Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hinckley Estates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission continues Hinckley Estates PUD after neighbors raise access and tree‑preservation concerns
Summary
The Holiday City Planning Commission continued a proposed four‑lot Hinckley Estates subdivision/PUD to May 20 after neighbors and commissioners pressed the applicant to clarify private access easements and how proposed roadway improvements would affect mature trees.
The Holiday City Planning Commission on May 6 continued consideration of the Hinckley Estates preliminary plat and planned unit development after neighbors and several commissioners urged more detail on access rights and tree protection.
Senior planner Carrie told the commission the 1.65‑acre site at South Floribunda Drive is zoned R‑1‑10 and could yield up to seven dwelling units by gross acreage, but the applicants are asking for a PUD limited to four units to preserve open space. Applicant Christian Rennie, who said the property has been in his family for 90 years, described the proposal as an effort "to keep the property within the family" and to avoid building a private road that would remove canopy cover.
Why it matters: Neighbors argued the application was rushed and that the proposed access relies on private easements that may not be recorded. Christian Hansen, who said he lives at 4867 S. Floribunda Dr., told the commission, "we found out about this 8 days ago" and that "there's no recorded easement and that's their proposed access." Another neighbor, Dave Delambaugh, said four large boundary trees likely would be removed if the access road is paved.
Commission deliberations focused on whether the subdivision preliminary plat and PUD elements should be approved together. Staff and the fire marshal told the commission the turnaround shown on the concept plan meets International Fire Code design standards, but multiple commissioners said private easement and neighbor maintenance concerns are substantive and should be resolved or conditioned before PUD approval. Commissioner Cunningham said he would be comfortable approving a standalone subdivision finding if references to PUD elements and fire access findings were removed, but he opposed approving PUD elements without clearer evidence that tree preservation and access are secured.
Action taken: Commissioner Prince moved to continue the Hinckley Estates preliminary plat to the May 20 meeting "to allow more time for the property owners to discuss access." Commissioner Fonte seconded; the motion passed unanimously. The commission also directed that when the PUD returns the applicants should include tree‑protection standards (ISA standards for protection zones and canopy replacement where removal is necessary).
Next steps: The applicants may return with recorded easement documentation or conditioned plans showing how access will be secured, and with tree‑protection and replacement measures incorporated into the PUD materials. The continuance preserves the current application timeline while requiring additional information before any PUD approval.
