WEBVTT 00:00:00.834 --> 00:00:09.160 - meeting everyone. I will call to order the October administrative meeting of the plan commission. 00:00:09.160 --> 00:00:17.996 - So Jackie, to get us started, could you call the roll? Sure. David Bush. Here. Margaret Clements. Ronan 00:00:17.996 --> 00:00:26.577 - Ray-Grando. Scott Farris. Here. Rudy Peel. Here. David Henry. Here. Jeff Morris. Here. Julie Thomas. 00:00:26.577 --> 00:00:28.446 - All right. So we have 00:00:30.146 --> 00:00:42.756 - six members in person in the forum, and I think Trance is just a few minutes late, so we'll likely have. 00:00:42.756 --> 00:00:54.885 - So we will jump into administrative business. Is the 2026 meeting. This is a partial calendar. We've 00:00:54.885 --> 00:00:56.446 - got several. 00:00:57.058 --> 00:01:03.618 - parts in the latter half of the year that are just to be determined. We're gonna go, we're gonna be 00:01:03.618 --> 00:01:10.440 - needing the January dates really soon for public hearings and such and notify people. So they're asking 00:01:10.440 --> 00:01:17.000 - for this initial, I guess, calendar adoption until we get the holidays officially approved from the 00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:23.166 - commissioner's office and then the county council office that usually follows suit with their 00:01:23.426 --> 00:01:32.422 - budget hearing schedules. So we always have conflicts usually in those. So we're going to be looking 00:01:32.422 --> 00:01:41.952 - as much as we can with the calendar. But we need the, we start, we're going to start needing these January 00:01:41.952 --> 00:01:51.126 - dates. Are there any questions for staff on the proposed 2026 calendar? Yeah, Mr. Thomas. It does look 00:01:51.126 --> 00:01:53.086 - like you accommodated 00:01:53.602 --> 00:02:02.498 - And you need elections. He has like to be determined. Yeah, I wasn't positive how that was going to. 00:02:02.498 --> 00:02:11.307 - Yeah, I'm going to wait for an official. Approve ordinance, OK? Once we have the budget. But that's 00:02:11.307 --> 00:02:20.115 - me, you know that right? I mean, so that's it's just to be determined. So we'll be adopting another 00:02:20.115 --> 00:02:23.198 - one once we have more information. 00:02:23.426 --> 00:02:30.944 - I mean, you know, I think that I think that makes sense. And then hopefully once the holiday calendar 00:02:30.944 --> 00:02:38.684 - is established, then we can come back and try it again. And then obviously, we have the county council's 00:02:38.684 --> 00:02:46.202 - room. Right. Right. That was going to say we're going to never see September. So yeah. So August this 00:02:46.202 --> 00:02:50.846 - year, too. Yeah. I thought August was a safe date. It was not. 00:02:51.074 --> 00:03:02.246 - I appreciate that and I know that you're interested in this one. Thank you. Any other questions for 00:03:02.246 --> 00:03:13.418 - staff? There are none. We have a motion to approve the 126 calendar. Motion to approve 126. Second. 00:03:13.418 --> 00:03:18.334 - It's been moved and seconded to approve the 00:03:18.690 --> 00:03:31.956 - there as presented in the packet about yes is about to approve. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 00:03:31.956 --> 00:03:44.967 - Yes. Yes. Moving on to item two. This is the update on Black Committee membership and condition rules 00:03:44.967 --> 00:03:47.646 - of procedure change. 00:03:48.642 --> 00:03:57.226 - Yes. So we had Everett Ullman vacated his position, and we did not yet have anyone that's serving as 00:03:57.226 --> 00:04:05.725 - interim. And so we went back to the rules and procedure because we were also notified by one of our 00:04:05.725 --> 00:04:14.394 - citizen members that they actually have a new job, and it's in Indianapolis. And it's really cool for 00:04:14.394 --> 00:04:18.558 - them to attend at 4 PM to get to flat committee. 00:04:18.690 --> 00:04:27.721 - So we potentially have two vacancies on the Black Committee. So I wanted to come up with the rules and 00:04:27.721 --> 00:04:36.927 - procedure change. So we had done a rules and procedure change to change it for either three or a minimum 00:04:36.927 --> 00:04:46.046 - of three and a maximum of five Black Committee members. Right now we have five Black Committee members. 00:04:46.178 --> 00:04:53.117 - with one being a citizen appointee and then four plan commission members. So the options before us were 00:04:53.117 --> 00:04:59.923 - to either go back to three or appoint a new plan commission person to take Edward's position and find 00:04:59.923 --> 00:05:06.796 - a new citizen member. In the interim, we do need to hold Platt committee. So we're leaning towards the 00:05:06.796 --> 00:05:12.734 - three members just so we don't have to cancel another meeting for lack of a forum. So if 00:05:13.090 --> 00:05:20.066 - Since the rules procedure already accompany this flexibility under A, we wanted to add additional flexibility 00:05:20.066 --> 00:05:26.724 - then under C, which I think we've achieved, but we wanted to get official approval and have a discussion 00:05:26.724 --> 00:05:33.129 - about it before we officially change it. So C is going to be changed to say in the case of five flat 00:05:33.129 --> 00:05:34.334 - committee members, 00:05:34.498 --> 00:05:40.578 - between one and three members shall be citizen members that have knowledge and experience in professional 00:05:40.578 --> 00:05:46.429 - land serving and related issues. So that would take care of saying, if there's five, you have to have 00:05:46.429 --> 00:05:52.337 - a minimum of two plant commission members and a maximum of four. So to get to five, you would do that. 00:05:52.337 --> 00:05:58.417 - In the case of three plant committee members, up to one member may be a citizen member that has knowledge 00:05:58.417 --> 00:06:04.382 - and experience in professional land serving and related issues. We don't have to have a citizen member. 00:06:04.482 --> 00:06:12.177 - In the case of three, we could just do the three planned commission members, but I didn't know if this 00:06:12.177 --> 00:06:20.172 - was something we wanted to leave as a window opening because we lost, or we retired plan review committee, 00:06:20.172 --> 00:06:27.643 - which was the other board where we had citizen membership. So this is for consideration discussion. 00:06:27.643 --> 00:06:33.022 - Mr. Thomas. It seems that the issue, there are important decisions made 00:06:33.506 --> 00:06:43.097 - And so I hate to see three months. I just feel like more input is better. We talked about changing the 00:06:43.097 --> 00:06:52.409 - day and time because that seems to be the issue. It is, I'm not at a, and that day and time is set, 00:06:52.409 --> 00:07:01.534 - I think, by Dave Thompson this year. So I think that may be a good way to manage this. I'm still, 00:07:02.018 --> 00:07:09.893 - I just think that three members is really small for the decisions that they're making. It's just. If 00:07:09.893 --> 00:07:17.925 - we stick with five, I would ask them tonight if we could appoint someone for Edwards position, because 00:07:17.925 --> 00:07:26.814 - right now we just have, I think we have David, Rudy and Tron, right? So it would be three with our current rules. 00:07:27.970 --> 00:07:34.878 - Yes, three with two, we could do two citizens with this change. That's correct. Yeah. I just wonder 00:07:34.878 --> 00:07:41.924 - if we couldn't just change the day and time to something that works for staff, but also works for the 00:07:41.924 --> 00:07:49.247 - members who are residents and not bank commission members, because that is an odd time to have a meeting. 00:07:49.247 --> 00:07:55.326 - So the person said they can no longer do it because they have commitments and entities. 00:07:56.066 --> 00:08:02.867 - If you change the date and time, would they be available to sale on the flat? We did not discuss that, 00:08:02.867 --> 00:08:09.535 - but I can bring that back up to them. I mean, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to change things if, 00:08:09.535 --> 00:08:16.204 - in fact, the person's not taking real time anyway. Right. Well, we could, you know, offer it to have 00:08:16.204 --> 00:08:22.014 - two new appointments for a citizen appointment. And if they can make the date and time, 00:08:22.658 --> 00:08:28.760 - I know, you know, to change the date and time for appointments you have yet to make. Yeah. It's not 00:08:28.760 --> 00:08:34.984 - an immediate problem. I would be happy to volunteer to take Edward's spot in the remake therapy here. 00:08:34.984 --> 00:08:41.147 - But I'm willing to do that. If somebody else wants to, that's fine, too. Just volunteer. If I get us 00:08:41.147 --> 00:08:47.310 - to a quorum, that's how we figure out who the citizen appointing would be. It would give us a fourth 00:08:47.310 --> 00:08:50.910 - planning commission members and we would have flexibility. 00:08:51.234 --> 00:08:59.306 - planning for December can attend. So then we can still have the three. So it would give us additional 00:08:59.306 --> 00:09:07.378 - flexibility. So three is a quorum? Three is a quorum. Okay. I think that was hard for it. Or it could 00:09:07.378 --> 00:09:15.371 - have been Mr. Henrik. Anyways, I'm trying to call for memory, so. That's okay. No, what was the time 00:09:15.371 --> 00:09:20.990 - for? It's the third Thursday of the month at 4 p.m. Subject to change. 00:09:21.250 --> 00:09:29.838 - Thank you. It's in our office. At four o'clock. Now some members have actually appreciated it being 00:09:29.838 --> 00:09:38.426 - earlier in the day so that they can be home or deal with other duties at five, five thirty. But and 00:09:38.426 --> 00:09:47.185 - then again, other people. It's been that way since I worked here. It's been that way for like 13. But 00:09:47.185 --> 00:09:50.878 - I think it was the original membership was 00:09:51.458 --> 00:09:58.698 - we were struggling to get. That's good. Yeah, it works nicely for staff too. Yeah, I mean that is a 00:09:58.698 --> 00:10:06.083 - good thing for staff to be able to do it, but. Yeah. Yeah, so did you? Are you able to make the third 00:10:06.083 --> 00:10:13.612 - Thursday for would you be interested? OK, I'd like to make a motion to appoint. Jeff Morris as a member 00:10:13.612 --> 00:10:16.798 - to the committee to replace Mr Oldman said. 00:10:19.906 --> 00:10:26.749 - We can reach back up to the citizen member and if they can't make it, I'll ask for new applications 00:10:26.749 --> 00:10:33.591 - set. So it's been moved and seconded to appoint Jeff Morris for the remainder of this calendar year 00:10:33.591 --> 00:10:40.434 - to be the member of the plan committee. As opposed to or to fill Edward Olman's vacancy, a vote yes 00:10:40.434 --> 00:10:47.550 - is a vote to approve Jeff in the plan committee. Scott Farris? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. 00:10:47.970 --> 00:10:57.778 - Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Don Enrique Rando? Yes. Motion is approved, 7-6-0. 00:10:57.778 --> 00:11:07.305 - I assume we're dropping the proposal to modify the rules of procedure. We can do that, yeah. We don't 00:11:07.305 --> 00:11:13.470 - need to change these if we keep it default. Yeah, months, months. 00:11:14.210 --> 00:11:21.655 - I put this in our back pocket and come back to it if we need it. I just feel like it may be a time issue 00:11:21.655 --> 00:11:28.817 - more than a membership number issue. I just feel like more voices are better because they are making 00:11:28.817 --> 00:11:35.979 - the final decision. It's not important. We'll go ahead and just table this indefinitely. And then if 00:11:35.979 --> 00:11:43.070 - we have other quorum issues or other things come up, we can always bring this back. Yeah, I'm sure. 00:11:43.810 --> 00:11:51.023 - Yeah, that's actually a pretty lengthy kind of, um, sys and appointees to what used to be, uh, plan 00:11:51.023 --> 00:11:58.452 - review committee. Yeah, plan review committee. Um, I was just going to suggest if they seem interested 00:11:58.452 --> 00:12:05.664 - and kind of have the knowledge that you're looking for that's outlined in their surveying knowledge 00:12:05.664 --> 00:12:13.598 - or et cetera, um, maybe they would be good people to reach out to as well if the other sys and members can't. 00:12:13.794 --> 00:12:23.611 - make it even if we do schedule the date and time. So you want to put that on your radar. Moving on to 00:12:23.611 --> 00:12:33.525 - item number three, STP-23, north park area B3 subdivision preliminary flat, flat three, amendment one, 00:12:33.525 --> 00:12:37.182 - preliminary flat extension requested. 00:12:38.754 --> 00:12:46.712 - So this is a portion of the North Park PUD that went through a subdivision just about two years ago 00:12:46.712 --> 00:12:54.749 - in December. And they still need more time to complete the public improvements associated with being 00:12:54.749 --> 00:13:03.025 - able to do the secondary plat. So typically what we see here is that people want to agree up and create 00:13:03.025 --> 00:13:06.686 - the plat and give us the money to hold on to. 00:13:07.330 --> 00:13:14.443 - to promise or guarantee the construction of the required public improvements. This group, the IU Health 00:13:14.443 --> 00:13:21.418 - subdivision, they're actually doing it where they want to do the improvements, get it into the county 00:13:21.418 --> 00:13:28.531 - inventory, and then we can release the subdivision, which in our minds is great because then that means 00:13:28.531 --> 00:13:34.686 - if they don't do it, they don't get the subdivision, which is ultimately their carrot and 00:13:35.298 --> 00:13:44.574 - it just makes things easier on our end. So we would support two more years and understand that they 00:13:44.574 --> 00:13:54.129 - have, they need that additional time to construct the roadway. So this would be a plot extension until 00:13:54.129 --> 00:14:00.158 - December, I think it's December 11th, 2020. December 11th, 2026. 00:14:01.826 --> 00:14:10.575 - And this is a item that is going before the. Actually, this is an administrative business, so you can 00:14:10.575 --> 00:14:19.411 - approve this tonight under administrative business because it's only two years, so it does not require 00:14:19.411 --> 00:14:28.503 - further notice or public comment. Any questions for staff? Just one question. We don't need like a letter 00:14:28.503 --> 00:14:29.790 - of commitment. 00:14:30.050 --> 00:14:36.940 - I guess the carrot is they just can't proceed with the subdivision. Yeah, the lots have not been created 00:14:36.940 --> 00:14:43.829 - until they get this roadway in and we approve it and then actually gets into the county inventory. Okay. 00:14:43.829 --> 00:14:50.785 - I think this is another alternative to kind of still getting those improvements. I'm trying to supporting 00:14:50.785 --> 00:14:53.278 - but I guess the letter of commitment. 00:14:53.474 --> 00:15:02.282 - I don't know if that brings any extra assurance. You're saying letter credit? No, like they're committing 00:15:02.282 --> 00:15:11.007 - to putting in fees. So you can't sell those two lots without doing that, right? OK, so yeah, just wanted 00:15:11.007 --> 00:15:19.899 - to offer that thought and kind of get some feedback. So either way. Planning feels comfortable to present. 00:15:19.899 --> 00:15:22.558 - I think I might have missed it. 00:15:22.850 --> 00:15:30.477 - And I'm trying to find it again is. Did highway make any comments on this? No, they don't have any comments 00:15:30.477 --> 00:15:37.681 - on this because they are immune and improve the first subdivision, so I mean, while I understand that 00:15:37.681 --> 00:15:45.096 - it's better for planning to have the roadway in the inventory, we can understand that having the roadway 00:15:45.096 --> 00:15:52.158 - in an inventory and then construction goes on on either side of that roadway that that can lead to. 00:15:52.546 --> 00:15:59.801 - costlier repairs for a highway. So I just string that out there. For non-residential subdivisions, we 00:15:59.801 --> 00:16:07.483 - can take bonds associated with the driveway entrances. And so we've talked about this before for commercial 00:16:07.483 --> 00:16:15.094 - subdivisions because there is an option under the county development RNCC that the completion requirement, 00:16:15.094 --> 00:16:19.646 - which is complete the improvements, get it accepted in between. 00:16:19.778 --> 00:16:29.738 - or there's the bonding requirement. So I like that. Thank you. I totally, totally forgot about that. 00:16:29.738 --> 00:16:39.699 - And that makes sense because commercial construction is so much more damaging. So we can look at it. 00:16:39.699 --> 00:16:48.574 - Okay. Thank you. Yep. I should be a question. Oh, no question. Okay. Do we have a motion? 00:16:50.434 --> 00:17:01.885 - I have a question before we do a motion. Is this something we can approve at the admin meeting? I think 00:17:01.885 --> 00:17:13.446 - that's what that says. I can put a motion out. Should I read everything in this request? I guess I would 00:17:13.446 --> 00:17:17.630 - offer a motion to approve the staff's 00:17:17.794 --> 00:17:27.112 - recommendation of extending the request for two years, citing compliance with chapter 830-5. And I'll 00:17:27.112 --> 00:17:36.338 - just state that that completion date is December 11th, 2027. Does that suffice? Okay. There's been a 00:17:36.338 --> 00:17:43.646 - motion and a second to extend the preliminary or the primary plat for SPP-23-3. 00:17:43.810 --> 00:17:52.427 - which is the North Park Area B3 Subdivision Plan, Lot 3, Amendment 1. This is a primary flat extension 00:17:52.427 --> 00:18:00.877 - request for two years to the end date of December 11th, 2027. I vote yes. It's a vote to approve the 00:18:00.877 --> 00:18:09.326 - extension. Rudy Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. 00:18:09.326 --> 00:18:13.342 - Trent Enderey-Grandeau? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. 00:18:13.698 --> 00:18:21.037 - Motion has approved seven to zero. Moving on to unfinished business, we have three items at Holland 00:18:21.037 --> 00:18:28.523 - Field. Sandy, do we want to take each of these separately? They each have their own small update. OK. 00:18:28.523 --> 00:18:36.083 - And it's not like we're taking a vote or anything. It's just we can just go down each one of them. OK. 00:18:36.083 --> 00:18:43.422 - So with Holland Field's baseline, in the packet, you'll see that they have submitted a new estimate 00:18:43.746 --> 00:18:53.729 - and some correction plans and an evaluation of some of the different. Just about 96. OK, so well, we're 00:18:53.729 --> 00:19:03.903 - seeing and then yesterday. You met with the common fields phase one team, their engineer, their attorney, 00:19:03.903 --> 00:19:11.486 - the developer with the Highway Department Stormwater and Jack Necker planning. 00:19:11.650 --> 00:19:23.534 - So we went line by line through their estimate, but just not in the packet. It'll be in there. They 00:19:23.534 --> 00:19:35.537 - very clear that. By the next. Yeah, for home built space. Have three states in there. My. Skip. Yes, 00:19:35.537 --> 00:19:40.766 - I think it's. That's right. Yes, all right. 00:19:40.866 --> 00:19:47.724 - So this is the one that we were going through and the highway department and the developer, we went 00:19:47.724 --> 00:19:54.720 - nine by nine. We came down to basically planning staff landscape determination because they are going 00:19:54.720 --> 00:20:01.579 - to be changing this area of their detention so that they can maintain the volume that was approved. 00:20:01.579 --> 00:20:07.614 - So we're going to work on that and hopefully have a determination by next week and then 00:20:07.746 --> 00:20:14.560 - The highway department, which will likely include the survey to Toby Turner, to go out and look at the 00:20:14.560 --> 00:20:21.308 - road itself to see if the entire thing needs to be milled and repaved or can they do patching or like 00:20:21.308 --> 00:20:28.320 - they're just kind of coming to an agreement of like what would get this road accepted into the inventory? 00:20:28.320 --> 00:20:34.142 - Because right now it's the highway department is saying it's all milled and repaved and 00:20:34.466 --> 00:20:42.914 - So we'll get the experts out there to make that determination. We are hopeful that by the October 23rd 00:20:42.914 --> 00:20:51.527 - that we will have a solid estimate. We were also talking with them yesterday about a performance period. 00:20:51.527 --> 00:20:59.729 - They think should these get approved that they would hopefully get it done by May 14th, 2026, which 00:20:59.729 --> 00:21:04.158 - would basically be just one year's worth of inflation 00:21:04.834 --> 00:21:12.748 - they don't want to have to extend it for a second year. Where we see a small conflict is that the Holland 00:21:12.748 --> 00:21:20.213 - three lot minor was extended until June 30th of 2026. That's a three week difference. And trying to 00:21:20.213 --> 00:21:27.828 - say how those two new developers will work together to complete this very like integrated project. So 00:21:27.828 --> 00:21:34.174 - Jackie and I may do some more brainstorming on how we can deal with that three weeks 00:21:34.466 --> 00:21:43.121 - Okay, so then phase two, again, we've got Ascotes from them. That still does need an inspection by the 00:21:43.121 --> 00:21:51.691 - Highway Department. They're hoping that when they go up to phase one, I think next week, they'll also 00:21:51.691 --> 00:22:00.177 - just get to look at phase two, phase three, just get a good view of all of those. This estimate that 00:22:00.177 --> 00:22:02.110 - they've submitted gets 00:22:02.274 --> 00:22:08.858 - approved by the highway department and you'll all accept it. We're going to go ahead and like I think 00:22:08.858 --> 00:22:15.313 - do just what we're requesting here which is the new subdivision improvement agreement. Wait, sorry. 00:22:15.313 --> 00:22:21.897 - We need a performance bond document, subdivision improvement agreement, performance period extension, 00:22:21.897 --> 00:22:28.417 - and then the following month they would be eligible to come here for a reduction and their reduction 00:22:28.417 --> 00:22:31.838 - will be almost by half. They'd be going from 112,000 00:22:31.970 --> 00:22:41.222 - $50,000. We're hopeful that their estimate is accurate and that these things will all be accepted by 00:22:41.222 --> 00:22:50.841 - the highway department. And then phase three, wait, I think I see a lot minor. We have no updates. We'll 00:22:50.841 --> 00:23:00.734 - be reaching out directly to the developer, I think, for that one. The engineer seems willing and compliant. 00:23:02.434 --> 00:23:10.161 - the developer at this point. So phase three, which you guys have not heard yet technically this year 00:23:10.161 --> 00:23:17.811 - because their letter of credit is not due until December 15th of this year. It's a new one. This is 00:23:17.811 --> 00:23:25.844 - our last one of the year that we'll bring. This one, let's see, the engineers is working on the as well. 00:23:25.844 --> 00:23:31.582 - It should be done once a section of sidewalk is installed on October 15th. 00:23:32.098 --> 00:23:39.742 - and then they'll submit those to the highway department and likely be eligible for a reduction. One 00:23:39.742 --> 00:23:47.387 - thing that came up during the talks was driveways. We will need to get a legal determination on how 00:23:47.387 --> 00:23:55.337 - to deal with driveways and who should be responsible, how those are accepted into the inventory because 00:23:55.337 --> 00:24:00.382 - the permits have not been closed out by the original builders who 00:24:01.058 --> 00:24:07.633 - hook them who applied for those. But if those builders are not closing out and having those inspected 00:24:07.633 --> 00:24:14.208 - at the time and property starts to change hands, we ultimately it's, you know, we're not sure if it's 00:24:14.208 --> 00:24:20.784 - the developer because they won't be able to get accepted into inventory if these travelers don't meet 00:24:20.784 --> 00:24:27.230 - standards. So it's something that we'll be working on with them still yet. And I feel like that is, 00:24:27.778 --> 00:24:34.901 - Pretty good summary of what we've covered lately in the last month. We hope to have some good updates 00:24:34.901 --> 00:24:42.164 - in the next couple of weeks. Anyone have any questions? Just. This could be for next time. What happens 00:24:42.164 --> 00:24:49.218 - if those driveways don't get accepted in the inventory like just they'll be maintaining those roads. 00:24:49.218 --> 00:24:56.062 - They'll need to maybe come back for preliminary flat amendment to make it a private road and then 00:24:56.322 --> 00:25:05.634 - those homeowners will have to maintain it, shoveling their own snow and maintaining those if they get 00:25:05.634 --> 00:25:14.764 - a pothole. That's what I was assuming, but thank you. Yeah, we're trying as hard to get home. Yeah, 00:25:14.764 --> 00:25:24.350 - the burden sucks if it falls back onto the property launch. Thank you, Jamie. Moving on to new business. 00:25:24.450 --> 00:25:33.102 - Another Helen Field's phase three or is this the way? No, and on the phase three is new business, yeah. 00:25:33.102 --> 00:25:42.086 - It's a new one, yeah. Okay, so we will move on to item two then, SMN-25-1. This is a primary plan amendment 00:25:42.086 --> 00:25:50.405 - to create a fourth lot. They are requesting a road width waiver as part of this and they did submit 00:25:50.405 --> 00:25:54.398 - the requirements under the CDO, which were that 00:25:54.754 --> 00:26:03.153 - average daily trip data and the highway engineer didn't take a look at this and provide the comments 00:26:03.153 --> 00:26:11.469 - to say that they would support a road width waiver based on the traffic counts. So it's North Mount 00:26:11.469 --> 00:26:16.126 - Pleasant Road, it's far out there and we don't have any 00:26:17.282 --> 00:26:27.701 - significant comments on it at this point from planning staff to think that it wouldn't be able to be 00:26:27.701 --> 00:26:38.430 - approved based on the findings and their citing of their waiver request with the additional data. Okay, 00:26:38.430 --> 00:26:47.198 - any questions for staff on that one? We'll move on to item three, SMM-25 dictionary. 00:26:53.506 --> 00:27:00.861 - This one is asking for, similarly, an amendment to create a third lot. So they already are in a subdivision. 00:27:00.861 --> 00:27:07.744 - They're reopening that subdivision to create a third lot. And they're asking for a sidewalk waiver as 00:27:07.744 --> 00:27:14.559 - well as a street tree waiver. We have some good photos of this subdivision here, but I'll just share 00:27:14.559 --> 00:27:18.878 - with you. So this one's very close to the Carson Farm Greenway. 00:27:19.330 --> 00:27:27.113 - just right over here. So they are in the transportation alternatives map as requiring sidewalks. But 00:27:27.113 --> 00:27:34.819 - when you actually look at the topography of Walcott and think about trying to put in a sidewalk, it 00:27:34.819 --> 00:27:43.142 - would not be able to meet ADA for the slope of following the existing road. So essentially we're supporting 00:27:43.142 --> 00:27:44.606 - a sidewalk waiver, 00:27:44.706 --> 00:27:52.555 - But the street trees, when it was originally approved, they were approved to preserve the trees here. 00:27:52.555 --> 00:27:55.710 - So we've asked the surveyor why not just 00:27:55.938 --> 00:28:02.542 - do an inventory and show preservation, but they've instead insisted on a waiver. So we're not supporting 00:28:02.542 --> 00:28:09.460 - that and cite that they likely have all the trees that they need to have, but if they show them as preserved, 00:28:09.460 --> 00:28:15.813 - then they can be protected. And if someone ever takes them down, we can require them to put it back. 00:28:15.813 --> 00:28:22.165 - If they get a street tree waiver and it's approved, they could hypothetically remove all trees along 00:28:22.165 --> 00:28:25.310 - this entire footage. Questions for staff on that? 00:28:26.274 --> 00:28:36.739 - Just a comment. Just put the proximity to a trail. The hard one for me. The one that support but. Putting 00:28:36.739 --> 00:28:46.908 - the tree preservation or putting the trees in a preservation that they could help offset some of where 00:28:46.908 --> 00:28:53.918 - my position is. So I guess just trying to share where my thoughts are. 00:28:56.162 --> 00:29:07.283 - questions or comments. Okay, moving on to item four, SSS-25-2. This is a new size scale subdivision. 00:29:07.283 --> 00:29:19.395 - They are similarly requesting a sidewalk waiver. With the CDO's passage, we changed the sidewalk requirements 00:29:19.395 --> 00:29:20.606 - to include 00:29:21.122 --> 00:29:29.976 - if something is part of the alternative transportation plan. And this is part of a road improvement 00:29:29.976 --> 00:29:38.831 - priority list. So I think it's moderate road improvement is what it is. Maple Grove, I think stated 00:29:38.831 --> 00:29:47.774 - in the petitioner letter, is often a road that's utilized by many cyclists in the community. And so, 00:29:48.258 --> 00:29:54.639 - this, if there were a sidewalk to be placed here, the transportation alternatives plan actually calls 00:29:54.639 --> 00:30:01.145 - for more of a bike lane improvement. So they are going to be dedicating right of way. I think something 00:30:01.145 --> 00:30:07.839 - that we want to work out with highway and start the conversation on, which I'll get to the next amendment, 00:30:07.839 --> 00:30:14.158 - is how do we deal with properties that are road improvements requiring sidewalk? Can we ask for more 00:30:14.158 --> 00:30:16.222 - of an alternative transportation 00:30:16.322 --> 00:30:24.478 - ideas such as like a sort of an interim taper bike lane until we could possibly put in a larger bike 00:30:24.478 --> 00:30:33.119 - lane or something like that. So as the code is written today, we are supporting the street or the sidewalk 00:30:33.119 --> 00:30:41.760 - waiver, but they are meeting a street tree requirement, which is a preservation area on the parent parcel, 00:30:41.760 --> 00:30:44.990 - which is spot two. So this is the flat. 00:30:45.346 --> 00:31:00.540 - shown here. Otherwise, I think this is something that we are recommending approval for both the primary 00:31:00.540 --> 00:31:12.958 - plot and the sidewalk waiver. Any questions on that? Next item is REZ-25-5. Okay, so 00:31:13.506 --> 00:31:25.289 - This one is a rezone from mineral extraction and agricultural 2.5 to be all mineral extraction. Best 00:31:25.289 --> 00:31:37.304 - to explain with a map. So actually this is incorrect. Portions of this property should already be zone 00:31:37.304 --> 00:31:41.854 - mineral extraction per a prior rezone. 00:31:42.146 --> 00:31:48.548 - but I believe it might've happened even before the CDO. It didn't pick up the mineral extraction prior 00:31:48.548 --> 00:31:54.887 - approval, but there are conditions clearly associated with this and the rezone of mineral extraction. 00:31:54.887 --> 00:32:01.351 - So we are very clear that it should've been picked up in the CDO map. So really the only change is this 00:32:01.351 --> 00:32:04.894 - transfer area here that would become mineral extraction. 00:32:05.026 --> 00:32:12.587 - And then also along the edges, they wanted to kind of clean up and clarify that all of their property 00:32:12.587 --> 00:32:20.074 - that they are going to be combining will be mineral extraction. So everything in purple is currently 00:32:20.074 --> 00:32:28.080 - mineral extraction. This is an active quarry property. We do have in the CDL standards for quarry activity, 00:32:28.080 --> 00:32:34.974 - whether they're in what's called an urban area, within eight homes of a quarter mile square, 00:32:35.074 --> 00:32:45.406 - that we can regulate new quarry activity. There is, like I mentioned, a condition which we've carried 00:32:45.406 --> 00:32:55.839 - over and can talk about the quarry activity not extending down the 50-foot access strip or black pole, 00:32:55.839 --> 00:32:57.662 - also stating that 00:32:57.794 --> 00:33:05.445 - Access to Hedrick Road is restricted for all uses other than residential and cultural. Quarry traffic 00:33:05.445 --> 00:33:13.320 - use the internal roads of American limestone property in the north. So that's something that was already 00:33:13.320 --> 00:33:21.196 - put into ordinance fashion in 2011 that we're carrying forward. So as of right now, I believe that we're 00:33:21.196 --> 00:33:27.646 - recommending a positive recommendation to clean up the map and add that area with the 00:33:27.842 --> 00:33:37.327 - all the conditions carrying forward. What can they do on that little strip of land? I know what they 00:33:37.327 --> 00:33:47.000 - can't do, but what can they do? I'm not sure if Drew put in here, but I will definitely have it by the 00:33:47.000 --> 00:33:51.038 - regular meeting. I want to have what we do 00:33:51.138 --> 00:33:57.689 - in terms of the urban area analysis of where that line is, I'm thinking it's, they're coring right to 00:33:57.689 --> 00:34:04.112 - it right now. They're coring right to it right now, okay. So they really wouldn't be able to extend 00:34:04.112 --> 00:34:10.534 - unless they bought out or moved more homes, is that the idea? Well, that's why they're resigning to 00:34:10.534 --> 00:34:17.342 - mental extraction. They could continue coring operations out. Right, but if those eight homes are in the, 00:34:18.274 --> 00:34:25.886 - So she's not talking about the zone line. She's talking about how far the activity could be stretched. 00:34:25.886 --> 00:34:33.277 - Certainly. Well, so if it's not urban, well, so we'll. Yeah, that's yeah. Yeah. And then, you know, 00:34:33.277 --> 00:34:40.002 - the clarity on what takes actually do on that, if I fall, what would be? I assume it would 00:34:40.002 --> 00:34:46.654 - be for transportation. But then when you review the packet, it says no. But, you know, I. 00:34:47.074 --> 00:34:57.192 - And of course, all the neighbors are notified with this reason request. Okay. I mean, it's nice that 00:34:57.192 --> 00:35:07.410 - there's an after party. That's beautiful, right? I guess my one question, and I think you covered it, 00:35:07.410 --> 00:35:16.126 - is that what's intentionally supposed to be some that this is kind of correcting that? 00:35:16.514 --> 00:35:24.882 - It's partial correction and partial new rezone request. So the area that we outlined here, it's about 00:35:24.882 --> 00:35:33.578 - here. They did a type E where they transferred acreage I think from this lot to this lot, but they didn't 00:35:33.578 --> 00:35:37.598 - change the map. So this is a new rezone acreage. 00:35:37.794 --> 00:35:44.869 - And then also they wanted to kind of clean up the lines. I don't know if that was just from the parcel 00:35:44.869 --> 00:35:51.944 - fabric or whatnot, but they just wanted to reaffirm their rezone. So though it's going to say it's for 00:35:51.944 --> 00:35:59.087 - a lot of acreage that they own, it's really for a very limited amount of the acreage to be zoned empty. 00:35:59.087 --> 00:36:06.093 - Any other questions? Yeah, I'll keep this one. So the parcels to North Carolina, how close is this to 00:36:06.093 --> 00:36:07.742 - Steinsville's boundary? 00:36:10.466 --> 00:36:26.310 - This is your property between the suspensions. Right. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Box numbers and also Right. Just 00:36:26.310 --> 00:36:36.670 - the engines. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions. 00:36:37.698 --> 00:37:06.750 - I think that would be helpful for us but also the public as well so they 00:37:08.802 --> 00:37:22.070 - And we can move on to COA-25-3 amendments to the CEO, item number one of the CEO prioritization list. 00:37:22.070 --> 00:37:28.574 - So this is an amendment that was discussed in the 00:37:32.098 --> 00:37:39.457 - This is an amendment we discussed in the ordinance review committee. So what was discussed during the 00:37:39.457 --> 00:37:46.889 - ordinance review committee was the CDO prioritization list that said we wanted to table the discussion 00:37:46.889 --> 00:37:54.176 - of the review of the 25 year reservation of the tariff parcel. There was a lot of people speaking at 00:37:54.176 --> 00:38:00.958 - the CDO to the question of why is it 25 years? Could that be lessened or changed in some way? 00:38:02.050 --> 00:38:11.501 - So after the Orness Review Committee discussed the topic, it was determined that basically they thought 00:38:11.501 --> 00:38:21.406 - that the 25 years was a reasonable requirement or that somebody could opt to do another subdivision process. 00:38:21.730 --> 00:38:28.829 - So that has not changed. What we did change were to add a little bit more regarding the purpose statement 00:38:28.829 --> 00:38:35.660 - of the science scale. It's that number seven says allow the flexibility to create smaller residential 00:38:35.660 --> 00:38:42.358 - lots served by private sewage disposal system, i.e. septics, while also preserving the authority of 00:38:42.358 --> 00:38:49.055 - the original tariff for agricultural conservation purposes, going back to reasoning for why science 00:38:49.055 --> 00:38:51.198 - scale was created as an option. 00:38:51.362 --> 00:38:58.571 - and then also permit development of rural areas that will not overburden existing infrastructure, and 00:38:58.571 --> 00:39:05.993 - then the red is new text, and services and to not adversely impact existing low traffic roadways, police 00:39:05.993 --> 00:39:13.272 - and fire coverage, emergency service response times, and any other governmental services. In addition, 00:39:13.272 --> 00:39:14.686 - we talked about how 00:39:14.914 --> 00:39:21.797 - Sometimes there's some confusion about the different subdivision types. So we went by ordinance review 00:39:21.797 --> 00:39:28.479 - committee's recommendation and added some pictures to the chapter right before sign scale, which is 00:39:28.479 --> 00:39:35.429 - the types of subdivisions. So we're hoping that this will provide a visual clarity as well as the table 00:39:35.429 --> 00:39:42.846 - that's existing to say what these lots look like. We didn't add any labels, but we certainly can. It just says 00:39:42.946 --> 00:39:49.384 - And the text example of a minor subdivision, four lots or less, where each lot is 10 acres connected 00:39:49.384 --> 00:39:55.823 - to private sewage disposal system. You said it exists in this case. And then this is an example of a 00:39:55.823 --> 00:40:02.325 - minor subdivision, four lots or less, being the minimum lot size requirements and connected to public 00:40:02.325 --> 00:40:07.998 - sewage disposal system. So minors can occur in both areas where there's septic or sewer. 00:40:08.578 --> 00:40:15.684 - And then this was an example of a sliding scale. These lots actually are all exactly two and a half. 00:40:15.684 --> 00:40:22.860 - And then the remainder are parent parcels. We thought that was a good example where they're connected 00:40:22.860 --> 00:40:30.247 - to septic system. And then we just highlighted an area in the county where we do have a major subversion 00:40:30.247 --> 00:40:34.398 - of five lots or more. That is the gist of this text. Okay. 00:40:34.626 --> 00:40:43.488 - Yeah, Mr. Nutter enough. Unfortunately, I had to leave the ordinance review painting early, so I was 00:40:43.488 --> 00:40:52.702 - not able to vote. I would have not voted for this. I think my biggest issue at this point is the minimum 00:40:52.702 --> 00:41:00.862 - lot sizes contingent to septic is 10 acres. If you had sewer, you could do smaller ones with 00:41:00.862 --> 00:41:03.582 - other subdivisions. Also, when 00:41:03.714 --> 00:41:11.087 - that parent partial goes into the 25 year reservation, their only option moving forward is a major. 00:41:11.087 --> 00:41:18.533 - So again, they can only do a major, which brings up cost of infrastructure, which there was a lot of 00:41:18.533 --> 00:41:25.905 - discussion of the needs of infrastructure, but again, they can only do a major and they all have to 00:41:25.905 --> 00:41:33.278 - be a minimum 10 lots. Well, right, you can still do a major, 10 acres, sorry. If they're on septic. 00:41:33.634 --> 00:41:42.151 - I feel like that kind of puts a lot of these, like, so for instance, if you did one that was like 20 00:41:42.151 --> 00:41:51.005 - acres, right, and you carved out three of your 2.5, I shouldn't be doing math on the fly, and the parent 00:41:51.005 --> 00:41:59.522 - parcel goes into like 15 acres, you can't do a major there unless you have sewer. So again, my gripe 00:41:59.522 --> 00:42:01.630 - is the minimum lot size, 00:42:02.050 --> 00:42:11.213 - And the fact that. Until we really understand how sewer or is going to be provided, everything has to 00:42:11.213 --> 00:42:20.467 - be 10 acres so and that reservation they're committing to only being able to do any development within 00:42:20.467 --> 00:42:29.630 - that parent parcel. By going through the sliding scale, their only option is a major subdivision, so. 00:42:31.458 --> 00:42:39.923 - I personally think that if we want to kind of keep that minimum lot size and make it contingent to sewer 00:42:39.923 --> 00:42:48.226 - septic, that's understandable. But I think the 25 years due to the fact of the unknown of having sewer 00:42:48.226 --> 00:42:56.690 - out there is still a little too long and uncomfortable for my position. And I'm not gonna repeat myself. 00:42:56.690 --> 00:43:00.318 - I've made a lot of comments on this subject. 00:43:00.418 --> 00:43:07.630 - but that's really kind of where I kind of find my position. And I think reducing it to 15 years could 00:43:07.630 --> 00:43:14.842 - be very helpful because it'd be 15 years before they could do something on that property, but they're 00:43:14.842 --> 00:43:21.912 - still going to have to have 10 acres. So they could maybe do a minor. And I mean, I think the major 00:43:21.912 --> 00:43:27.710 - is very important as it does bring that infrastructure, but I think a lot of the, 00:43:28.290 --> 00:43:36.015 - Thought around that is having sewer so you have a very dense area. I mean five homes spread across 50 00:43:36.015 --> 00:43:43.663 - acres. Do we need sidewalks? Do we need all these other improvements? I understand if it was a major 00:43:43.663 --> 00:43:51.388 - and they were all kind of squished together that that would be a bit different. So that's my feelings 00:43:51.388 --> 00:43:57.598 - about this. I think the clarity and language is fine. I'm just not in support of. 00:43:57.762 --> 00:44:09.009 - of leaving the 25 years until we grapple other issues, in my opinion. Any other questions or comments? 00:44:09.009 --> 00:44:20.037 - Yeah, I do. I am thinking through right now. Where is the text that clarifies the rationale that you 00:44:20.037 --> 00:44:27.134 - mentioned? There's this section that's currently in the CTO. OK. 00:44:27.874 --> 00:44:35.189 - What is the citation of legislatively find? Is there a code that we're signing for the conclusion of 00:44:35.189 --> 00:44:42.432 - the 25 year restriction? But where does that language lives at? Where's the finding live that we're 00:44:42.432 --> 00:44:49.820 - signing for that particular one? Sure, so if you want to take this too, we've worked on this together 00:44:49.820 --> 00:44:55.614 - with the legal departments. No, that's just the defining that the commissioners 00:44:55.778 --> 00:45:03.407 - That ordinance right there is the finding. The commissioners adopted an ordinance after discussion saying 00:45:03.407 --> 00:45:10.675 - we find the 2025 loops. OK, is there a separate ordinance or is it the county development ordinance? 00:45:10.675 --> 00:45:18.016 - This was previously a carryover from the prior subdivision code. OK, so again, what are we citing for 00:45:18.016 --> 00:45:22.910 - that? And you see where I'm going with this. There is no state law. 00:45:23.362 --> 00:45:30.435 - The only thing about this was the commissioners thought about this opportunity to do a sliding scale 00:45:30.435 --> 00:45:36.878 - subdivision. And it was an opportunity. It was beneficial to some people. And the trade-off 00:45:36.878 --> 00:45:41.150 - is the commissioners felt it'd be reasonable for the benefit 00:45:41.346 --> 00:45:48.468 - to say you have to hold off 25 years from developing. So that was the decision that was made legislatively 00:45:48.468 --> 00:45:55.457 - as they considered this at the Planned Commission at the time and down at the campus. So what I'm really 00:45:55.457 --> 00:46:02.247 - drawing into here is that if it's self-referencing, it sounds circular, right? If the ordinance says, 00:46:02.247 --> 00:46:09.036 - if the CDO says that we found that there's a circular thing that happens here. Secondly, if this were 00:46:09.036 --> 00:46:11.166 - to be litigated as the takings, 00:46:11.682 --> 00:46:17.858 - I got a point to something to tell me, well, on what ground are we standing? So if there is a separate 00:46:17.858 --> 00:46:24.093 - order, I mean, I just need to see what we're citing, right? Where was it voted on? Where's the document 00:46:24.093 --> 00:46:30.089 - for the ordinances or the resolution? To back up those words, because then when we get into it as a 00:46:30.089 --> 00:46:36.145 - matter of policy, well, that's not ordinance. That's, I think, what you were just describing. That's 00:46:36.145 --> 00:46:40.702 - kind of opinion. The preference of the commission that decided that, right? 00:46:41.058 --> 00:46:48.341 - I, this piece needs a little more to it. In my view, stand up to some screwed me. That's just my view. 00:46:48.341 --> 00:46:55.694 - But if we can point to it and say, look David, chapter and verse, here it is. I think I can get farther 00:46:55.694 --> 00:47:02.906 - with that. I guess as far as takings is concerned, there's no possibility in that because this is the 00:47:02.906 --> 00:47:08.350 - choice that these people have. They can do a regular subdivision or they can 00:47:08.482 --> 00:47:16.451 - use this new this other option so there's there's no chance of the table discussing something that I 00:47:16.451 --> 00:47:24.498 - wouldn't be able to. That's why I said that. Yeah I mean it is it is an option and I mean I feel like 00:47:24.498 --> 00:47:32.861 - I'm repeating myself the idea was to offer other options besides a minor or major subdivision subdivision 00:47:32.861 --> 00:47:36.254 - and this was an option that didn't require 00:47:36.994 --> 00:47:44.050 - all of the, especially for major, all the infrastructure and the rules and everything else that goes 00:47:44.050 --> 00:47:51.035 - with it and, and or sewer and all of those other things. It was a way because we were responding to 00:47:51.035 --> 00:47:58.720 - large lot owners who said, I want to cut off a piece of land for kin, for sale, to, to finance my retirement, 00:47:58.720 --> 00:48:05.566 - whatever it might be. And I don't want to go through this whole rigmarole of a minor subdivision. 00:48:06.082 --> 00:48:14.445 - And they all talked about it in a way like, I just want to try all the small features. So it was an 00:48:14.445 --> 00:48:22.975 - additional option. They don't have to pick this option. They can go with what they have, and nine are 00:48:22.975 --> 00:48:31.422 - a major. I think this is, so I don't see taking in that. And I also, you know, if you're looking for 00:48:31.422 --> 00:48:35.102 - the basis for everything we do in planning, 00:48:35.618 --> 00:48:45.017 - That's pretty deep, political, legal, structural stuff. And Dave knows it. Dave knows what counties 00:48:45.017 --> 00:48:54.699 - are able to do and not do and what we can and can't do in terms of planning jurisdictions. So, I mean, 00:48:54.699 --> 00:49:04.286 - the other option is just drop entirely, just not even offer this. And that's an option. So, you know. 00:49:04.482 --> 00:49:11.097 - So and nothing you said it conflicts with the question of The line that's the line that deals with 25 00:49:11.097 --> 00:49:17.648 - years. I mean because we said it's 15 10 5 You can still go through sliding scale process on how you 00:49:17.648 --> 00:49:24.263 - subdivide the land the number it's 25 year number. So it jumps out And and as I understand it not not 00:49:24.263 --> 00:49:31.138 - well versed in this yet. Um, yeah, I think there are other counties that have a five-year shelby counties 00:49:31.138 --> 00:49:33.278 - one that's like four counts, but 00:49:33.410 --> 00:49:39.656 - If it's not in code, then I can't, I'm trying to point to something to say, but 25 years, remember we 00:49:39.656 --> 00:49:45.901 - keep saying here, it has nothing to do with what you do in that 25 years, we can still do all of what 00:49:45.901 --> 00:49:52.086 - we just said. But that number, we've tried to justify a few times, now we don't find which trying to 00:49:52.086 --> 00:49:58.393 - justify it again and say, let's say we find in a matter of legislative policy. I need to point to that 00:49:58.393 --> 00:50:03.230 - and say, okay, fine, we voted on it. Here's the ordinance, it's all otherwise, 00:50:04.610 --> 00:50:11.073 - So I'm not concerned about the percentages at this point in time, but the year is what I'm talking about. 00:50:11.073 --> 00:50:17.353 - So you want to know the 2015 ordinance? Yeah, maybe the 2015 ordinance. Yeah. And then we point others 00:50:17.353 --> 00:50:23.571 - to it and say, that's where it happened. I know that maybe that might be a little, I hear what you're 00:50:23.571 --> 00:50:29.912 - saying, if we're setting a precedent to say everything must be cited in the CDL in this way. This one's 00:50:29.912 --> 00:50:34.302 - pretty big because we know this is a hard one. It's just got potential. 00:50:34.530 --> 00:50:54.144 - I'm not sure if that's the right way to put my phrase here. Any other questions or comments? We move 00:50:54.144 --> 00:51:02.494 - on to COA-25-6. This is item 13, COA-25-6. 00:51:03.010 --> 00:51:10.773 - that we continue to find, which is on the prioritization list. And then also something that's not on 00:51:10.773 --> 00:51:18.612 - the prioritization list, which is the response to House Bill 1037, which was the stormwater ordinance 00:51:18.612 --> 00:51:26.529 - changes that were required as part of the state of changes. So we are trying to correct, for instance, 00:51:26.529 --> 00:51:31.294 - in Chapter 811, we are taking back the requirement for taking 00:51:31.778 --> 00:51:39.172 - So we are taking the responsibility of taking the responsibility of logging permits in the urban area 00:51:39.172 --> 00:51:46.494 - before someone was able to take logging permits for both urban and rural properties. But now they've 00:51:46.494 --> 00:51:53.598 - been basically by the House Bill 1037 they're not allowed to be any more stringent than the state 00:51:54.082 --> 00:52:00.700 - Back on, it was already in the CDO, but we were kind of listed as the secondary ILP requirement. We're 00:52:00.700 --> 00:52:07.383 - going to be changing that to make sure it's clear that it's just planning now. And then there's similar 00:52:07.383 --> 00:52:13.872 - changes to artificial lake or pond. In the event that somebody wants to create a lake or pond that's 00:52:13.872 --> 00:52:17.278 - less than an acre or not in the planted subdivision, 00:52:17.858 --> 00:52:24.930 - We are still able to keep some oversight because we are going to have some setback standards for that 00:52:24.930 --> 00:52:32.211 - lake or pond at the event of failure. We're hopeful that we can have some setback standards that prevent 00:52:32.211 --> 00:52:39.491 - and have oversight on areas that could flood out people downstream, basically. We're also just for staff 00:52:39.491 --> 00:52:46.078 - changes, changing the word design standard to development standard. That was something that we 00:52:46.914 --> 00:52:54.286 - should have prioritized the first CDO but missed it. So we're trying to align that with state code language. 00:52:54.286 --> 00:53:01.050 - And then we realized that our fueling station parking minimums were very, very high. I think it was 00:53:01.050 --> 00:53:08.152 - like 20 parking spaces per 1,000 gross floor area. And we're changing that to align better with, I think 00:53:08.152 --> 00:53:15.119 - the city of Louisville has us five parking spaces per 1,000 gross floor area. But we also haven't been 00:53:15.119 --> 00:53:15.998 - to have plus 00:53:16.770 --> 00:53:24.521 - per pump. So we have it as still a little bit higher than what this requires. And then we had this change 00:53:24.521 --> 00:53:31.979 - come into play with the CDO. We added the Lake Lemon overlay, which mimics a bit of the environmental 00:53:31.979 --> 00:53:39.291 - constraints overlay requirements. And so we realized by adding in the Lake Lemon overlay, we have a 00:53:39.291 --> 00:53:43.678 - lot more agricultural activity in the Lake Lemon watershed. 00:53:44.034 --> 00:53:50.001 - And we were pointing people to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, because that's the way the 00:53:50.001 --> 00:53:56.441 - ordinance has been adopted and administered before for eco areas, if they're going to start new agricultural 00:53:56.441 --> 00:54:02.348 - activity. NRCS told us that they cannot help people that are not enrolling in a federal program. So 00:54:02.348 --> 00:54:08.315 - Soil and Water has offered to step up to create the conservation plan for new agricultural activity. 00:54:08.315 --> 00:54:10.974 - They saw it as a great window of opportunity 00:54:11.074 --> 00:54:18.569 - And I think we started with maybe our first one just recently. So they're already helping us in that 00:54:18.569 --> 00:54:26.063 - regard. And then just some clarifying language, preliminary plot to primary plot. And then there was 00:54:26.063 --> 00:54:33.929 - some clarifying language under the administrative subdivision type. We wanted to clarify it was to create 00:54:33.929 --> 00:54:37.342 - one lot total. And then under our category of 00:54:37.538 --> 00:54:45.280 - uses or sorry under our site plan chapter we're getting rid of the reference that says that on the site 00:54:45.280 --> 00:54:53.170 - plan you have to list what the intensity of use is as you know under our CDO we got rid of that intensity 00:54:53.170 --> 00:55:00.837 - column and we worked really hard to create scales of uses individual uses so retail sales small retail 00:55:00.837 --> 00:55:06.718 - sales medium retail sales large things like that so we've updated this part so 00:55:07.138 --> 00:55:16.896 - We're talking through maybe one or two other possible changes, but this is the list. Thank you, Jackie. 00:55:16.896 --> 00:55:26.466 - Any questions on this one? It's a tough question because it's kind of more of a gut pill. I think the 00:55:26.466 --> 00:55:34.910 - SWCD, I guess it's better than not having any resource, but he thinks that there are two. 00:55:36.962 --> 00:55:43.854 - You have worked preliminary with them on some of this. And I guess, would you like to kind of express 00:55:43.854 --> 00:55:50.746 - kind of how that has worked out? Sure. So we met with them in person. And one of the discussions that 00:55:50.746 --> 00:55:57.841 - we had was, would you be able to take on this amount of extra workload? But then once we kind of figured 00:55:57.841 --> 00:56:04.598 - out that this would be mostly for the Lake Lemon area, there's not a lot of new agricultural that's 00:56:04.598 --> 00:56:06.558 - starting around Lake Monroe. 00:56:06.882 --> 00:56:13.235 - We really narrowed it to say we don't think that there will be more than five requests a year. Based 00:56:13.235 --> 00:56:19.526 - on previous experience and just looking at aerials. I'm delighted to support it because any support 00:56:19.526 --> 00:56:25.879 - is better than done, but I just was kind of curious because once we bake it into the ordinance, then 00:56:25.879 --> 00:56:32.170 - it's a process, right? And knowing kind of their structure over there, I just wanted to kind of get 00:56:32.170 --> 00:56:36.510 - a sense of how planning felt, so. Thank you. I saw my last question. 00:56:36.802 --> 00:56:43.768 - I think it's painfully obvious, but what was the last time we had a lake or a dam failure? Over a pond? 00:56:43.768 --> 00:56:50.800 - Yeah, over a pond. A close call on Hatch Road once. Yep, since I think we've had a failing one. Luckily, 00:56:50.800 --> 00:56:57.766 - people will call and say it's actively failing, and then stormwater can sometimes help. If one has been 00:56:57.766 --> 00:57:04.798 - an achievement that's totally private, then they just mitigate. I've had two known bits. And Twin Lakes. 00:57:04.994 --> 00:57:11.593 - There was one south of the ball fields, across the street from the ball fields. It's interest. I mean, 00:57:11.593 --> 00:57:18.000 - we don't know how it fits it. There was one at Fieldstone that we took care of. A store water piece 00:57:18.000 --> 00:57:24.470 - to take care of. The state gets involved with some regulation of high hazard dams, and it used to be 00:57:24.470 --> 00:57:30.428 - that they had to hit three different standards to be classified under the Hazardous Dam. The 00:57:30.428 --> 00:57:31.966 - state deregulated that. 00:57:32.674 --> 00:57:40.430 - not like some of those that was classified as high hazard. So I thought we should. Depending on a lot 00:57:40.430 --> 00:57:48.263 - of things here, it sounds like it could be you all were storm water or stage or the army for it. I was 00:57:48.263 --> 00:57:56.400 - going to say, don't forget it. There we go. Thanks. Before the CDO, we just had people apply for a grading 00:57:56.400 --> 00:58:00.734 - permit and then it was just a stormwater grading permit. 00:58:01.122 --> 00:58:07.985 - Under the CDO, we tried to enumerate some more of the standards for people submitted to us the information 00:58:07.985 --> 00:58:14.398 - we needed. So we didn't feel like after they applied, we kept asking for more information. So we've 00:58:14.398 --> 00:58:21.068 - tried to say, here's everything that we possibly could need from your engineer out front so that people 00:58:21.068 --> 00:58:27.482 - know, okay, if I want to do this, this is what it takes. So especially the CARS teachers, we do get 00:58:27.482 --> 00:58:29.406 - people that want to have a on 00:58:29.570 --> 00:58:40.277 - in the thick forest area. So our drainage board has been particularly helpful in educating them because 00:58:40.277 --> 00:58:51.190 - they can fail. They don't hold water. Right. They don't hold water. Like Leonard Springs. Yep. Additional 00:58:51.190 --> 00:58:57.470 - questions on that one? Moving on to the last item, SGP-25-2. 00:58:59.234 --> 00:59:09.679 - Okay, so this is the Bell Vista primary plat. We had that filed by the developers representative. So 00:59:09.679 --> 00:59:20.021 - it's Bell Vista 3 Inc., CEO Angela Parker and Larry Allen, I believe is also helping with this one. 00:59:20.021 --> 00:59:26.846 - But they are basically asking for a reopening of the primary plat 00:59:26.946 --> 00:59:33.637 - just to exclude the requirement for street trees and sidewalks. We talked about this quite a bit under 00:59:33.637 --> 00:59:40.133 - the Subdivision Improvement Agreement process and basically concluded at the end of the Subdivision 00:59:40.133 --> 00:59:46.825 - Improvement Agreement that we would cash their letter of credit on October 27th or before 2025 because 00:59:46.825 --> 00:59:53.711 - it seemed like they were not willing, they stated as such, they were not willing to increase that amount, 00:59:53.711 --> 00:59:54.750 - which was $600. 00:59:54.882 --> 01:00:03.467 - plus thousand dollars that it would take to actually implement and install the sidewalks in the subdivision. 01:00:03.467 --> 01:00:11.421 - So we have 20 days before the letter of credit is due and the next plan commission meeting is on the 01:00:11.421 --> 01:00:19.612 - 23rd. If this is approved for both the sidewalk waiver and the street tree waiver on the 23rd, we would 01:00:19.612 --> 01:00:21.502 - not be required to do a 01:00:21.954 --> 01:00:30.554 - secondary plat, so this does not get recorded because just showing the sidewalks and street trees, the 01:00:30.554 --> 01:00:37.150 - process would be complete and the developer would get all of their funds back. 01:00:37.410 --> 01:00:43.946 - This is already accepted into the inventory. This the right of way is accepted in the inventory. We 01:00:43.946 --> 01:00:50.809 - do have a consent letter and we have been contacted quite a bit by neighbors out here, especially during 01:00:50.809 --> 01:00:57.345 - the Subdition Improvement Agreement process. And now I think they're more aware of this process and 01:00:57.345 --> 01:01:04.012 - are supportive. So we do have a petition letter which we accepted as sort of their consent letter for 01:01:04.012 --> 01:01:04.862 - this change. 01:01:06.466 --> 01:01:14.835 - We'll be adding before the next meeting too that this primary plat originally was approved with conditions. 01:01:14.835 --> 01:01:23.049 - I'm gonna carry those forward just to not, and if there's things that are obsolete or not needed anymore, 01:01:23.049 --> 01:01:31.418 - we can strike those, but some things I think are still relevant to take that carried forward. Any questions 01:01:31.418 --> 01:01:34.750 - on this one? This was a doozy. I felt like 01:01:34.882 --> 01:01:43.173 - if they didn't come forward and we cashed that bond or a surety, whatever. I feel like this was going 01:01:43.173 --> 01:01:51.382 - to be like an underlining issue for the next generation of folks. And I actually went down and spoke 01:01:51.382 --> 01:01:59.511 - with Director Nestor Jalen and told her that I felt like I voted wrong because I felt like this was 01:01:59.511 --> 01:02:03.006 - kind of not putting a close to this issue. 01:02:03.778 --> 01:02:11.586 - It's going to be really hard for me to get to the sidewalk waiver. But again, it feels like a lot of 01:02:11.586 --> 01:02:19.548 - people just kind of kept going with the flow. And, you know, it really seems to me that the developers 01:02:19.548 --> 01:02:27.201 - went on the hook for that. So I'm really happy the developer kind of decided to move this forward. 01:02:27.201 --> 01:02:33.694 - And I just, yeah, it was a doozy. And I really want to see this like a closed case. 01:02:33.794 --> 01:02:40.743 - and not where, like, maybe future generations come back and re-litigate this, and we are just kind of 01:02:40.743 --> 01:02:47.692 - leaving it for them to deal with. So I'm very happy to see this. Sidewalk waiver is still a tough one 01:02:47.692 --> 01:02:54.573 - because, you know, you think about people out there and stuff, it's a hard one. And, you know, a lot 01:02:54.573 --> 01:03:01.726 - of that resonated when Commissioner Thomas mentioned that anything ever happens out here, it's like, oh, 01:03:02.210 --> 01:03:09.369 - Why didn't we put sidewalks? But from all the testimony from the property owners and such, how they 01:03:09.369 --> 01:03:16.814 - don't desire that, I feel like I can lean towards that. And again, I'm just kind of sharing my thoughts 01:03:16.814 --> 01:03:24.044 - of where I'm at and the fact that I'm just really grateful that this might be put to rest and people 01:03:24.044 --> 01:03:29.342 - in the future don't have to potentially deal with it. So thank you. Yeah. 01:03:29.602 --> 01:03:37.651 - I will add just to note that we didn't restructure the report from the SIA so it's not a total repeat. 01:03:37.651 --> 01:03:45.699 - There was a discussion with our department and the highway engineer regarding that there is a greenway 01:03:45.699 --> 01:03:47.262 - corridor planned or 01:03:47.522 --> 01:03:55.516 - proposed and the transportation alternatives plan through this area. And there was a discussion of whether 01:03:55.516 --> 01:04:03.212 - we could ask these individual property owners for some sort of easement. But since this is a developer 01:04:03.212 --> 01:04:10.832 - request, I don't know legally if we can withhold the sidewalk waiver and in return require a easement 01:04:10.832 --> 01:04:16.062 - from private property owners because they no longer own the property. 01:04:16.258 --> 01:04:28.852 - I also added in some history from the phases one and two, as well as this, or section one and two. So 01:04:28.852 --> 01:04:32.926 - the section two has an easement. 01:04:33.058 --> 01:04:39.582 - for sidewalks if and when they go in at any point, but there was no actual sidewalk requirement. Section 01:04:39.582 --> 01:04:45.796 - one did not have the sidewalk requirement. The standards at that time did not require sidewalks. So 01:04:45.796 --> 01:04:52.071 - that was something that the neighbors brought up of, well, this would be the only section rule as to 01:04:52.071 --> 01:04:58.782 - the sidewalks. So that provides some additional context. Thanks. I have one comment question. First of all, 01:04:59.138 --> 01:05:05.237 - on my share of committees in this county. It's wonderful to have these months to go back as far as times 01:05:05.237 --> 01:05:11.162 - to really have the verbatim to look at, you know, great job with this. It's not consistent with other 01:05:11.162 --> 01:05:17.145 - things, but this is great. I guess more, I have more comments. I know there was some stress right here 01:05:17.145 --> 01:05:22.953 - with this particular one, but is there a risk of, I think I heard what you were saying there, Sean, 01:05:22.953 --> 01:05:26.206 - about maybe precedent setting or something that creates 01:05:27.298 --> 01:05:34.216 - if this isn't a closed case, people may look at this as an opportunity to follow a similar path of basically 01:05:34.216 --> 01:05:40.627 - waiting on luck development. I mean, are we concerned that there are other cases like this out there 01:05:40.627 --> 01:05:47.419 - that we may see and how we prevent getting into this predicament again? I guess that's really my question. 01:05:47.419 --> 01:05:54.718 - There are a few solutions that we plan on tackling next year that were accepted into the inventory similar to this 01:05:54.914 --> 01:06:00.195 - that have money associated as a cashier's check. So not a letter of credit that we've been trying to 01:06:00.195 --> 01:06:05.529 - keep up with. So this year we really started to tackle the letters of credit because those are things 01:06:05.529 --> 01:06:10.810 - we were going to pay for actively talking to the developer and we've knocked off a lot on that list. 01:06:10.810 --> 01:06:16.196 - There are other submissions that historically were accepted without all the improvements made and that 01:06:16.196 --> 01:06:18.078 - we might see similar requests here. 01:06:18.402 --> 01:06:25.677 - But moving forward from 2016 at least on, we have not accepted roads that did not have full completion 01:06:25.677 --> 01:06:32.881 - of improvements. So I don't think it sets a precedent forward by any means, but there might be passed 01:06:32.881 --> 01:06:40.015 - lots of pre-2016. I think that will be about the timeline. Thank you. Otherwise, we would say either 01:06:40.015 --> 01:06:44.606 - put in the sidewalk tax, not accepted, or there are waiver cuts. 01:06:45.122 --> 01:06:51.811 - I was just going to really applaud planning to taking on this. How many years now? Three almost? That 01:06:51.811 --> 01:06:58.501 - you've kind of started to take over the management of this and two, two. Well, some of these are big, 01:06:58.501 --> 01:07:05.125 - so it feels like three. And I just want to commend you and say thank you because I really think this 01:07:05.125 --> 01:07:11.749 - is going to prevent exactly what Mr. Henry was just saying from occurring in the future from new and 01:07:11.749 --> 01:07:12.798 - some emissions. 01:07:14.530 --> 01:07:22.590 - a huge alarming curve for me if you can't tell. We have a petition in the exhibit list and I believe 01:07:22.590 --> 01:07:30.571 - when I checked it's everyone that would have a sidewalk which is only on one side of the road and I 01:07:30.571 --> 01:07:38.791 - think at last count they might have been missing two neighbors for street trees but I can double check 01:07:38.791 --> 01:07:42.462 - that. That's consent letters is exhibit five. 01:07:42.946 --> 01:07:50.641 - So it is a pretty exhaustive list. We went through it and a lot of times it's like people own two lots 01:07:50.641 --> 01:07:58.113 - or they're them and their spouse or someone that they live with signs and then it's cyber. But yes, 01:07:58.113 --> 01:08:06.256 - we do think that based on the conversations that we've had with the neighbors, there's pretty much unanimous 01:08:06.256 --> 01:08:11.262 - agreement that they do not want this. The petition starts with the 01:08:11.586 --> 01:08:20.904 - that we're going to be looking at in the next couple of weeks. The petitioners are current homeowners 01:08:20.904 --> 01:08:30.405 - of the list of three way the undersigned are in opposition of remaining permits as outlined. So there's 01:08:30.405 --> 01:08:39.358 - a twenty two twenty eight sidewalks in addition to our streets that carry some weight in my mind. 01:08:39.586 --> 01:08:55.549 - I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I 01:08:55.549 --> 01:09:08.638 - don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. 01:09:08.834 --> 01:09:15.178 - created Halloween Hill. They have gone out there and they turn this neighborhood into the back up. Bring 01:09:15.178 --> 01:09:21.401 - your kids out here. Yeah, trigger treats. Yeah, I've done it. I've gone out with my grandkids and it's 01:09:21.401 --> 01:09:27.442 - like one of these things. There's hundreds of these kids wearing dark suits on the road and there's 01:09:27.442 --> 01:09:33.182 - people driving through there like it's their name and it's to me it's one of those things that 01:09:33.858 --> 01:09:42.739 - They don't want sidewalks, but they want to create this environment where they're putting kids at risk 01:09:42.739 --> 01:09:51.361 - in my view. So that's. Maybe the hypocrisy. At least once a year. Once a year I know I haven't been 01:09:51.361 --> 01:10:00.156 - out there three months. Don't know. The drainage ditches, I think I remember drainage ditches, so the 01:10:00.156 --> 01:10:02.398 - corporate sidewalks with. 01:10:02.626 --> 01:10:08.735 - of the brain and just working out there. I don't feel too excited. I just don't know if I've been there, 01:10:08.735 --> 01:10:14.611 - honestly. I don't know if I've been there, so I'm okay with the issue, but. Kids can send you a link 01:10:14.611 --> 01:10:20.487 - of it and ask where they- But that's like a Halloween attraction. A ditch and they cover it up. It's 01:10:20.487 --> 01:10:26.480 - like a 24-inch pipe with a burrito shirt, like a basketball. What does that cost? Would it be $50,000? 01:10:26.480 --> 01:10:31.774 - What if we do it for $50,000? It's held up for 10 years. It was 10 years ago. It's such a- 01:10:32.386 --> 01:10:49.132 - Hey, any other questions or comments? So. I don't have anything OK, legal reports Mr. Schilling. If 01:10:49.132 --> 01:11:01.022 - you would like a report on the. Mediation I can provide you with that. 01:11:01.442 --> 01:11:12.501 - We did gather to mediate a few issues and it allotted four hours for the mediation. And after about 01:11:12.501 --> 01:11:24.444 - six hours, everything that we'd agreed to, the House rejected pretty much. So we came out of there agreeing 01:11:24.444 --> 01:11:29.310 - to pay them the money that we had agreed to 01:11:29.730 --> 01:11:37.341 - pay them in October of 2020 and had, in fact, written checks, which they canceled. But we'd also agreed 01:11:37.341 --> 01:11:44.805 - to their urban area map. And before the mediation, we sent them a letter saying, you've never sent us 01:11:44.805 --> 01:11:52.123 - your version of the urban area map. Send it to us. We may agree to it. Who knows? And we won't even 01:11:52.123 --> 01:11:58.782 - have to raise this litigation or the mediation. They didn't do that. But at the mediation, 01:11:58.946 --> 01:12:05.126 - They presented us with a map that we talked about. We said, fine, we'll agree with it. So the mediator 01:12:05.126 --> 01:12:11.306 - said, boy, I'm going to send around the mediation agreement for you people that meet and sign publicly 01:12:11.306 --> 01:12:17.306 - that had two points to it. One, we would agree to pay of money, and two, that we would agree to the 01:12:17.306 --> 01:12:23.306 - urban area. But those were processes that we'd already agreed to. So it's not worth having a public 01:12:23.306 --> 01:12:25.406 - meeting to deal with this and say, 01:12:25.538 --> 01:12:34.682 - Hey, we still agree. Five years ago, you know, almost to the day. So that's what happened. Every time 01:12:34.682 --> 01:12:44.005 - we try to compromise with them, the next thing you know, they would say, forget it. And so that's where 01:12:44.005 --> 01:12:53.507 - we are. They've sent us a discovery request that is completely onerous, that asks for every communication 01:12:53.507 --> 01:12:55.390 - relating to the case 01:12:55.842 --> 01:13:04.031 - for the last five or six years and we have a settlement agreement which limits the issues out there 01:13:04.031 --> 01:13:11.892 - at this point and so we're going to try to address that and get that a little down to just the, 01:13:11.892 --> 01:13:20.326 - you know, there's two issues. One of them is whether they need to get an agricultural permit or permit 01:13:20.326 --> 01:13:24.830 - for agricultural uses and the other is whether they've 01:13:25.922 --> 01:13:33.923 - comply with all our erosion conditions. And so we said, over the course of the years, our MS4 coordinator 01:13:33.923 --> 01:13:41.470 - had been out there and inspected and had talked to us representative as to whether they'd complied. 01:13:41.470 --> 01:13:49.169 - And there were a number of instances where improvements needed to be made to bring it into compliance 01:13:49.169 --> 01:13:51.358 - with the county's ordinance. 01:13:51.906 --> 01:14:00.147 - Those were communicated and then they've had they've had a couple site visits and the House representative 01:14:00.147 --> 01:14:08.003 - claims that our our MS4 coordinator said everything was OK. Our MS4 coordinator says no, I didn't say 01:14:08.003 --> 01:14:15.705 - that at all and we have photographs showing in back in 2022 when she first went out there, she said 01:14:15.705 --> 01:14:17.630 - these are some problems. 01:14:17.858 --> 01:14:27.419 - Well, Jackie and crew were out there last year or maybe it was the fall of last year that you were out 01:14:27.419 --> 01:14:36.979 - there. A month ago. And you can see that those improvements have not been. So we said, look, so rather 01:14:36.979 --> 01:14:43.198 - than argue about whether things have been nailed down in the past, 01:14:43.362 --> 01:14:50.851 - Let's just send people out there. We'll do another inspection. And if you comply, we'll immediately 01:14:50.851 --> 01:14:58.565 - publish a statement in the paper saying the HUS are in compliance and are not harming the lake at this 01:14:58.565 --> 01:15:06.203 - time. And they wouldn't agree to that. They wouldn't let us out there. And then, of course, we'd have 01:15:06.203 --> 01:15:10.622 - a BZA meeting on the 1st of October where the HUS attorney 01:15:10.946 --> 01:15:21.020 - says the BZA on multiple occasions, you're free to go out there at any time and spend the property. 01:15:21.020 --> 01:15:31.296 - So it's a head scratcher. But that's where it stands, which is where it usually stands, sort of up in 01:15:31.296 --> 01:15:40.766 - the air and leaving us baffled about why things aren't progressing. Hours and hours are fine. 01:15:40.962 --> 01:15:49.982 - Yeah, yeah, yeah. More of the thing. I don't know, I don't think I've ever been in a mediation that's 01:15:49.982 --> 01:15:59.710 - gone well in terms of actually coming up with a solution. Maybe it's me. I'm not going to take it personally, 01:15:59.710 --> 01:16:07.934 - but maybe it's me. Mediations are really not, in my mind, not incredibly useful in ordinance 01:16:08.098 --> 01:16:15.420 - violation situation. You're violating it or you're not. Yeah, if you're talking about money, energy, 01:16:15.420 --> 01:16:22.959 - or things like that where there's a lot of give and take. Great area. Yeah, I got you. So there we are. 01:16:22.959 --> 01:16:29.918 - Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schilling. Do we have a motion for adjournment? So moved. Okay, thank you.