19 May 2008 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

19 May 2008 Dearborn County Plan Commission Meeting Notes

Present: Hall, Chairman, Laws, Thompson, Nelson, Kraus, Jr., Lansing, Lehman, and Beiersdorfer(arrived 7:10)

ABSENT: Nick Held- is taking another post in his home county. When the new County Extension Agent is named, that person will serve in Held’s place.

Also present: McCormack- Planning Director, McGill, Attorney, and Listerman, Transportation Director

This meeting took 3.25 hours. This is primarily a summary of the decisions.

Minutes were tabled as they were not in packets for review prior to the meeting.

OLD BUSINESS:
The Legge area in Washington Township was discussed further. Nelson motioned and Kraus, Jr. seconded to change the zone to what the PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP shows (commercial or industrial) The people living in the 2 houses surrounded by the Manufacturing zone are to be grandfathered as Residential and offered a variance to stay that way if they desire so as not to become non-conforming uses, should they change owners. All ayes.

NEW BUSINESS:

These two street vacations go to the Commissioners next.

1. Maxwell Development, represented by Jeff Stenger of JDJ Surveying, was given a FAVORABLE recommendation to vacate a street (by Process Drive) in the Data Park subdivision. (only 3 houses there, platted in 1974) The new extension of that street will be access for about 6 large lots on the remaining Maxwell acreage. This is located in Kelso Township along SR 46 just south of St. Leon borders and west of East Central. The new street will be private so as not to burden highway maintenance. Maxwell will bring the other roads up to grade and petition hwy for acceptance later. Apparently, there were legal issue with this land and Maxwell had sued the former owners. There is sewer and water there now.

2. Hope Baptist Church, represented by JDJ Surveying was given a FAVORABLE recommendation to vacate parts of Megan Drive in Lake Dilldear Subdivision(created in 1945 as a recreational park and subsequently ended up with houses) in Clay Township. BZA had set Hope Baptist up with screening and buffering which will still be in force. The vacated land will be divided up between adjacent landowners. Applicant should pay for fees for the ordinance to be recorded and transferred to each landowner. Peggy Fathman (sp?) told the board that the Edmondson’s leach fields were in this area.

ADMINISTRATIVE: (2 hours) with comments from Stenger, Rosenberger, and Mueller.

Both proposed changes to the Subdivision Control Ordinance were tabled again for more changes. These were the sections on phasing subdivisions and on cul de sacs, and emergency accesses. Discussion seemed to center on developers wanting less rules on the number of houses and the street lengths of the cul-de sac. This discussion was pretty much a repeat of the one several years ago when Maxwell successfully argued to increase the length to 1200 ft and the houses to 30. It seems as Mike Hall and Stenger said- there will always be someone dissatisfied with the number. Listerman told then these numbers were rooted in hwy and street regulations and also safety rules for emergency equipment. Those wishing the details of what will be added or subtracted from the proposals can view the reports online or at the planning office.

Nelson wanted to have some language regarding waivers vs variances in the code. McGill said- we don’t do waivers. Nelson said PC does waivers and BZA does variances. Codes will be checked to see what we have and how it relates to the Indiana Codes. Nelson was concerned with outside developers taking us to court on these points. [NOTE: If we don’t do them at all- how can they take us to court?]

Bond reports were passed out- several need enforcement now.

The June meeting is on the 30th and on the 23rd there will be a working session.

TBS on Sugar Ridge made zero progress since last meeting with PC. Their access easement is already on the plat since 2006.

Fee schedule was passed out for review for next month.

US 50 collaborative meets Thurs at 2 PM and St Leon is Thurs evening on their ordinances.

The report on Sugar Ridge status was passed out. (see entire report below these notes)

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township

Villages of Sugar Ridge: Executive Summary Report
May 2008

Financial Guarantees / Traffic Signal:

· The financial guarantees for the Villages of Sugar Ridge remain expired.
· The required traffic signal improvements have been made; however, the Subdivider did not pay the contractor. The County is currently involved in a lawsuit with the contractor.
· The County Engineer estimates that a financial guarantee of $150,000 is necessary to complete the road improvements associated with Augusta Drive and Oakmont Court.
· A new estimate is necessary to determine the amount of financial guarantee(s) required to cover the remaining improvements such as anticipated public and private streets, the eight-foot (8’) pedestrian / bike path, etc.

Homeowners Association(s):
· There is not a “master” homeowners’ association for the entire Subdivision.
· There does not appear to be an established homeowners’ association for the single family detached units. There are, however, two (2) homeowners’ associations established for the single-family attached developments within the overall Subdivision.
· There is one (1) homeowners’ association for the condominium units / developments on Lots 92 & 93 (Oakmont duplex units), Lots 153 & 154 (“The Cottages of Sugar Ridge,” 37 units), Lot 156 (“The Pointe at Sugar Ridge,” 30 units proposed), and Lots 152, 155, 157, Lot 175 and Lot 181.
· There is an additional, separate homeowners’ association for the condominium units / development known as the “The Villas of Sugar Glen,” a development of 34 units on Lot 174

Owner & Lot Information:
· Total number of lots = 152 (May, 2008)
· Total number of owners = 59 (May, 2008)
· There are five (5) known Macke-affiliated ownership groups remaining in the Subdivision. These groups own a total of forty-two (42) lots.
· Thirty-seven (37) other lots have been foreclosed by Macke-affiliated ownership groups and are being sold at a Sheriff Sale in June, 2008.


Private Streets & Access Easements

· Pinehurst Lane (serves Lots 15-20) & Ava Lane (serves Lots 167-169) were proposed and approved as private streets at the January 31st, 2005 Plan Commission public hearing; however, staff has been unable to locate documents in either the Planning & Zoning Office or the Recorder’s Office to verify that that the property owners that abut these streets (or a master homeowner’s association) are responsible for their maintenance.
· Sawgrass Lane, a street which must be renamed as this name already in use, is proposed to (initially) serve the “The Pointe at Sugar Ridge” as a private access road. It appears as though this street, or at minimum the segment of Sawgrass that leads up to the intersection with Augusta Drive, is intended to serve an additional 67 units.
· Peeble Beach Lane is a private street to be maintained by the Villas of Sugar Glen homeowners’ association.
· Muirfield Court, Sawgrass Court, and Bluegrass Court are private streets to be maintained by the Villages of Sugar Ridge condominium homeowners’ association.
· There are access easements shown on several plats for certain lots; however, there is not often an accompanying legal description. Some of these easements are intended for private streets, some are reserved for golf cart use.

Amenities / Improvements:
· The banquet hall is situated to the (immediate) northwest of the proposed “Pointe at Sugar Ridge” condominium project on the current Concept Development Plan. This location is southeast of the existing sports bar, pro shop, and maintenance buildings of the golf course.
· The practice range facilities depicted on the original Concept Development Plan has been eliminated.
· The eight-foot (8’) pedestrian / bike path has been located on the Villages of Sugar Ridge Improvement Plans. This path, once constructed, will begin at the southern entrance of the project and will travel the full length of Augusta Drive as it reconnects with Stateline Road; this improvement is consistently shown on the northeastern side of Augusta. Mike Macke, the Developer of the Villages of Sugar Ridge, indicated in October of 2006 that is was his intent to begin construction on this path in the spring / summer of 2007; however, filed for bankruptcy in the fall of 2007. It remains unclear as to whether these improvements will be completed and by which party.

Commercial Area(s):
· The commercial center situated in the southeastern portion of the Subdivision continues to develop slowly; a second building has been constructed. The staff will be performing a site inspection of this property within the next 1-2 weeks and will be notifying the developer of issues and deficiencies associated with the following: parking areas, stormwater facilities, lighting, signage, landscaping / bufferyards, etc. Although the eventual occupants for these structures remain largely unknown, the owner must adhere to uses permitted within a (B-1) Zoning District.

Villages of Sugar Ridge: Executive Summary Report


Development Statistics:
Number of permitted single-family detached units: 37
Number of single-family detached units on Concept Plan: 123 (current plans)
Number of permitted single-family attached or multi-family units: 75 (includes 2 duplexes, Oakmont)
Number of pending single-family attached or multi-family units: 30 (“The Pointe at Sugar Ridge”)

Condominium Units:

Maximum number of units allowable, “The Villas of Sugar Glen:” 34
Units approved, “The Villas of Sugar Glen:” 34

Maximum number of units allowable, “The Cottages of Sugar Ridge:” 40




Units approved, “The Cottages of Sugar Ridge:” 37

Maximum number of units allowable, “The Pointe at Sugar Ridge:” 31
Units pending approval, “The Cottages of Sugar Ridge:” 30*Number of single-family attached or multi-family units on Concept Plan: 192