Transcript — Area Plan Commission, 2026-09-02

Machine transcription of the recording of the Area Plan Commission meeting on 2026-09-02, aligned to the video timeline. This is not the official record — the clerk's minutes are, and this is unreviewed automatic speech recognition that mis-hears names and numbers. Check anything that matters against the recording.

Each line is stamped with its position in the recording, both as a clock time and as [t=SECONDS]. Those are the same seconds the archive's source links use: open the recording and add &t=<seconds> to jump to any line.

Transcript

0:00:00 [t=0] Speaker 0: Ready?
0:00:21 [t=21] Speaker 6: I'll call the September meeting of the Area Plan Commission to order. Can I have a roll call, please?
0:00:25 [t=25] Speaker 9: Paul Alsop, Brian Baker, Kevin Beaver, Deborah Carter, Terry Clark, Mark Klinkenbeier, John Collette, Norm Frodemann, Don Folk, John Hanley, Marcus Mauer, Debbie May, Amanda Thompson, Liam Bernine.
0:00:48 [t=48] Speaker 6: We do have a quorum. Could I ask everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please?
0:00:55 [t=55] Speaker 22: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
0:01:07 [t=67] Speaker 6: I assume everyone's had an opportunity to review the minutes from our previous meeting as well as the status report included in your packet. Are there any questions or corrections that need to be made to that?
0:01:31 [t=91] Speaker 27: Motion approved.
0:01:33 [t=93] Speaker 4: Those in favor? Aye. Motion passes.
0:01:37 [t=97] Speaker 32: Well, it's a record note that Demi Mays here. Yes, thank you. Okay.
0:01:57 [t=117] Speaker 34: We don't have any public comments on non-agenda items that you're aware of.
0:02:01 [t=121] Speaker 35: Not at this time.
0:02:02 [t=122] Okay.
0:02:04 [t=124] Speaker 34: Executive Director's report.
0:02:06 [t=126] Speaker 39: Good evening. I wanted to first remind everybody next month early voting will be in this room so we will be across the building in the Commissioner's chambers and that's really about it for my notes we did have those two subs as part of the committee report that were approved right there's a two admin subs okay that's it for me Stephen Seeming.
0:02:33 [t=153] Speaker 41: Okay.
0:02:34 [t=154] Sydney?
0:02:35 [t=155] Speaker 44: I just have an update on floodplain reports for the or floodplain permitting for the first half of the year,
0:02:42 [t=162] Speaker 46: which was actually really good. We have a couple big projects going on. And then you'll get a report next month on the state
0:02:51 [t=171] Speaker 44: conference that's happening this month, which should be interesting with all the flooding and everything that's happened in Indiana. That's all I have as well.
0:03:01 [t=181] Speaker 50: Okay. Jennifer has an update on our non-reverting fund.
0:03:06 [t=186] Speaker 53: Yes, thank you. My husband decided to share his cold with me, so I apologize in advance. I just haven't updated a final total for August, which was $5,545, which is not too bad. And then the handout, Jared takes all the credit for it. It was his idea, but I created it into a little display for everybody. But I took our chart of accounts that we get at the beginning of the year, and I subtracted our payroll, and it gave me the left what we have in daily operating expenses. and I plugged it in and as of this month we're roughly 74% of our current annual
0:03:55 [t=235] Speaker 53: budget that we've taken in for the new non reverting fund which is pretty good in like five months yeah and it and you can see if if we continue on this trajectory by the end of the year we might be at 180% which is really really
0:04:12 [t=252] Speaker 39: good yeah yeah all right if i may no go ahead go ahead adjoined to your your statement there our goal was initially to become sustainable out of that non-reverting fund within two years
0:04:24 [t=264] Speaker 62: and if our projections are correct we will be able to do it much better great good okay
0:04:31 [t=271] Speaker 6: any questions from any for any of staff from the plan commission members
0:04:36 [t=276] Speaker 68: if not i'll entertain a motion
0:04:37 [t=277] Speaker 69: Those in favor?
0:04:43 [t=283] Speaker 6: Aye. Motion passes.
0:04:48 [t=288] Speaker 71: As Jared mentions, you do have copies of the committee reports that staff approved. There were two this month. No action necessary on those on the administrative reviews.
0:05:07 [t=307] Speaker 6: So the first item on our agenda would be under old business, city rezonings, docket number 61, special ordinance number 9, 2026, 908 South 7th Street, from an R2 to an R1 single
0:05:28 [t=328] Speaker 74: family residence district.
0:05:30 [t=330] Speaker 46: The property owners are Timothy P. Hawkins and Margaret H. Herdlick. It's located at 908 South 7th Street. It's located in the Historic District. It has R2 to the northeast, south and west, and R2 planned development to the west as well. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property from R2 two-family residence district to an R1 single-family residence district. R2 is the original zoning in this area. The home is to remain a single-family home with no change in use. The property meets minimum lot size requirements.
0:06:05 [t=365] Speaker 46: In their recommendation, the Department of Engineering states the intended use would not directly alter the neighborhood's characteristic or create possible problems for the surrounding area. This would require an interior and rear setback variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the north building line and for the garage on the south and alley. By rezoning the property loses its legal non-conforming status and requires variances from city code. The Department of Engineering provided a positive recommendation.
0:06:29 [t=389] Speaker 46: Staff also offers a favorable recommendation with the condition of BZA approval for the necessary variances.
0:06:35 [t=395] Speaker 82: Is the petitioner present? Anything you'd like to add to staff's report?
0:06:42 [t=402] Speaker 85: I guess I would just add that the house is 140 years old. It's never been anything but a single family residence. So I find it interesting to hear that it's a regional zoning. It's hard to do. I don't know what that dates from. Sure. But appreciation for the house and its history. We like to preserve its R1 character, and that's why we like to down.
0:07:09 [t=429] Speaker 82: Okay. Any questions for the petitioner from anyone on the Planning Commission?
0:07:15 [t=435] Speaker 6: Anyone here speaking in opposition to this request? Now I'll entertain a motion.
0:07:21 [t=441] Speaker 96: So moved for approval.
0:07:24 [t=444] Speaker 99: Those in favor? Aye. Motion passes.
0:07:30 [t=450] Speaker 71: Next item under new business, city rezoning's docket number 72,
0:07:34 [t=454] Speaker 74: special ordinance number 11 2026 715 park from an r2 to an r2 plan development you have a couple
0:07:43 [t=463] Speaker 46: extra handouts with this you have the amended rezoning petition that has a couple things added and i'll point those out as i go um and then you also have a letter from mr trover uh kind of answering some of the questions that we had in our staff report. How he thought he his response to those. The current zoning is our two family residence district. They are the proposed zoning is our two plan development. The proposed use is tattoo studio art studio and residential apartment. The owner is Mr. Trover represented by Mr. Shagley.
0:08:28 [t=508] Speaker 111: My turn.
0:08:35 [t=515] No.
0:08:36 [t=516] Speaker 111: I didn't think she was. She got buried.
0:08:39 [t=519] Speaker 112: No, my staff report got buried.
0:08:41 [t=521] My staff report not in.
0:08:48 [t=528] Speaker 115: Oh, it's in the original one. I'm sorry. I have three copies of Mr. Shagley's petition.
0:08:59 [t=539] Speaker 116: You're welcome.
0:09:00 [t=540] Speaker 106: You're welcome. So, okay, there we go. It's located in the historic district. It is R2 to the north, east, south, and west.
0:09:09 [t=549] Speaker 46: Plan developments are uses that may be permitted under certain circumstances that are not a permitted use in the zone district where a plan development is proposed. A plan development is a floating zone. Before a plan development can be considered, the petitioner must show proof of one of the following unique circumstances.
0:09:23 [t=563] Speaker 46: The petitioner has a one hardship due to the physical characteristics of the land, two hardship due to the improvements on the land, three hardship due to adjacent scattered incompatible uses, four hardship due to the general deterioration of the neighborhood, and five a parcel located near a district boundary line. When it is determined by the Area Plan Commission and the City Council that a hardship does exist, a plan development of certain uses may be approved for any zone lot. However, it must be determined that said proposed uses, if approved, will be in the public's
0:09:51 [t=591] Speaker 46: interest and that substantial justice will be done for that neighborhood. Approval of said proposed uses shall not have the intent of nullifying the purpose of the zoning regulations. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property to an R2 plan development for the use of a tattoo studio, art studio, and residential apartment. The property owner also owns a home in front of the property at 901 South 8th Street. It appears to cross the lot line. However, this cannot be confirmed on Beacon and should be determined. The petitioner is requesting two variances through the plan development.
0:10:21 [t=621] Speaker 46: The first is zero setback and the second is zero parking requirements. There is a small driveway and alley access. In their petition, the property owner states the tattoo studio will be appointment only but did not specify for the art studio or the size of the residential apartment. I think he addressed that in his letter.
0:10:37 [t=637] Speaker 44: And they also did add a couple extra things to the amended plan development, including
0:10:49 [t=649] Speaker 46: that the real estate shall be used for any use permitted in R22 Family Residence District along with a by-appointment-only tattoo parlor, art studio, and residential apartment. And the plan development will not be transferable in the event the property is sold or no longer used as described within it will revert back to a two-family residence district the property does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 6600 square feet as it is approximately 24 2405 square feet this and possibly other variances would be required through the terreholt board of zoning
0:11:25 [t=685] Speaker 46: appeals in their recommendation the department of engineering states the intended use would directly alter the neighborhood's characteristic and create significant problems for the surrounding area the property has only been used for residential use and surrounded residential homes and currently has one off-street perfect parking spot and limited space to add additional off-street parking spaces with the additional uses for business and residential on a short block with limited street parking and will have a direct impact on the surrounding home staff offered an
0:11:51 [t=711] Speaker 46: unfavorable recommendation the department of engineering also offered a negative recommendation if the zoning is given a favorable recommendation staff recommends site plan approval by the Department of Engineering and approval of any required variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
0:12:07 [t=727] Speaker 122: Mr. Shagley. Good evening, Mr. President, fellow members of the Commission. My name is Richard Shagley,
0:12:12 [t=732] Speaker 126: and I'm with the law firm of Wright Shagley-Lowry, and tonight it's my honor to be here on behalf of the petitioner, Ed Trover. He's the owner of this property located at 715 Park Street. Mr. Trover is also the owner of the property at 901 South 8th Street. What makes this kind of unique situation is if you go along 8th Street, all the lots on that block are 48 by 190, except, or I'm sorry, 140, which is pretty much your standard lot size in that area. I couldn't determine when it happened, but at some point, this lot was divided into two.
0:12:53 [t=773] Speaker 126: The 715 Park is a 48 by 50 size lot and then the home that Mr. Trover lives in is a 50 by 92 foot lot. Due to the size of the lot that this house sits on at 715 Park creates a hardship. This is like most homes in the Farrington's Grove area. This is a bigger home and as a result it uses quite a bit of the space. of this lot, which creates the hardship and also requests, which also then leads to the necessity of the variance on the parking. Now, we did receive a letter from the city engineer's office, and he brought up the parking issue. What's kind of unique about the situation is, as I
0:13:47 [t=827] Speaker 126: stated, Mr. Trover lives next door, owns both buildings. He bought the 901 South 8th in September of 25 and then the 715 Park in October of 25. And since that time, he's done improvements. Mr. Trover is an artist, and what he would like to do is take this home that's currently zoned R2, and which means that you could have 10, 15 people living in there and all the cars associated with that. But he would like to remodel the home and create an apartment on the second floor and an art studio for his use. and then he also would like to create a space for appointment only tattoos.
0:14:55 [t=895] Speaker 132: I don't have any on my hands or face and there's no other tattoos on my body so I'm not I don't have any tattoos
0:15:00 [t=900] Speaker 126: but from what I have gathered you know just like anything people drive across town to go to the auto mechanic they like restaurant that they like. People will drive to get art done by a tattoo artist that they like and follow. He's created a space to allow those artists to come into town and do the appointments to allow those people to get the art done by the artists of their choice. This is appointment only. This isn't going to be a walk-up tattoo situation where you're walking by and think, oh, yeah,
0:15:43 [t=943] Speaker 135: maybe today's the day.
0:15:45 [t=945] Speaker 126: There's other places that they can go for those, the needs. This is for appointment only. And because of that, we're not anticipating traffic issues because of that. There's currently enough off-street parking. You could fit three cars in that drive if you needed to, plus you do have some on-the-street parking. So Mr. Trover's requesting the variance, but also we don't believe that we're also creating a parking issue for our neighbors. We don't believe that this rezoning would be detrimental because of the parking, because it's not going to require
0:16:33 [t=993] Speaker 126: and it's not going to bring a lot of long-term cars into the area. And to my surprise, similar to the first rezoning we had, I was shocked that this was an R2 to begin with. So tonight we're asking it to be rezoned from an R2 to an R2 plan development. In speaking with Councilmember Nation, And, you know, the beauty about the plan development is if it stops being whatever it is that plan development, it reverts back to the R2 or reverts back to the original zoning.
0:17:12 [t=1032] Speaker 122: Well, there was a little concern.
0:17:17 [t=1037] Speaker 126: You know, Mr. Trover has created a situation where people have seen the improvements he's done and they feel confident that he'll continue to be a good neighbor. But, you know, if Mr. Trover sold to somebody else and tried to do the same thing, they may have a different idea or a different business plan and may not be good for the neighborhood. So as a result in front of you, the third amended document, Sydney, is one that where we state in there that in the event this property changes hands, the property reverts back to the R2 and the plan development goes away.
0:17:59 [t=1079] Speaker 126: So Mr. Trover couldn't sell to somebody else and they do a tattoo studio and why not. It goes away upon the sale by Mr. Trover, which I think will create even more comfort to the neighbors in this area. And like I said, that was a request from Councilman Nation. And I think this will satisfy those concerns that he may have had. And I think as far as the parking goes that Mr. Haller had, you know, this isn't a high-traffic entity that he's creating. It's actually less than what it could be today, which is an R2, with the amount of bedrooms you could have.
0:18:43 [t=1123] Speaker 126: I don't know how many college kids or anybody living there. But this is actually going to lower the amount of traffic and people actually staying in the home. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
0:18:55 [t=1135] Speaker 32: Questions from the Planning Commission members.
0:19:00 [t=1140] Yep.
0:19:01 [t=1141] Speaker 153: Richard, I'm looking at, I think I'm looking at the third amended.
0:19:05 [t=1145] Speaker 152: It should say amended on top.
0:19:07 [t=1147] Speaker 153: Okay, amended special ordinance number one. Yeah. On page three, paragraph C, you have the language about cannot be transferable.
0:19:16 [t=1156] Yeah. But then in paragraph E, you have all such rights shall be closed.
0:19:20 [t=1160] Speaker 157: Oh, yeah, that will be removed. You're requesting a spread that? Yes, please. Sorry about that.
0:19:31 [t=1171] Speaker 161: Sorry about that. Good catch.
0:19:33 [t=1173] Speaker 162: Any other questions from playing commission members?
0:19:40 [t=1180] Speaker 6: Is there anyone else here that would like to speak to this issue? Sure.
0:19:47 [t=1187] Speaker 165: Come on up. Give us your name and address so we've got it for the record. No, he'll.
0:19:52 [t=1192] Speaker 167: Yeah. What are you looking for? I was going to take the microphone.
0:19:55 [t=1195] Speaker 168: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
0:19:56 [t=1196] Speaker 174: Sorry.
0:19:57 [t=1197] Speaker 176: So obviously this is awkward for me. I was here just a minute ago requesting zoning change for my house, which is on this block. Literally, I can see this house from my bedroom window. And I have seen this house from my bedroom window for the last 26 years. And so, in that respect, I am literally a backyard neighbor to the House. And I hope Mr. Shadley doesn't begrudge me the comments that I'm going to make. But the fact that you just acted on our request to change our zoning from R2 to R1 and considered the rationale that we made, which was we have
0:20:59 [t=1259] Speaker 176: lived in the house for a quarter century, raised our children in the house, treated it as a single-family residence. We appreciate, respect, and embrace the idea of not only that block, but also Farrington's Grove as a whole. and to the extent possible, every part of Terre Haute that accommodates single family residences for all of the value that single family residence brings to the city. That's the rationale behind us rezoning at this point, and you seem to understand that.
0:21:45 [t=1305] Speaker 176: So, in effect, what you are doing here 50 yards from the house that we are now trying to put into bedrock as a single-family residence is to rezone a neighboring house in the other direction. And so there's an intrinsic tension there that I feel like has to be accommodated somehow. This is a block that is R2, and you look at the different houses around ours. There is a house that has been divided up. There are single family homes. It's just like Farrington's Grove. It's got a little bit of everything. But. Do you want Farrington's Grove? Do you want this particular community to
0:22:52 [t=1372] Speaker 176: to have all of those variances, all of those differences, whether they're concentrated in one particular block or as far as the larger neighborhood is concerned? That doesn't make sense to me. That seems to be like something that we want to avoid putting into law, even if it's a zoning request that would go away if this person were to sell the property. It does set a precedent. And so the next person who buys the property could attempt to do something similar to the property and would have the precedent of some kind of business being established.
0:23:33 [t=1413] Speaker 176: I don't begrudge the owner of the house the desire to use it as much as the person wants to. I would imagine that he can do as much art in the house without rezoning it as he would like to do. I don't know that there are any prohibitions to doing art in his own home. As far as the tattoo element to that, yes, it would seem to me to be problematic on the block that we've called home for 26 years to now, beyond the differences, the one house, two doors down from us, that is apartments, and the other single family residences, to then accommodate within that block,
0:24:27 [t=1467] Speaker 176: and again, I'm looking at this house from my bedroom window every day, for it to become a business. And I don't necessarily have anything against tattoos. I don't have tattoos either, and I understand that that's fine, people do, but we do have quite a lot of tattoo places to go to in Terre Haute, and so I'm not sure that we are, that the presence of one here on Park Street is going to be satisfying the demand for boutique tattoos that exist. I'll leave that to the experts. I just I feel like what he is presenting to you is a fundamental issue of what do you want our
0:25:13 [t=1513] Speaker 176: particular block to look like what do you want Farrington's Grove to look like and what message does that send for the future you agree that our zoning request from R2 to R1 reflects the importance of single-family residents for that specific spot and that block and hopefully for Farrington's Grove what are you saying when someone comes and presents a rezoning request that goes in the other direction and again this is one attempt to do that but it could be followed by another and another and I could end up being an immediate neighbor to many R2 plus on
0:25:57 [t=1557] Speaker 176: on that particular block or across the street or within 100 yards. Again, we have tried very hard and we have been dedicated residents of Farrington's Grove for quarter century. And part of that has been to sustain and support the single family element of that. And we hope that you respect what we've been trying to do and investment that we put into that for so long. And so, again, I'm not standing up here necessarily as an opponent, but I'm standing up here as someone who is concerned about what these two very conflicting messages you would be sending would be.
0:26:43 [t=1603] Speaker 176: So thank you for your time, and I appreciate that.
0:26:45 [t=1605] Speaker 179: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this issue? Yeah, go ahead.
0:26:50 [t=1610] Speaker 182: Well, I clearly do have tattoos. I'm the owner of 901 South 8, Ed Trover. This is my wife, Mallory, also lives there. And 715. And 715, yes. And it's a long-coblutus story I will save you from, but I've actually lived in that house for about 10 years now. It did change into my name from my father's name before, beside the point. Also very dedicated to the neighborhood, which is why I bought the house. I bought the 715 because it had sat vacant for six years. Was literally falling apart, not taken care of, broken windows. Prior to that, it was a rental
0:27:40 [t=1660] Speaker 182: and there were at least six people living in it, which I didn't, college students, which I did not enjoy living next to. so I can fully appreciate where you were coming from. My intention with the house is to be able to use it as a studio, which yes, I could do without zoning, but I come from a museum background. I'm also an educator. I teach online now. I used to teach at St. Mary's. So my plan is to be able to provide a space for the community to be able to have workshops to help share ideas, not only my own,
0:28:15 [t=1695] Speaker 182: bringing in other artists to be able to give these workshops for me to be able to have any public come in i have been told repeatedly it cannot be r2 that i'm just not able to do that it can't be
0:28:28 [t=1708] Speaker 190: residential right it has to have development or it has to be commercial right so our options in terms
0:28:35 [t=1715] Speaker 191: of rezoning to be able to host educational workshops to be able to have our studio space which houses all of our equipment for artistic endeavors that cannot fit in our home the purpose of buying up the house next door is to continue to have it be historical when we're doing our renovations to the building we have done everything we can to keep it in its original historic features we actually also we wanted to know it's not actually in the historical district the line for the farrington grove historical district is actually the alleyway that it sits
0:29:11 [t=1751] Speaker 191: along because that was also a hurdle that we were considering prior to addressing these things and looking into the rezoning of the property the idea of having a tattoo studio is not to just be your typical tattoo studio the business as a whole is the terrehote museum of modern art and if you would like our business plan and our mission statements as well we can provide that for you but the whole purpose is to bring attention to the art that is happening in our community that we can publish and consult with people about their ideas and help them come to
0:29:47 [t=1787] Speaker 191: life so the idea of having a tattoo artist is someone that we would more or less have under those values of creating work that is meaningful and not just as we said like the walk-in flash tattoos it's not going to be something that's posted in the window that says like come here stop by we're open at this time all of its appointment only the rezoning and in terms of like any kind of residential apartment space would more or less be for residing artists to come and host workshops or a like residing tattoo artist that might travel from somewhere across the
0:30:24 [t=1824] Speaker 191: country to come and spend time in Terre Haute and do work in Terre Haute and get inspiration from the city um was there anything else I think so I think I think that it is really hard to understand what the business idea is without fully explaining it because seeing the words museum seeing the words tattoo or apartment they all have other meanings but our purpose as a whole is to be an artistic publishing and consulting studio with areas of the possibility of having an artistic tattoo artist or a residing artist that is coming to help us with either workshops or tattooing for short term
0:31:06 [t=1866] Speaker 191: for short term long term long term stays and prior in terms of like the residential sentence in terms of having people rent out that property as we mentioned there were college students prior there's actually a broken window that's still facing the alleyway that we were told by another resident in our neighborhood that it was broken during one of their parties that they had and she remembers that very vividly of how many times they partied in that house so our hope is that we can continue to keep this as preserved as we possibly can because this house is i believe 100 years old
0:31:43 [t=1903] Speaker 191: at least and we just we want to bring purpose to it and we want to highlight all the great things that terra haute has to offer we enjoy traveling and being able to travel to other small towns and and see what their artist community is doing. We have so many artists in this city. I mean, everybody probably knows Becky Hochhalter and all these artists that are putting their work out there, but what they don't know is that there are so many creative people that don't know how to publish their work or to get it out there or that their work means something
0:32:14 [t=1934] Speaker 191: and is inspired by the city that we live in. So that's kind of our goal and purpose is to kind of bring that to life. And of course, we want to also bring kids into that. We are two kids are sitting in the back right now, and they are more than happy to have a space where they feel like they can create things as well. So.
0:32:34 [t=1954] Speaker 203: OK.
0:32:35 [t=1955] Speaker 204: Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this issue?
0:32:42 [t=1962] Speaker 207: Yeah. I love artists.
0:32:49 [t=1969] Speaker 210: I can treat you as well. what we are told first is that we have a private art studio with a pageant level. One-on-one appointments, and now his workshops and his, because I think they're fantastic, we should do workshops. We should have people coming and learning about art, but we can't have it both ways. Either there are going to be a lot of work, or there are no money. And I don't want a party lot, let's be clear. Right? But I also don't want a lot of traffic. I also want to point out that this got too unfavorable recommendations. And so I would urge you to give this some serious talk.
0:33:29 [t=2009] Speaker 210: I'm going to be there, I'm going to be a good talk. But I also feel like
0:33:36 [t=2016] Speaker 216: this neighborhood is trying so hard to come back. And setting precedence is concerning.
0:33:44 [t=2024] Speaker 218: Thank you.
0:33:46 [t=2026] Speaker 68: Mr. Shagley?
0:33:48 [t=2028] Speaker 222: I think an interesting point just made there at the end is trying to come back and what what every community
0:33:57 [t=2037] Speaker 126: whatever and every what every neighborhood like it before young people to come and invest in in the in the neighborhood and that's what we have right here we have two young talented people that are just trying to make it better you know they and they're also trying to do it the right way as they mentioned, you know, they probably could have gotten away with most of this without coming in front of you. But instead, they are trying to do it the right way. And as I mentioned, these properties were purchased in October and September of 25. And they're here, you know, they wait a few months and
0:34:42 [t=2082] Speaker 126: they're here to try to do this right. They're trying to invest in our community, trying to better our community. And a common conversation we have both in this room and in the City Council room is when it comes to Council, Councilperson Azar likes to ask the question,
0:35:08 [t=2108] Speaker 222: what would you rather have? And this is a situation where we have one of the historic
0:35:16 [t=2116] Speaker 126: homes and just outside the Farrington Grove's area, that's been vacant. That was fortunately acquired by Mr. Trover. But, you know, at the price point that it was acquired, it could have been picked up and it could have been easily turned into an even more heavily, densely populated building in a rental situation. And as far as what's better for the neighborhood, I think a very strong argument can be made that what the Trovers are attempting to do is in the best interest of this neighborhood. This neighborhood doesn't need more duplexes, triplexes, and what it needs is people investing in
0:36:08 [t=2168] Speaker 126: the properties, making it better, and bringing something to our community that, as you heard Mr. Trover indicate, is somewhat lacking. And I can appreciate this is truly one of those not in my backyard. This is in his backyard. But he does have a neighbor who has been living there, has acquired more property, and is trying to make it better. And as a result, he's here tonight asking you to allow And that is to rezone this R2 property to R2 plan development. As far as the two unfavorable, it's been my understanding that the staff will follow the city.
0:36:54 [t=2214] Speaker 126: If they give unfavorable, they will follow that path. Unfortunately, we didn't have a lot of time to respond and work with the city on their recommendation recommendation letter that they provided. I think had we had some time, we could have worked out these details and shown them that what is being proposed is not detrimental to this neighborhood. Do you have in front of you this document? Is that part of your package? Did everybody get a copy of that? Mr. Yes. The Pressure- Okay. Mr. I think had we had the opportunity to sit down with Jason in the engineer's office, I think
0:37:45 [t=2265] Speaker 126: he would have hopefully seen what is being proposed and maybe would have had a different opinion, which would have then led to a different opinion from the
0:37:58 [t=2278] Speaker 150: staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
0:38:02 [t=2282] Speaker 227: Well, I'm here. I've reviewed this, and I do appreciate the business plan, but primarily our recommendation is based on parking.
0:38:11 [t=2291] Speaker 229: So as the ordinance is written, there are zero parking spaces required, because currently there are zero legal parking spaces on site. So that's what would be enforced. and I see that we're going to have up to 10 people plus an apartment. So between instructors, participants, and a potential residential space above, I would see the need for up to 15 parking spaces. And we're sitting in zero right now. So with a variance for backing into the public right-of-way,
0:38:44 [t=2324] Speaker 230: you could have one legal parking space on site. And I don't foresee the benefit of adding a shared apartment space next door
0:38:51 [t=2331] Speaker 229: I don't think our two districts would allow for shared parking spaces so our concern lies with parking heavily residential area areas in the city that does struggle some parking
0:39:13 [t=2353] Speaker 232: any other comments from applying commission members or questions
0:39:19 [t=2359] Speaker 235: I'm just kind of curious, say that there's one parking in here. Yeah. Tattoo Parlor.
0:39:27 [t=2367] Speaker 240: Yeah, so the Tattoo Parlor, I think chances are you may have a visual of when you drive by a Tattoo Parlor,
0:39:40 [t=2380] Speaker 222: you see the neon lights and you look in, there's a bunch of booths. This is a situation where there's going to be one or two stations that allows for the visiting tattoo artist to perform his art. And the apartment is, as indicated by Mr. Trover, for either that artist to stay while they're in town doing those appointment-only sessions. or for a visiting artist. Okay, so it won't be... It's not going to be... No, no, no. It's available for, as I said, the visiting tattoo artist or for a visiting artist or family or friend. But it's not going to be
0:40:30 [t=2430] Speaker 143: a long-term rental property like it could be right now.
0:40:35 [t=2435] Speaker 244: All I can see is the picture that only has one main exit.
0:40:41 [t=2441] Speaker 246: there's a back door too is there just two front
0:41:11 [t=2471] Speaker 258: up to the outside
0:41:29 [t=2489] Speaker 249: one booth inside the dining area of the area and this would not be necessarily like a full-time think they're not going to be living there every single day they are more or less consultants for art just like what we are trying to do in terms of workshops i don't think we're going to be having 10 plus cars
0:41:53 [t=2513] Speaker 257: as well as we do have parking for more than one car in the parking spot that is provided with property as well as our parking lot that holds two vehicles that is literally right next to that
0:42:06 [t=2526] Speaker 249: parking in terms of parking on the street we have probably one two three maybe four cars there from the residents all along park street but also we have a quarter of the street in front of us on
0:42:21 [t=2541] Speaker 257: 8th street our neighbor on the other side has pool parties and his parking keeps up the entire block as well as barbosco and they take up the entire 7th street with their parking even though they do have a parking area i don't think that we are going to do parking for 10 plus cars and if it's a matter of how many people are doing the workshop that is all dictated on us and if we are told we
0:42:48 [t=2568] Speaker 249: can only have five people at our workshop then that's something we can arrange and we can also So I don't know, I think it's interesting
0:42:59 [t=2579] Speaker 268: that we're going toward large numbers when our purpose isn't to block the road for anybody.
0:43:06 [t=2586] Speaker 257: I mean, if anything, Mark, our other neighbor that lives directly behind you, hosts pool parties within the entire congregation constantly. And that takes up the majority of the block as well as he owns the majority of the block. So I don't see why our small section of the block would create as much chaos as that does in our barbosco, which is a block away and still kind of those people park along our street as well.
0:43:34 [t=2614] Speaker 249: I understand the issues that are surrounding it.
0:43:37 [t=2617] Speaker 252: I feel like we've asked all the questions that we've been trying to ask and get answers about, as well as from your department. We're trying to do it in the best way possible. We've asked many questions and unfortunately,
0:43:50 [t=2630] Speaker 257: we haven't gotten a lot of answers from many people. some of you guys in terms of how to do this and what will be best so we're really just trying to do our best and understand what it is that you would like from this request because you probably accommodate that all we're trying to do is have a business where we can um boost creative spaces
0:44:14 [t=2654] Speaker 252: in our city and the only way that we were told we could do that is to rebuild the property any other information I mean you've actually had the area planning commission come out to our building to inspect it the building inspector came out to look at our building so I don't know what else
0:44:42 [t=2682] Speaker 70: okay thank you anything else from plan commission members go ahead
0:44:47 [t=2687] Speaker 154: I came here tonight on the fence, and I have to be honest, I'm still on the fence. I think had it been already zoned R1 and then asked if it was zoned to an R2 plan development,
0:45:01 [t=2701] Speaker 276: that would be an automatic no free. It seems that it is currently an R2, hearing some of the history of how the residence was previously abused. and that helps with you being some of my concerns. Additionally, in speaking with Todd Nation, the City Council rep for the area, he's spoken with the homeowners many times and he is in support of this project. I understand also we have a negative recommendation from engineering, which might be able to be property your recommendation tonight so that this would be further fleshed out by the city council um and some
0:46:02 [t=2762] Speaker 276: of the you know discussions maybe that you want to have with engineering you know maybe we can table this at tomorrow's City Council hearing so it gets on to the next meeting, and that would
0:46:12 [t=2772] Speaker 278: give more opportunity to enforce more discussion. That would just be my recommendation.
0:46:18 [t=2778] Speaker 281: Mr. Okay.
0:46:19 [t=2779] Speaker 222: The comments. The interesting thing about this, when Mr. Trover contacted me, as you know, I love doing a rezone, but when I asked the address, I thought, wait a minute. I said, where is that? And he told me. I thought, uh-oh. I said, by any chance, have you talked to Councilperson Nation? And he said he had. And then, of course, my question was, well, what did he say? And they have been working with Mr. Nation to try to relieve his concerns.
0:46:57 [t=2817] Speaker 126: As you, I am sure, aware, Councilperson Nation is a the strongest of proponents for his neighborhood and his district. And for Councilperson Nation to be supportive of this proposal, I think, says a lot about what the Trovers are attempting to do. The plan development, you know, you've got to meet some requirements, and those are the hardships. And I think, you know, the improvements on the land. well this is a situation where at some point they were approved to subdivide this lot and they create a situation where this old historic home is takes up a large portion of that lot which
0:47:48 [t=2868] Speaker 126: doesn't allow for a lot of parking there's room where you could pull in three cars but it's not
0:47:54 [t=2874] Speaker 143: a situation where you have three side by side so that hardship they're trying to overcome and then And, you know, there is – it's also a little bit on the hill. I mean, it's just a – it's not an ideal lot.
0:48:13 [t=2893] Speaker 126: And as far as in that area, you know, unfortunately, at whatever point your predecessors allow for our threes and for the last 20 years I've been up here doing other plan developments and other rezonings in this area, as well as my father before me. And, you know, there is mixed use throughout this area, in the Farrington's Grove area, even though this is outside. Plan developments aren't uncommon to this area. The little thing that makes this a little better, in my opinion, is that little add-on that we added that says if this property is transferred, not if it's
0:49:06 [t=2946] Speaker 126: stopped being used, but if it's transferred, it reverts back to the R2, which, as far as neighborly goes, you've got to ask yourself, would you rather have a daytime art studio and an occasional rental and occasional tattoo artist next door? Or would you rather have a situation where this is a large home that right now you could cut up and put, you know, you could put 10 or 15 people in there, which I think would be more detrimental to this area and would possibly lead to bigger problems than appointed by only tattoo artist and an art studio and a short-term rental for those artists.
0:49:56 [t=2996] Speaker 126: And as a result, the Trovers are here tonight, Mr. Trovers here tonight, asking for an R2 plan development. Thank you for your time.
0:50:04 [t=3004] Speaker 286: Thank you, Christian. Any other comments?
0:50:07 [t=3007] Speaker 229: I would just add that part of my concern is that we're getting differing information. so i'm hearing one artist that the document received just today very little chance to review and i did get a chance to review it but that's because i'm sitting around i don't know what time we're going to come here um different from what we hear so you know here we see that 10 people might be there there might be tattoo booths versus the one um you know we need to know how many spaces if we're going to say that everything parking is waived because right now there's zero illegal parking spaces, which is zero.
0:50:46 [t=3046] Speaker 229: We don't know how many we'll waive. Are we waiving five or are we waiving 20? My map puts it 15. I think there's... Based on the use in this paper.
0:50:56 [t=3056] Speaker 143: Yeah, I think there is going to be days where they need two spots. There's days that they don't need any. and there could be days where they might have a seminar or something where they need 10 spots for a couple hours. This is a situation where they're going to need 15 or 20, 24-7, every day. There might be times, just like the pool party guy, I mean, there might be times where you might have to drive around a block to find a parking spot on the Street, but that's progress. I love when people say, God, I had to, I drove downtown, I couldn't find a parking spot.
0:51:42 [t=3102] Speaker 143: You complain when you're in Terre Haute about parking, but yet you go to Indianapolis and you park in a garage and walk six blocks.
0:51:48 [t=3108] Speaker 126: But man, we expect to park in front of the store that we want to go to and not have to wait for that spot. And people waiting for a parking spot is progress
0:52:00 [t=3120] Speaker 143: in a community that's growing. Is it a problem sometimes? Yeah, but this isn't, like I said, this isn't going to be a constant problem. There's going to be times where they need zero, there's going to be times where they need two, and there might be times where they need 10 or 15.
0:52:13 [t=3133] Speaker 126: But it's not going to be constant and it's not going to be regular. And it's generally going to be during the daylight hours when most of the people are gone.
0:52:30 [t=3150] Speaker 298: Let me just add that given that our role is as a recommending body as well to the City Council, and unfortunately for Amanda, she sits on that, so she'll do this again. And I normally am completely against no recommendations because I think it's almost a failure on our part, but would agree with her in this case that that may well be the right.
0:52:57 [t=3177] Speaker 165: if the city council is willing to flush this out uh i mean i would be in favor of either either a tabling to work these out or a no recommendation and if amanda's speaking as a councilman would be willing i'm i'm happy with that but i can't make the motion or the or the second i think let me just add that i do i do believe that clearly you've met the hardship requirements, how somebody ever subdivided this lot to only have the house exist on it is the strangest thing
0:53:31 [t=3211] Speaker 34: I believe I've ever seen since I've been on this commission. I mean, just how that got done, I don't know.
0:53:38 [t=3218] Speaker 143: The Pressure Manninger You look down 8th Street and they're all 45 by 8.
0:53:42 [t=3222] Speaker 34: The President Yeah, I just drew a line around the house.
0:53:44 [t=3224] Speaker 308: The Pressure Manninger Yeah, go ahead.
0:53:47 [t=3227] Speaker 34: One more quick comment, then we've got to move on.
0:53:49 [t=3229] Speaker 310: The Pressure Manninger I was going to say, there is some discrepancy on what we did show. We saw it.
0:53:54 [t=3234] Speaker 165: I think he's got it on page three.
0:53:56 [t=3236] Speaker 310: Yes. What happened was the house of brand 901 and purchased some of the land from 715
0:54:02 [t=3242] Speaker 313: to extend and have a wearer garage.
0:54:05 [t=3245] Speaker 34: Right. It's just really odd. It is. It is really odd. So I think from a hardship standpoint, you don't have any argument.
0:54:14 [t=3254] Speaker 298: But I guess I would entertain a motion then.
0:54:18 [t=3258] Speaker 316: I would move to make a recommendation.
0:54:23 [t=3263] Speaker 204: second those in favor aye any opposed motion passes thank you very much it's good seeing
0:54:31 [t=3271] Speaker 122: everybody and i i was not with her husband but about two weeks ago i had a sore throat and i
0:54:38 [t=3278] Speaker 132: still have stuff draining and it's pretty awesome okay so have a great day thank you very much thank
0:54:43 [t=3283] Speaker 71: you our next item under new business city rezoning is docket number 73 special ordinance number 26 2026 29 23 arlith 41 west margaret drive and west market drive from an r1 and c2
0:55:03 [t=3303] Speaker 328: to an r3 general residence district the current zoning is r1 single family residence district and
0:55:11 [t=3311] Speaker 46: c2 community commerce district proposed zoning is r3 general residence district proposed use is multi-family apartments comprised of 80 senior apartments apartment units in one residential building. Property owner is SCRC Inc. The location they are located the lots are located on Arthur Street and West Margaret Street. It is R3 to the north east and west and C3 to the south. The addresses on the petition are incorrect they have been corrected on the staff report new addresses would be provided for this development the area to the north of Margaret is almost entirely zoned R3 and occupied by
0:55:48 [t=3348] Speaker 46: The site plan and stormwater drainage plan must be approved by Terre Haute Department of Engineering. In their recommendation, the Department of Engineering states the intended use would not directly alter the neighborhood's characteristic or create significant problems for the surrounding area. The recommendation was favorable from the Department of Engineering. Staff also offers a favorable recommendation with the following conditions. Site plan approval by the Department of Engineering with parking and stormwater drainage.
0:56:12 [t=3372] Speaker 331: The petitioner is present.
0:56:14 [t=3374] Speaker 333: Good evening. I also brought some additional photographs to pass out to give you some additional color. Okay, sure.
0:56:36 [t=3396] Speaker 336: Thank you.
0:56:44 [t=3404] Speaker 333: Anyways, good evening. My name is Hugh Pebworth. I am here on behalf of TWG Development, who is purchasing these properties from SCRC Inc. and here to discuss the rezoning for the proposed affordable senior property known as Margaret Senior. So TWG Development is an affordable housing developer, also with a market rate branch founded in 2007 and based out of Indianapolis. We've since spread across 23 other states, but we're especially active in our home state of Indiana. I also want to point out our existing affordable housing development, Wabash Place, which is
0:57:32 [t=3452] Speaker 333: currently under construction here in Terre Haute. It's 120 in a workforce affordable housing development. It's actually adjacent to the site that we're here to discuss tonight. And as part of that project, we heard about the need for affordable senior housing, and that's what led us to try to bring to life Margaret Sr. So now I'll talk about the proposed location for a second. So the three parcels that we're proposing to rezone tonight are part of a six-parcel site located at the northwest corner of Arlith Street and Margaret Avenue.
0:58:02 [t=3482] Speaker 333: Three of those parcels are already zoned R3, and then two of the parcels are zoned R1, with the last one's own C2. So I think the addresses might have been slightly off, but I'll read the parcel IDs here. Parcel ID 84-06-33-381-006.000-002. So this is in the top right of the map on the last page that I gave you. That last page has the three parcels highlighted there. So that's currently zoned R1 and is vacant. partial ID 84-06-33-381-002.000-002. So this is in the middle bottom square. It's currently zoned R1 and it's also a vacancy. And then partial ID 84-06-33-381-007.000-002.
0:58:57 [t=3537] Speaker 333: I think we need some more zeros in there. there. It's currently zone C2. That's that bottom right parcel. And so there's currently a rental house on there. So if you look at the the top page, that's an aerial drone footage taken, I believe this past month. So in the foreground, you have Wabash Place, which is an apartment complex we're currently building to the north of the site and the sites identified by that red arrow. So the north of the site, you have existing apartments to the west. You have a nursing home so as you can see these three parcels which are not
0:59:29 [t=3569] Speaker 333: currently zoned r3 are really kind of out of place when you take into account the other zoning in the area most of if not almost all of the other parcels are zoned r3 and allow for multifamily housing so now having talked about that I'll describe a little bit more what we're proposing to develop apologies I thought there was an easel here tonight but this is this is a basic layout very initial setup but we're proposing to develop 80 residential units for seniors 55 and older so all of these units will be handicap accessible our
1:00:07 [t=3607] Speaker 333: initial site plan here shows 153 parking spaces on-site amenities will include on-site property management a resident lounge fitness center and other space I do want to stress this is a very early design and design may shift and we understand we may need to come back here for variances in the future or may need to relay out design but this is our initial layout and then the state funding around that we're pursuing as part of this involves strict design standards so these include higher energy ratings with an
1:00:36 [t=3636] Speaker 333: energy rater walking through construction at all points in construction an accessibility consultant to ensure that all the spaces in the building and all the units are accessible inspire requirements for fire protection electrical and when you take the totality of all these things it's above and beyond what's typical in a multifamily development which now sort of talk about our timeline here so we secured all six of these parcels under contract and submitted an application to the state of Indiana in July they're now reviewing
1:01:08 [t=3668] Speaker 333: that that application and then they will get back to us with feedback towards the end of this month early October it's a little bit difficult to say but that's the rough timeline we'll then find out in November if we're awarded funding and then if we're awarded funding from November until May of next year we'll finalize our architectural plans get any approvals that we might need lineup lenders and then construction will begin roughly in June of 2027 continue for about 18 months and then first residents would move in towards the end of 2028 or the very beginning of 2029 but again we're
1:01:43 [t=3703] Speaker 333: requesting two parcels to be rezoned from our one to our three one one parcel
1:01:49 [t=3709] Speaker 338: be rezoned from C2 to R3 to match those surrounding uses there. But I'll pause for any questions you might have now.
1:01:56 [t=3716] Speaker 162: Okay. Any questions from the Planning Commission members? Yes, Amanda.
1:02:00 [t=3720] Speaker 154: Other than the state funding, are you going to be making any other asks, like tax abatement,
1:02:05 [t=3725] Speaker 338: anything like that? There may be a request for a pilot or a tax abatement at a later date.
1:02:14 [t=3734] Speaker 6: Any other questions from the Planning Commission members? Is there anyone else here that would like to speak to this issue?
1:02:25 [t=3745] Speaker 351: Seeing none.
1:02:26 [t=3746] Speaker 74: I've got a favorable recommendation. Do I have a second?
1:02:29 [t=3749] Speaker 6: Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
1:02:35 [t=3755] Speaker 353: Thank you.
1:02:44 [t=3764] Speaker 71: Next item under new business subdivisions, minor, primary, secondary, docket number 66, file number 42, 2026, Oregon Church Mill Corner.
1:02:55 [t=3775] Speaker 39: The property is on the corner of East Oregon Church Road and South Mill Street. One lot, 1.89 acres, survey room Mr. Wagner. Request to subdivide the parent tract for an existing home, creating one new lot. Health Department has approved.
1:03:08 [t=3788] Speaker 37: Public water is not available. Public sewer is not available.
1:03:12 [t=3792] Speaker 39: It's not in a flood zone, and lots do exceed the minimum lot size requirement. Stormwater drainage is not typically required with minor subdivisions. This is a major subdivision due to the number of lots created from the pair of tract over time. Due to the size and intended use of the property, staff would request a waiver of the major subdivision rules in favor of the minor subdivision rules. The approval of the plan is contingent upon it being signed and dated by within 90 days. The separation of the existing home from the pair track does allow for an additional home
1:03:45 [t=3825] Speaker 39: to be constructed if desired. Staffs have the opinion that the addition of a new residence at this location would not serve to overburden the local infrastructure. So we offered a favorable on the primary and secondary.
1:03:57 [t=3837] Speaker 82: Is the petitioner present? Anything you'd like to add to staff's report?
1:04:01 [t=3841] Speaker 360: No, we basically just bought the house in the corner. Okay. in the house but we're just carving on the uh i guess the hate field with the
1:04:10 [t=3850] Speaker 361: attachment department i over there next door okay we're not doing any development or any like that
1:04:15 [t=3855] Speaker 362: so basically um putting that house on that people got it got it okay any questions for the petitioner
1:04:25 [t=3865] Speaker 6: anyone here speaking to this issue now i'll entertain a motion
1:04:31 [t=3871] Speaker 369: Move to approval. First staff recommendation, I've been closed.
1:04:36 [t=3876] Speaker 298: Those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
1:04:45 [t=3885] Speaker 71: Next item under new business, subdivisions minor, primary, secondary, docket number 68, file number 44-2026, Vernon Court.
1:04:54 [t=3894] Speaker 39: The property is fronted by 22nd Street and is in between 2136 and 2112 North 22nd Street. 0.51 acres, three lots, surveyors Mr. Tolles. The request is to replat portions of Maple Avenue, lots 171 through 175, creating three new lots. Health Department has approved a sanitary sewer is available. Public water is available. It's not in a flood zone, and the lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement. The area is well served with other utilities. This subdivision combines existing vacant lots in the city of Terre Haute and replats them into lots that meet the ordinance for the minimum lot size.
1:05:29 [t=3929] Speaker 39: The intended use is to redevelop the property with a residential use. Residential reinvestment and redevelopment is encouraged. Sufficient utilities should be available to the property.
1:05:41 [t=3941] Speaker 62: So we offered a favorable in the primary and secondary with bonding for infrastructure if needed, recording within 90 days, and rib cut permits if needed.
1:05:50 [t=3950] Speaker 165: Caleb, you are actually here. For all of those who always wondered who Mr. Tolles was, there he is. Anything you'd like to add to staff's report?
1:06:02 [t=3962] Speaker 377: I don't know if you have any questions.
1:06:04 [t=3964] Speaker 165: Nope. Matt never has anything to add either. Any questions from anyone? Nobody. Anyone here speaking in opposition? Sure. Come on, give us your name and address.
1:06:14 [t=3974] Speaker 378: My name is Cindy Miller, and I actually live right across the street from where they're wanting to develop this.
1:06:23 [t=3983] Speaker 380: I have several questions. It is a very old neighborhood. neighborhood. I don't know what kind of, you know, housing facilities, whatever they're looking for to put here. My main question, one of my questions is, is it, are these for sale? Are these for rent? Are these government housing? Are they low-income housing? And the reason I ask this is because just earlier today I feel like the older neighborhoods just aren't respected here at all. You know, you're like, I feel like it's like an older neighborhood. We just need to fix everything and move on. This is the Hungarian neighborhood.
1:06:57 [t=4017] Speaker 380: My father-in-law came from Hungary. My husband was born and raised on 21st Street. Many of the families that live in this neighborhood are descendants of that heritage. So I am concerned of what kind of housing is going to go in there. I'm also concerned with, again, parking. There's not much parking there. I don't know if these are going to contain driveways, if it's going to be all on-street parking. The road is fairly narrow, and we get a lot of traffic from the railroad because it's always blocking Maple Avenue. So a lot of traffic comes down our street.
1:07:39 [t=4059] Speaker 380: If it is going to be on-street parking, I would like to see at least one side of that street. No parking. I'd like to have just one side parking. that would help maybe the traffic flow. I know I can't keep people out of my driveway since I'm about the only driveway on that street. I do have people who want to turn around in that drive. Like I said, they're mostly single-family homes. I believe they're all single-family homes. I don't think there's any multifamily homes in that area. They're all owned. The one next to where they're wanting to develop, I believe it's a rental.
1:08:15 [t=4095] Speaker 380: They have been there several years. but everything else as far as I know there may be a couple in that two block our streets only two blocks long or individually owned there may be a couple of those I'm not sure of down further down south of where I live several years ago and I'm going to say probably 15 maybe even longer than that I've lived there 42 years I was told by somebody that was rotor rooting that's my word I don't know if that's the word my sewer or my whatever out to the sewer line that told me that that was in disrepair at that time as far as I know
1:08:56 [t=4136] Speaker 380: nothing has ever been done to that area as far as sewers go so increased traffic increased usage I'm just you know I would like some kind of proof that somebody is checking those sewers along there the sidewalks are in pretty bad had disrepair, whether there's trees growing, sidewalks are either crumbling or they're six inches apart from each other. You know, you got them like this. Is any of this, you know, anything planned on any of this? So I just have a lot of questions on what are they planning on doing with that property?
1:09:30 [t=4170] Speaker 165: Mr. Sure. I don't think we know the answer to that. What we're being asked tonight is just simply to redraw lines and clean.
1:09:38 [t=4178] Speaker 298: It looks like to me that there were four four plus out of compliance lots planted a long long long time ago and what they're coming to us tonight is to change the lines and make three lots that meet all of this yeah so we don't we don't know nor do we require you know what home I mean what this it's not a zoning issue it's just simply a lot lines
1:10:05 [t=4205] Speaker 230: Okay, I wasn't sure. I didn't have to. That's okay. I can add to that. So it is currently zoned R1. So what could be built here if it's passed, this is three single-family homes. Okay. We don't have control over whether they're owned or rented or affordability levels. Okay. But it would be up to three single-family homes could be built here from what used to be five lots. It could have been five single-family homes. And I'll also note, if you have sidewall concerns and things like that, 311, a call or an email, and let them know.
1:10:39 [t=4239] Speaker 398: We'll get out and take a look at it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
1:10:44 [t=4244] Speaker 94: Anyone else? Not all, entertain a motion.
1:10:53 [t=4253] Speaker 298: All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion passes.
1:11:01 [t=4261] Speaker 71: Next item, under new business subdivisions,
1:11:04 [t=4264] Speaker 74: minor primary secondary docket number 69 file number 45 2026 miami meadows replat of tract a
1:11:13 [t=4273] Speaker 39: the pair track has frontage along east grotto road and is associated with 11550 east grotto road the new lot is fronted by north miami garden street being on the north of the property and surrounding 4863 north miami garden street it's two new lots totaling 19.336 acres surveyors mr French. Applicant is requesting to subdivide that parent tract for new home construction. Health Department has reviewed, it's still pending, soil borings are needed to ensure the lots will be considered buildable. Lot one does have a permit. The Terre Haute Regional Airport
1:11:50 [t=4310] Speaker 39: reported that this property does appear to fall within a significant noise contour surrounding the International Airport as defined in our FAR part 150 noise compatibility plan. A letter is recommended by Ernest and Jacqueline Smith stating that they are aware of the proximity and realize that they will have aircraft noise within the 65 decimal range. Public water is available. It's not in a flood zone. Lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement. The North Miami Gardens is considered a primary collector roadway. So the approval of the plan is contingent upon are being recorded in 90 days.
1:12:25 [t=4345] Speaker 39: Currently zoned RS, the new lot contains sufficient space and availability infrastructure to support development. Only one new home can be constructed.
1:12:33 [t=4353] Speaker 410: I'm sorry. I can't hear nothing you're saying.
1:12:36 [t=4356] Speaker 412: I'm not talking. That's why you can't hear me. Okay, I'm sorry.
1:12:42 [t=4362] Speaker 417: But I can't hear nobody talking.
1:12:44 [t=4364] Speaker 416: I should have said background.
1:12:45 [t=4365] Speaker 48: I do some ventriloquism on the side. Yeah. Okay, talk louder, Jared. I'll do what I can. I'll relay the message. Okay.
1:12:55 [t=4375] Speaker 39: So currently, the property is zoned RS. The new lot contains sufficient space and available infrastructure to support development. Only one new home can be constructed without further division of the property. Staff's the opinion that the addition of a new residence at this location would not serve to overburden the local infrastructure. So we've offered a favorable.
1:13:12 [t=4392] Speaker 62: However, the following conditions do apply. A road cut permit if needed, and completion of the letter is recommended by the airport.
1:13:18 [t=4398] Speaker 165: Okay. Is the petitioner present? Oh, yes, you. No wonder you thought I ought to be talking. Is there anything you'd like to add to staff's report? No.
1:13:29 [t=4409] I think when you said yes, that's fine.
1:13:32 [t=4412] Speaker 165: Okay.
1:13:32 [t=4412] Well, we sell it for a year.
1:13:34 [t=4414] Speaker 165: Okay. Any questions from anyone on the Planning Commission?
1:13:37 [t=4417] Speaker 6: Anyone here speaking to this issue? Yes, sir. Come up here and give us your name and address so we know where you live.
1:13:51 [t=4431] Speaker 432: My name is Aaron Smith. I live at 4940 North Miami Garden Street. My property actually will, I believe, come in or be adjacent to the drive that would have to be installed for this to be subdivided. To be a residential lot. And, again, I was having a hard time hearing you as well. You read really fast, which is great, but it's hard to understand sometimes. Am I understanding it correct that they're only allowing one home to be built?
1:14:28 [t=4468] Speaker 433: Without further subdivision, yes, one home.
1:14:31 [t=4471] Speaker 432: Okay. But they're trying to subdivide it?
1:14:36 [t=4476] Speaker 62: To allow for one additional lot for one home currently. That's all we have before us.
1:14:41 [t=4481] Speaker 434: Okay. Okay. That was the only question I had. Okay.
1:14:46 [t=4486] Speaker 437: Okay. Okay.
1:14:50 [t=4490] Speaker 6: No, you're fine. I mean, so which lot is the new driveway? The driveway will be off Miami Gardens, right?
1:15:00 [t=4500] Speaker 439: It's the only access.
1:15:02 [t=4502] Speaker 444: Sure. Okay. Right.
1:15:06 [t=4506] Speaker 446: Okay.
1:15:10 [t=4510] Speaker 448: Miami Gardens, right. Yeah, that's what it looked like.
1:15:19 [t=4519] Speaker 450: Do you want me to be brutally honest right now? I'm a contractor, so I have nothing against people building. But honestly, I don't like people, which is why I bought my property where I bought it. I don't like people. Where are you looking?
1:15:38 [t=4538] Speaker 456: At 4940 Miami Gardens. So you're on the other side of Miami Gardens from this? I'm across the street. Across the street. Yes. Okay.
1:15:53 [t=4553] Speaker 461: So how many homes are you planning on putting in back there? He could only put one. Just one? Yeah. Okay.
1:16:02 [t=4562] Speaker 464: There's 9.78 for their building.
1:16:04 [t=4564] Speaker 465: Which is why I was asking if it was going to be subdivided more in the future.
1:16:09 [t=4569] Speaker 466: I don't know about that. I don't have a problem.
1:16:19 [t=4579] Speaker 471: I don't have a problem with one home going in, but I don't want a neighborhood when I
1:16:24 [t=4584] Speaker 465: intentionally spent the money to live in an area where I had as few neighbors as possible.
1:16:33 [t=4593] Speaker 34: Yeah, that would have to come before us again if that were somebody's desire, but right now there'd just be one lot one oh okay absolutely yeah absolutely and it
1:16:45 [t=4605] Speaker 401: doesn't sound like that's the plan yeah yeah that's great okay what
1:16:49 [t=4609] Speaker 476: information we had I sure
1:17:08 [t=4628] Speaker 483: I live north of Nick. I live north of Nick. My property actually is around the next time. Okay, you're going to next one up. Yes. Oh, okay. Okay.
1:17:17 [t=4637] Speaker 165: Anyone else? You said something? Sure. Come on up and tell us your name and address and your concerns.
1:17:24 [t=4644] Speaker 487: Yes, I'm Gary Hozier. I live on Grotto at 11245 Grotto. I am on the west side of Miami Garden.
1:17:37 [t=4657] Speaker 491: Okay.
1:17:37 [t=4657] Speaker 487: I don't have a problem with the subdivision and stuff. I'm getting concerned about Miami Garden itself being it's like a main thoroughfare headed north between Rio Grande and Highway 40. So I'm kind of worried about the traffic. And Grotto itself is a dangerous intersection because people, it's at the bottom between two hills, completely blind from north and south. So I didn't know if the county had thought about either widening or doing something to make it less dangerous in the area. There's a lot of blind driveways that you don't see along there. There are. Yeah.
1:18:22 [t=4702] Speaker 487: Yeah, so I didn't – that's my concern is Miami Garden. Sure.
1:18:27 [t=4707] Speaker 372: Okay. Thank you.
1:18:32 [t=4712] Speaker 204: Anyone else? Yes, sir.
1:18:35 [t=4715] Speaker 493: My name is Josh Lynch. I live on Broderbrook Road as well. 11750 Broderbrook.
1:18:41 [t=4721] Speaker 494: I didn't really necessarily know how this commission meeting would work. I think I had some similar concerns to the first individual that spoke. So this would adjoin our property on the northwestern portion of our property. We just had similar seclusion issues. We obviously bought it for the seclusion that it offered. I didn't know if obviously this is in the early stages. stages if we knew where specifically the residents would be built on the property because that would certainly affect the view and the use that we have of the
1:19:10 [t=4750] Speaker 494: property for hunting and outdoor recreation. Right. So that's essentially
1:19:14 [t=4754] Speaker 298: all I have at this point. Okay. Yeah and I don't think we can answer that nor does this body control that. Sure. And I think maybe some of the concerns are and I've mentioned this at many meetings before but when we send out notifications of subdivisions I think the first picture that goes in somebody's head is a new
1:19:32 [t=4772] Speaker 500: Dr. Glenn. That was absolutely our first impression. And believe it or not,
1:19:36 [t=4776] Speaker 298: oftentimes we are subdividing a piece of property from three to one. Right. It's just an odd way of naming. We're really platting. So I think a lot of people come with these tremendous concerns that we're, and it's just a guy that wants to know what happens. So any further subdivisions we would get notice
1:19:55 [t=4795] Speaker 494: Oh yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
1:20:02 [t=4802] Speaker 70: Anything else from the Planning Commission members? I'll entertain a motion.
1:20:07 [t=4807] Speaker 512: Motion approved. Those in favor? Aye.
1:20:10 [t=4810] Speaker 511: Any opposed? Motion passes.
1:20:18 [t=4818] Speaker 71: Next item under new business, docket number 71, file number 47-2026, Kempf Farm Estates.
1:20:26 [t=4826] Speaker 39: The property has frontage along Bloomington Road, commonly associated with 11131 Bloomington Road. one new lots 1.2 acres surveyors mr. Wagner the applicant is requesting to subdivide 1.2 on acres to separate the existing residential dwelling from the surrounding acreage health department review is still pending soil borings must be completed to ensure all lots will be considered buildable public sewer is not available this property also has been identified by the airport as appearing to fall within the significant noise contour surrounding that airport
1:20:57 [t=4857] Speaker 39: as defined in the FAR part 150 noise compatibility plan. A letter of recommendation, sorry, a letter is recommended by Jerry R. Kempf, stating that he is aware of the proximity and realizes that they will have an aircraft noise within the 65 decimal range. Public water is not available. It's not in the flood zone. A lot exceeds the minimum lot size requirement. And Bloomington Road is considered a local level roadway at this location. So the approval of the plan is contingent upon it being recorded in 90 days.
1:21:26 [t=4886] Speaker 39: This is a major subdivision due to the number of lots created from the parent tract over time. Due to the size and intended use of the property, staff would request a waiver of the major subdivision rules in favor of the minor subdivision rules. Staff said the opinion that the addition of a new residence at this location would not serve to overburden the local infrastructure. So few, if any other, concerns exist with this request. We offer a favorable with the following conditions. Completion of the letters recommended by the airport and health department approval.
1:21:52 [t=4912] Speaker 165: Is the petitioner present? Yes, sir.
1:21:55 [t=4915] Speaker 516: anything you'd like to add to staff trip or okay
1:22:04 [t=4924] Speaker 298: okay sure any questions for the petitioner from playing commission members anyone here would like to speak to this issue now I'll entertain a motion those in favor can he opposed motion passes
1:22:25 [t=4945] Speaker 71: Next item under new business, subdivision major, primary, secondary, docket number 67, file number 43-2026, Hawthorne Woods, phase 3A.
1:22:37 [t=4957] Speaker 39: The property is a part of Hawthorne Woods, phase 3, more specifically lots 61 through 65. It's 2.33 acres, and they'd like to subdivide that into six lots. The survey is Mr. Tolles. The request is for primary and secondary plat approval of a replat of a portion of Hawthorne Woods Phase 3. Health Department has approved that public water is available. Stormwater and drainage calculations have been submitted and are awaiting approval. This property also does appear to fall within a significant noise contour surrounding the Arrowhead International Airport.
1:23:10 [t=4990] Speaker 39: Holman Field is defined in the FAR Part 150 noise compatibility plan. A letter is recommended by the developer stating that they are aware of the proximity and realize that they will have aircraft noise within the 65 decibel range. Sanitary sewer is available to not flood zone. The lots do exceed the minimum lot size requirement. The reflat of this portion of the development will shrink the existing lots. Lots 62 through 65 will be reduced by 81.81 square feet. Lot 61 will be reduced by 86.11 square feet. and the net will be utilized to create a new lot, 63A.
1:23:46 [t=5026] Speaker 39: The setbacks as indicated on the plan are more restrictive than required. However, they match the existing development pattern of the previous phases. Major infrastructure improvements are apparent and the plan does need to be recorded within 90 days. So we offered a favorable in the primary and secondary with the drainage and erosion control approval if needed, bonding for infrastructure if needed, and completion of the letter as recommended by the airport.
1:24:08 [t=5048] Speaker 34: Caleb, do you like the staff's report? It sounds good. Nothing to add, huh? Not unless you have any questions. Any questions from anyone on the Planning Commission?
1:24:19 [t=5059] Speaker 298: Anyone else here would like to speak to this issue? Now I'll entertain a motion. Those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Our last item on the agenda under new business, City County General Ordinance, Docket No. 74, General Ordinance No. 3, 2026, an amendment
1:24:44 [t=5084] Speaker 74: to the Unified Zoning Ordinance of Eagle County, Indiana to add battery energy storage systems as a special ordinance.
1:24:52 [t=5092] Speaker 39: Yes, Mr. President, regarding the proposed BESS ordinance, staff and the commissioners have requested that the draft ordinance be revised to include additional information and a more comprehensive review of the applicable state guidelines. Specifically, we would like the ordinance to address topics such as floodplain and flood zone considerations and to ensure that any relevant state requirements or guidance that may have been overlooked are fully incorporated. So then our request this evening is for it to be tabled until our attorney provides an updated draft for review.
1:25:25 [t=5125] Speaker 534: Do I have a motion to do so? So moved.
1:25:27 [t=5127] Speaker 298: Second. Those in favor? Aye.
1:25:30 [t=5130] Speaker 534: Any opposed? Motion passes.
1:25:32 [t=5132] Speaker 50: It is tabled. I do have a motion to adjourn. Those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.
1:26:05 [t=5165] Thank you.