28 August 2006 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

28 August 2006 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

Present: Mark Mitter, Chairman, Jane Ohlmansiek, Tarry Feiss, Nick Held, Mike Hall, Jeff Hughes, Robert Laws, and Dennis Kraus, Jr.
Absent: Patrick deMaynadier
Also Present: Arnie McGill, Attorney, Mark McCormack, Planning Director, and Kate Rademacher, Enforcement Officer.

1. Maxwell Development Zone Change on Mount Pleasant Remained Tabled Until September

PC Takes 2.5 Hours to Rewrite Written Commitments to Kent’s SR 1 Rezone Request

Tom Kent and Wayne Ferguson’s request to change written commitments attached to their favorable zone change request on SR1 for Perfect View was reviewed.
Kent requested they eliminate turn lanes as they are no longer required if they reduce the homes to 55. They want also to reduce the boulevard length. Traffic study was initially performed for 150 lots. The boulevard style entrance makes the product less like country homes. They also did not want to strip out that many trees from the hillside. It made it harder for them to be creative in their design. They envision the road wrapping around the pond and meandering through the woods to the top. A boulevard is 34-40 ft wide- the road is 26 ft. The extra 10-15 ft require a lot more slop to be cut away to stay at grade requirements.
Turn lanes were estimated to cost $600,000. If they exceeded 65 lots they’d need a booster station for water also.
Without threatening the PC Kent stated that they would have to come back with 150 lots should they have to do all those commitments in order to make the costs up?

Ferguson went through the 5 zone change criteria and how he thought this met them. He thought the low-density high cost homes were smart growth; they didn’t want to cut trees to be environmentally friendly and to stay in character with surroundings. Farming was no longer on this property as the old dairy was not in operation. It conserved property values, as these were not little ¼ acre lots.

Mitter asked- well what about Kent saying you’d change to 150 lots if you ad to? Ferguson disagrees with his partner on this and commented- Don’t you ever disagree with your wife? (Laughter)

Ferguson said this was responsible growth. Mitter noted the potential danger there and wants to minimize that (roadway access issues).

Public input:

Christopher Blaney- thought this property was to stay as is till 2017- he’ll have a street behind his home now and not trees.
Mike Henson- wanted to discuss exact location of entrance and runoff issues onto his property. He wanted that research first before they change zones. He asked about guardrail there and also safety issues with access to SR1.
Mr. Hornsby- concerned that emergency access to Cambridge might mean sewers etc down their road. Was told it was just EMS vehicles.
Mr. Craig- Also concerned with extra traffic and gated entrance to Cambridge.
At 8:10 Public comment ended.

Kent told PC that he had obtained the old Britton property and now has 900 ft of SR1 frontage.
His access will be better than Salt Fork and Georgetown is now. (but these are slated to be improved)

Todd Listerman- County Engineer- explained the grass covered earthen roadway to Cambridge that is stabilized to hold vehicles but doesn’t invite traffic, as it doesn’t look like a road. Mowed 3 times a year by hwy. He does NOT want Cambridge used until Georgetown and Cambridge are upgraded.
There are L and R turn lanes exiting the sub’n.

Feiss asked about busses. She noted people have been killed in that area.

Listerman noted that Salt Fork Bridge would be 4 lanes and have L turn for Salt Fork. He also said boulevard is NOT required if they have emergency access to Cambridge.
A Right turn apron is OK at the entrance. The entrance of sub’n is 900 ft from Salt Fork. The 4 lanes of SR1 will be 1800 ft North of Salt Fork and 600 ft south.

The entire board seemed hung up on the L turn lane and safety issues there. A couple members noted that we are back to negotiating with developers. It was clear that L turn was not negotiable. The question was how to do it effectively with planned improvements at Salt Fork and terrain. Mitter also noted that it’s not just a matter of trips on SR1 – but also the trucks, terrain, busses, and speed issues.

It took 30 more minutes to get a motion from the PC.

Mitter stated: “We know our area better than INDOT does. They brought us US 50!”

Feiss said the state doesn’t know how many people use SR 1 from Dec 1 thru March for ski season. Those people don’t know about our left turns- they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

They talked about extending the 8 ft berm like is done at Nowlin Road for traffic to pass by the L turners. [NOTE: At Nowlin traffic is going slower as they have just come over the bridge or stopped at the stop sign. In this case the traffic will be zipping by as they are on the straight section and it will be even straighter after INDOT fixes it by the Salt Fork bridge area. Will 8 ft wide be enough? Should there be signage there to warn people? Should INDOT participate in this design as it comes so close to their work already?]

Laws- wanted to leave the interior road design to county engineer but have 8 ft paved shoulder on SR 1 for a modified turn lane of sorts.

Laws motioned for written commitments to be changed to: density to be at 55 homes maximum, stabilized road bed for emergency access only at Cambridge, continue 8 ft paved shoulder beyond Salt Fork to the entrance, no excavation on 20% or greater slopes, and allow county engineer to monitor road entrance design. Hughes 2nd. Passed with 5 Ayes – Ohlmansiek, Hughes, Hall, Laws, and Kraus, Jr. 2 Nays were Feiss and Held. Mitter didn’t vote.

ADMINISTRATIVE:
McCormack went over written commitments and changes in the signature sections to reflect that the owner had no other adjoining property currently being rezoned. (To avoid tricks being played with the ordinance)

Article 5 section 530 withdrawal procedures were changed so that if they withdraw prior to public notice it’s a minimal cost, if afterwards it’s at full cost. In either case they can still reapply.
They can also withdraw up to the meeting time itself.
It was noted that the opponents will be OK with this- they get what they wanted- a withdraw.

PC was discussing only letting reapplications be submitted 6 month after withdrawal date (in writing) instead of the 90 days currently.
This will stay at 90 days. It was felt that with reapplication at 90 days – it still won’t be heard for another month or 2 dues to tech review etc. [NOTE: It seemed onerous to “punish” the developer for changing his mind, so I spoke up in favor of keeping the 90 days at this point. If we make it too difficult and costly, we may end up with less creativity in design. Sometimes it’s through tech review and neighbor discussions that an idea emerges that should be considered. Change should be encouraged in those cases rather than making it cost excessive time and thus more money.
On the other hand- the developer needs to think things through harder in some cases and not depend on the PC to negotiate very angle of the development issues with him at the hearing.]

Checklist items will be clarified for developments and certificates were fine tuned and combined in some cases.
Property parcel map numbers will be used instead of parent parcel tax numbers.

Zone map changes on conditional uses will be sent back to be revised to allow BZA to still hear the conditional use AFTER the zone change is granted. [NOTE: If the developer is worried about this they could request that the zone change be conditional on the multifamily or other conditional request being granted.]

Land Use Map timeline will be the longer one to finish in March 2007.
Irwin Diehl and Linda Mitchell requested to be on the advisory board.

School Board meets with PC Sept 6 at 6:30 PM at Tate Street Adult Center

Land Use Initial meeting for advisory board is Sept 20- Wed.- at 7 PM- probably at Adult Center at Tate Street.

Nick Held has a video presentation of fiscal impacts of development that will be Sept 14th at the Ext. Office.

Oct 16th Monday- Public Meeting with OKI, Advisory Board, and PC etc on a 45-minute presentation of the effective elements of a comp plan. Questions and answers to follow- allow 1.5 hours.

Mitter announced that in Dec. GIS would have its own office and assistant. Council funded an assistant planner to share with St. Leon and Harrison also. $50K was funded for fiscal impact model of the county.

Stonebrook Estates wants extension of primary plat (old Gabbard estate lands that Fehrman Realty is handling on US 50 between aurora and Dillsboro) Sewer issues exist- need to know when Aurora can add them to their fixed system (when will it be finished?)

West Harrison approved their updated zone map- they are no longer zoned all business.

Meeting adjourned 11:10 PM

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township