- On the left hand column, we have different categories, including wastewater, property access, right

01:20:27.558 --> 01:20:34.142
- of way dedication, environmental conditions, existing structures. And then in the bottom, we have chapter

01:20:34.142 --> 01:20:40.354
- 832 improvement and design standards details. All of this information is included in the packet. As

01:20:40.354 --> 01:20:46.628
- I stated before, this is a primary plot amendment. So it has been plotted already. There is existing

01:20:46.628 --> 01:20:48.926
- dedicated right of way and there are

01:20:49.122 --> 01:20:56.350
- existing access points and then of course the new access point to lot 3A. When this was originally approved

01:20:56.350 --> 01:21:03.109
- as well it received a buried utility waiver and now they were requesting the road width waiver. That

01:21:03.109 --> 01:21:09.801
- is different than in the original application because the previous zoning ordinance and subdivision

01:21:09.801 --> 01:21:12.478
- control ordinance did not have specific

01:21:12.706 --> 01:21:20.093
- development standards regarding the 18 foot wide requirement for minor subdivisions and that was updated

01:21:20.093 --> 01:21:27.129
- with the county development ordinance which was adopted December 18th, 2024. Now I'll click through

01:21:27.129 --> 01:21:34.165
- some exhibits. Here's the location map. We're in Indian Creek Township. This is South Birch Road on

01:21:34.165 --> 01:21:40.286
- the north side here. We have the zoning map showing the agricultural residential zone.

01:21:42.850 --> 01:21:50.159
- Here on the screen, we have the site conditions map showing slopes greater than 25%. You'll see that

01:21:50.159 --> 01:21:57.757
- there are very few. Those are tinged with the red. That's kind of hard to see, but there are some slopes

01:21:57.757 --> 01:22:04.993
- greater than 25% as you get south on the property towards the existing pond and the stream or creek

01:22:04.993 --> 01:22:12.446
- that's back there as well. And then just some aerial imagery here. And then some on the ground photos.

01:22:12.770 --> 01:22:19.454
- So this on the left-hand side is where the new proposal for lot 3A is located, and the driveway will

01:22:19.454 --> 01:22:26.403
- be located in this area as well. And on the right-hand side of the screen, we have the existing driveway

01:22:26.403 --> 01:22:33.087
- that cuts through lot number 1 that provides access through a 50-foot egress easement to lot 2A. Now

01:22:33.087 --> 01:22:39.770
- on the screen are some pictures of some structures that are on the existing lot 2, which will become

01:22:39.770 --> 01:22:41.822
- lot 2A, the structure as well.

01:22:42.370 --> 01:22:48.883
- again on lot 2A. Now on the screen is the primary plot amendment document. I'm going to go ahead and

01:22:48.883 --> 01:22:55.396
- click to the next page that has a little bit zoomed in of the dimensions here and the configuration.

01:22:55.396 --> 01:23:01.909
- So you can see lot 3A on the eastern side. That's the newly created lot from the original lot 2, and

01:23:01.909 --> 01:23:08.744
- then lot 2A still showing the existing structures. Lot 3A has that existing pond now placed in a drainage

01:23:08.744 --> 01:23:11.646
- easement, per the drainage board's comments.

01:23:11.746 --> 01:23:18.345
- And Lot 2A also includes a tree planting area, preservation area in the southwest corner. That is a

01:23:18.345 --> 01:23:25.208
- requirement of the county development ordinance in lieu of street trees being planted along the street.

01:23:25.208 --> 01:23:32.203
- Although street tree plantings aren't required for this subdivision, when that requirement is not needed,

01:23:32.203 --> 01:23:38.142
- there is still a requirement for a tree preservation area, and that is shown on the plan.

01:23:41.698 --> 01:23:49.042
- Now on the screen is the original Robert Maher minor subdivision that shows the larger existing lot

01:23:49.042 --> 01:23:56.533
- two and again the unchanged lot one. And now on the screen we have the findings of facts submitted by

01:23:56.533 --> 01:24:03.876
- the petitioner on the left and on the right we have the raw data from the traffic analysis that was

01:24:03.876 --> 01:24:06.814
- provided to planning and highway staff.

01:24:09.826 --> 01:24:15.782
- All right, now for staff's recommendation. Staff recommends approval for the subdivision based on the

01:24:15.782 --> 01:24:22.031
- finding that the proposed primary plat meets the county development ordinance, subject to highway engineer

01:24:22.031 --> 01:24:27.870
- and stormwater program manager reports. Additionally, approve the road with waiver requests, citing

01:24:27.870 --> 01:24:33.826
- practical difficulties have been demonstrated. And we originally had a set of conditions, one through

01:24:33.826 --> 01:24:38.206
- three. Each of those have been completed since the plat committee hearing.

01:24:38.658 --> 01:24:47.783
- I can read them, but they're here, and just for the record, they each have been completed. Thank you.

01:24:47.783 --> 01:24:56.819
- I will not take any questions. Any questions from the commissioners up left? Right. Okay, petitioner

01:24:56.819 --> 01:25:06.302
- or petitioner's representative, you've got 15 minutes. The sun is still shining and it's St. Patty's Day.

01:25:06.402 --> 01:25:14.588
- And if you approach the podium, state your name and sign in, please. Hi, I'm Eric Decker with Decker

01:25:14.588 --> 01:25:23.179
- Land Surveying, and we agree to the recommendations by staff. And in fact, they've already been submitted

01:25:23.179 --> 01:25:31.446
- back to planning. If there's any questions that the commission may have, be glad to answer. Questions

01:25:31.446 --> 01:25:34.526
- left? Questions right? All right, so.

01:25:34.626 --> 01:25:41.760
- I guess we can move on to public comment. Those in favor in the room or online, anybody? All right,

01:25:41.760 --> 01:25:49.036
- anybody opposed? There were two people who raised their hands. I can't see them. Raise their hands if

01:25:49.036 --> 01:25:56.170
- they would like to speak. Oh, okay. Go ahead and approach the podium, sign in, state your name. Did

01:25:56.170 --> 01:26:02.590
- you wish to speak? You wish to speak? Okay, no, they're just saying that they support it.

01:26:02.850 --> 01:26:11.434
- Okay, we'll wait right back at you there. Thank you. Anybody else want to wave their hand back there?

01:26:11.434 --> 01:26:19.850
- All right, all right, all right. Okay, anybody opposed online or in the room? I see none. So now we

01:26:19.850 --> 01:26:28.266
- come back to the the plan commission left. We'll go starting right on this time. Any comment on the

01:26:28.266 --> 01:26:30.622
- right? Comment on the left?

01:26:32.546 --> 01:26:51.562
- Motion please. I'll go ahead and make one. In case number SMN-25-7, the Robert M. Maher and Bono McCustin

01:26:51.562 --> 01:26:57.662
- property, I recommend we approve.

01:27:00.322 --> 01:27:06.703
- recommend we approve this subdivision based on the findings of fact that the proposed primary plat meets

01:27:06.703 --> 01:27:13.023
- the county development ordinance subject to the highway engineer and stormwater program manager reports

01:27:13.023 --> 01:27:19.525
- and approve the road with waiver requests citing practical difficulties that had been demonstrated subject

01:27:19.525 --> 01:27:25.663
- to the following conditions, which I believe have all been met. Conditions one, two, and three, do I

01:27:25.663 --> 01:27:26.878
- need to state them?

01:27:28.034 --> 01:27:37.639
- I don't believe you'll need to have any conditions if they've all been met. Okay, very good. And also

01:27:37.639 --> 01:27:47.620
- a waiver of the final hearing. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve

01:27:47.620 --> 01:27:54.494
- SMN-25-7, which includes the approval of the primary plat amendment one,

01:27:54.594 --> 01:28:05.310
- Approval of the road width waiver and approval of a waiver of final hearing. A vote yes is a vote to

01:28:05.310 --> 01:28:15.495
- approve all three items. Margaret Clements. Yes. John and Ray Randolph. Yes. Scott Ferris. Yes.

01:28:15.495 --> 01:28:23.134
- David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes.

01:28:23.330 --> 01:28:33.406
- Motion is approved, seven to zero, thank you. All right, that moves us on to public comment for items

01:28:33.406 --> 01:28:43.285
- not on the agenda. Anybody in the room or online? You have three minutes. I see none. That comes to

01:28:43.285 --> 01:28:52.670
- staff reports. Ms. Jelen. I don't believe I have anything. Our fine Esquire lawyer. No report.

01:28:54.178 --> 01:29:02.174
- I have a motion to end the meeting and adjourn. I moved. Okay, thank you. Great job.