- Thank you all for joining us tonight. So Jackie, to get us started, would you please call the roll?
- Sure. David Bush? Here. David Tenry? Here. Jeff Morris? Here. Joe Vandeventer? Here. Margaret Clements?
- Here. Julie Thomas? Here. Rudy Fields? Here. Scott Farris? Here. John Enrique Randolph? Here. Okay.
- So we have seven members attending in person.
- So moving first to administrative business, Jackie, I think you mentioned that we have someone who wishes
- to speak on item number one. So can you walk us through what our options are here? Sure. So under the
- rules of procedure for the plan commission, we do have a section regarding conduct of hearings for public
- hearings. But since this is a public meeting, we don't typically take public comments since most items
- move to the regular meeting each month.
- The items under the administrative business, however, are able to be discussed and the top two items
- could be voted on tonight. So I would suggest that if anyone wishes to speak just on the administrative
- business items that we adopt the rules and procedures similar to the conduct of hearing. So 15 minutes
- for the petitioner, three minutes for any supporters or demonstrators and five minutes for rebuttal
- if there are any demonstrators.
- Which items are those? Under the administrative business, item number one and possibly item number two.
- I'm not sure. Okay, thank you. Okay, so do we have a motion to adopt the rules and procedure for hearings
- for the administrative business? I understand. Motion to adopt the rules and procedures stated. I'll second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to allow for the conduct of hearing rules to apply for just
- the administrative business on tonight's administrative meeting in regards to timelines for public comment.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve. Jeff Morris? Yes. Martin Clements? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Rudy Fields?
- Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Tronan Wright-Randolph? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Motion is approved seven to zero.
- So with that, we can move on to administrative business. So I'll go ahead and do my presentation first
- and then go on to public comment. I believe that a couple folks from the highway side stormwater program
- may also be online and they may also wish to speak under the stack presentation.
- Just under your packet for tonight, we do have a request from the petitioner. They originally requested
- to staff for a release of the financial guarantee for the development CI&L Clear Creek Urban PUD. It
- is not a subdivision. It is a development. And so they have posted $66,625.
- and it was simply to cover the stormwater infrastructure or the detention pond. So I'll get to the staff
- recommendation in a bit, but you do have several items under the exhibits that I hope that we were able
- to cover and that you were able to take a look at as well. So this is a guaranteed performance for a
- planned unit development.
- It was requirement that they post this amount prior to receiving a grading permit under the zoning ordinance
- that was in place at the time. This came from Chapter 811 that was from the prior zoning ordinance and
- it says improvements that must be guaranteed include facilities which shall become public and may include
- other facilities or improvements as may be specified in the outline or development plan approval.
- It goes on to say that the guarantee shall specify the time for completion of improvements and shall
- be in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost of improvements. As you'll see, since they're asking
- for a reduction now, we are using the county development ordinance to help us guide the reduction discussion
- as well. So this was the prior ordinance. So the 125% is what they originally posted.
- So they did work with the highway department of the improvements on their site that shall become public.
- That includes the driveway permits. And they were able to work with the highway department directly
- on getting those permits and working through any bond or performance guarantee required with them. So
- they have those. And then they worked with planning and stormwater to post the amount for the detention pond.
- As a note, the detention pond is private. It's located on private property. It's not located in the
- right-of-way, but as of 2021, IDEM adopted the CSUPE requirements, which also then prompted the county
- to update our stormwater chapter 761, which has since been changed again. The changes in part that I
- want to point out are just that it states
- Under the stormwater technical manual, it says, if stormwater management facilities are not performing
- adequately or as intended or not properly maintained, the county and its sole discretion may remedy
- the situation. So going back to the idea that we have to post 125% improvements that shall become public
- or may include other facilities,
- That was some of the discretion or discussion that we had at the time to include the detention into
- the overall performance guarantee. Now, as of to date, the CINL Urban, it was approved in 2021. They
- have received approval for a development plan for the first two out of three phases and posted the required
- guarantee grading permits for interior site work, including the detention pond.
- and infrastructure work has been posted. To date, they still have not applied for commercial building
- permits for the actual buildings, but they have completed the pond and I believe they've also completed
- the sewer infrastructure. So the outline plan for the CINL urban stipulated that the detention pond
- be in the first phase, which meant that any buildings that would be constructed in the same phase would
- not be provided a land use certificate
- or certificate of occupancy until the pond has been completed. This is a unique scenario in which sometimes
- we don't, for these performance guarantees, we don't have a land use certificate option at the end of
- the project. So they have brought that up as something that will be an additional checkpoint for them
- at the end of the project. They additionally engaged in a pre-con or pre-construction meeting with Stormwater
- On May 17th, 2024, it's in one of the exhibits and it stated at that time under drains to be installed
- when all other grading work is complete and surrounding areas are stabilized to prevent damage to the
- under drain system. In subsequent conversations, including on October 2nd of this year, our storm owner
- inspector noted that the detention basin was nearly complete at that time with under drains installed
- and amended soils in place. So that was against our recommendation that came out over a year prior.
- So under our review, the stormwater inspector did review the pond and the as belt that was submitted.
- And it looks like it's in very good shape. It is fully complete, but now there's a discussion
- of the timing and the sequence of improvements that were made. So additionally, under Chapter 761-5F,
- which was two weeks away from adoption at the time of posting this performance guarantee, so I want
- to be completely transparent, we were advising people on this code, but it wasn't yet adopted.
- It states now that detention or retention ponds, water quality treatment measures must be installed
- to their final configuration when the entire contributing drainage area is at final grade and stabilized
- according to the approved SWP. So that includes under drains, amended soils and permanent vegetation
- after the entire contributing areas at final grade.
- So at this point, I'm going to go down to some photos. So here's the pond itself. You can see that it's
- been sodded and there's been stabilization. There's plantings, landscaping. This was taken by staff
- on October 16th. There's an additional photo by one of the petitioners or applicants further below.
- And this is Roger Street right here. So you're facing south.
- So there are areas of the site. This is still going to be an active construction area. The parking lot
- has not been completed. Usually we see paved areas, curved areas, buildings framed and nearly complete
- by the time the ponds are fully completed because until that point it's supposed to be a sediment basin.
- And the risk of putting it into early is that we've had one other project where they've had to completely
- tear everything out and replace the amended soils and the under drains because of siltation just ruining
- the pond. And then we go into the exhibits of the applicants where they stated that they would request
- a release of the full 66,000
- and that the project is finished. This is an image from the petitioner showing even more stabilization.
- This was likely taken after that date that I showed. And then this is the remainder of the site.
- It was, I believe, an old concrete plant. So there is the amount of rock on this site is different than
- some of the other sites that are developed in the area.
- Their point is there's a different soil or bedrock composition that may or may not impact the drainage
- of this area. And I do want to reiterate that our stormwater inspector said that this was one of the
- better ponds that they've seen. They think it looked good and the as-built met the requirements. So
- Smith Design did do an as-built. And though it does, it's something that maybe
- If you're not used to these, you might look at this to say design volume looks higher than the ad-built
- volume. We did confirm with stormwater that it still meets the requirements, even though there was some
- difference in those calculations, built pretty close to plans. And then this is our stormwater inspector's
- notes. And so they recommend keeping the underdrain
- amended soils and the erosion control measures in the estimate until such time. It can be verified sediment
- has not entered the basin during construction. At the completion of the construction under drains may
- need televised or a visual infiltration test performed to ensure the system is functioning properly.
- So going up to staff recommendation, we have supported the stormwater program and their decision.
- And we are recommending keeping these three itemized items from the original estimate and then applying
- the CDO's 10% annual inflation per year of the performance period, which goes until October 31st of
- 2027. So that brings us to a total amount of 14,934. So we are recommending a reduction.
- We know that the petitioner will be requesting a full release. Something that we could consider, or
- the plan commission could consider, is that you could seek further input from the drainage board. I
- believe they're meeting on the 18th, and then our next meeting is on November 20th. The letter of credit
- is expiring on November 22nd. So we have kind of a tighter timeline for them for that decision, but
- there's something to keep in mind.
- any questions. Just I can confirm since you said you thought they were meeting on the 18th, the drainage
- board does. OK. OK. Any other questions for staff for return to the petitioner? If not to the petitioner
- will have you can actually come to the table so they have online in here. Let me start out.
- Let me give you the pictures of what is done as of today. Julie, if you wouldn't mind take a look and
- pass around and start the other way. The blue indication on this is other people's property. This is
- the pond and the area as of three o'clock today. When we're looking at the asking of the release and
- what that comes down to, we are complete with the pond in
- matter is the curbing and providing the asphalt will be in next week. So standpoint of what we're trying
- to do when we looked at this and saying the entire thing, we were prior to the other ordinance. And
- then we also took into consideration when they said everything else is done, our interpretation of that
- was that everything grading in the pond is done.
- for the pond. So we completed it in order to make sure we got adequate storm water with protection all
- the way through. This is not a development site. This is a redevelopment site. Jackie had indicated
- previously it was a concrete plant and a basically a wreck down there. I mean, in that particular area
- there also have to be, have been two train tracks. So what we're asking for is a release because
- The amended soils and everything else is complete, which adds to the best water quality coming out of
- anything. And we're not going to allow any sediment to get in because there is no sediment. As you can
- see by the pictures, it's all grout and plow. And there's nothing to go in. And the way the ordinance
- is and the protection that we have for the county as a whole is that we could not get an occupancy permit
- for a building.
- We couldn't do anything that the stormwater at the end comes and says, you've got to replace your grants.
- If we do, we do. But our intentions all along this was to complete the stormwater. And procedurally,
- I'm still looking at the situation and say, here, here's what it says. Here's what we were doing. And
- not trying to do anything wrong. We're just trying to make sure that the best stormwater comes out.
- We're complete with the pond.
- prior to starting any building, because if we start a building, we have to have it complete, and the
- stormwater has to be working, functional, and complete. If in the end, for whatever reason, tornado
- or anything else that comes through that made that under drain, not functional, it would be
- our responsibility, irregardless, to replace it and repair it. And if we have to, it's okay. But for
- the long-term benefit
- The county of this project, I want to ensure that the stormwater coming out is the best quality and
- creates no issues because having lived in this particular area that comes down where all the drainage
- comes, I can see the silt that comes off these others. And as a responsible community citizen, I'm not
- going to allow that. So completing this is where we, I thought I was doing it right because of grading
- and how I graded for the pond.
- What I don't want to see is money being held that can be utilized to do other things that benefit the
- community and benefit this area. So long story short, we're complete with the pond. And everybody's
- agreed it's complete, but apparently based upon the change that occurred after we applied in May, the
- change occurred in June. They're saying we didn't do it in the proper sequence.
- But leaving an underdrain or amended soil out would have allowed for additional detrimental water that
- could have gone through and been clarified by our plants. So I'm asking for it to be released so we
- can move forward to the next thing, which is making a re-development for this area. That's my basis
- of any question I'm happy to answer. But I'd like to get it released so we can move forward because
- Your stormwater has to be done in order to get the grading from it. We have to put the bond out. We
- get the bond out, then we complete things. I don't want to see things completely just hold on. It will
- be forever. Let's get something complete that people are proud of that serves the purpose of the community.
- I'm happy to answer any questions.
- As you can see from the pictures, we will continue and have this curving and everything else done. And
- the question I have, only other question I have on that is, well, I'm going to just fly from the agent.
- Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cattleman. Oh, I'm good. Okay. Got a question. Happy to answer. Okay. Do any members
- of the Planning Commission have questions for Mr. Cassidy?
- Okay, so we can turn it out to members of the public. If there's anybody here in the room that wishes
- to speak for or against this, you have three minutes. Seeing no one, you can turn to our audience online.
- If there's anyone online who wishes to speak for or against this, please raise your virtual hand. I
- don't know. Erica Penn, the stormwater program manager, is online if there are questions or anything. Okay.
- Okay, not seeing any public comment online, and then we can close public comment and bring this back
- to the Planning Commission for discussion. If there is no discussion, I would be interested in hearing
- Stormwater's perspective on this, if Erica Pinnick could chime in. All right, can you hear me? Yes,
- we can, thank you. Okay.
- I apologize, my two and a half year old is here with me, so you might hear him a little bit. So I know
- it's been stated, you know, we had the pre-construction meeting with Randy and a few other people who
- were going to be on site with him, contractors, to explain
- the timeline of when we expected to see certain things, when we wanted to be notified to perform specific
- inspections, such as the initial inspection before they are really getting any work started, when they
- have their initial erosion and sediment controls in place, and then also notifying us for an inspection
- when they are installing the underdrain, and then also the timeline of when the underdrain should be
- installed. That's not a new
- It's spelled out on. I've been with the county since 2021 and it's been spelled out on every site plan
- I've seen since then and older site plans that I've looked at kind of going back historically. So it's
- not a new timeline and wasn't really reliant on.
- the update to the ordinance. It was just now when the ordinance was updated in 2024, it became more
- explicit. So it's something that had already been in operation prior to this project. As it's spelled
- out in Jackie's report there,
- We told him multiple times. I'll note that he came into the office on multiple occasions and asked us,
- asked myself, asked Greg, talked to planning and asked them if it was the right, if he could go ahead
- and do that. And we advised him not to. And he went ahead and did it anyways.
- his comment about the functionality of it and the water quality. Yes, I won't argue with that. Of course,
- a finished product is going to give us the best water quality coming out of it that we're looking for.
- But again, it's the timing of things. We want to protect it and make sure that it stays that way during
- construction. That's why we don't want the underdrain and the mended soils and the plugs installed until
- the end so that they
- don't have to be taken out and redone, which is a waste of your money and a waste of just the resources
- in general. Are there any other questions for me or anything else you might be curious about? I'm not
- seeing any additional questions, Ms. Finna. Thank you for chiming in. I have questions. I'm not sure
- who could be the best.
- I totally understand kind of the situation. I'm kind of curious just with what we're looking to retain
- and what we're looking to release. The amount posted was the $66,625, right? And we're looking to retain
- the $14,934, correct? What does it cost to go through these extensions?
- Like, is there a fee to... I think they have an answer for you. Yeah, I guess that's my question. If
- I'm allowed to address them, I'm just trying to figure out what that cost is and try to balance that
- $14,000 with the additional cost. What would that cost be, I guess, if there is an associated cost with
- extending this?
- I don't know what you mean by extension. I'm sorry, just to read for clarity. Or to go through this
- process, I guess. To renew the letter of credit. Yeah, to renew the letter of credit. And that's dependent
- on the bank that's doing the renewal? That's right. OK, so that you would be the person I would be asking.
- So the way this works is you guys, they call the bonds, it's not a bond. It's either cash or a letter
- of credit. You deposit $66,625, people stay back.
- It cost us $750 to just deposit it in order to give it to you guys. In order for us to renew it after
- November 22nd, even at the 14,000, which is another 25% on top, it's gonna cost me $1,000. I'll have
- that 14,000 in the bank. They will pay me 340% and they will charge me nine in order to have my own
- money in the bank, in order to give you guys,
- Monroe County, the assurances that the private detention pond, if it has a problem, that I won't repair
- it and then you would have to take the money. So in a nutshell, it's at 1,000 to renew. 1,000 and then
- 9% for as long as you keep it. Per month? Per year? Per year. OK. 9% of our month. Now it's not compounded
- to the best of my knowledge, but I haven't read that particular section to see if it is compounded.
- that that's the cost to continue to do the 14,000. And the question I always ask on that is, how long
- would it go? Because there's things I've seen that went 20 years without being bleached. Thank you.
- I was just trying to get some sense of how this impacts both the county and both the petitioner slash
- developer. Yeah, I'm kind of torn because
- It sounds like there was kind of awareness to kind of how this should be phased in. It sounds like it
- was built out, but it also sounds like there's the ability to slow down anything if there are issues
- and the petitioner can't proceed. So we do have that safeguard. So I'm completely torn. I did inquire
- a bit about this yesterday because it's a little complex for me.
- I'm still uncertain, so I defer to where my colleagues' thoughts are. That's the question I was grappling
- with the most. That's right. All right, Randolph, do any other members in the planning commission have
- confidence in street planners? Yeah. So the discussion was normal. It took place when they told Pastor
- Cassidy not to proceed, but he proceeded anyway.
- I'm trying to understand. Is that based on what? Is that understanding of previous ordinance? So in
- the ordinance, what? Sure. So there's... I'm looking at the compliance question. Is there a compliance
- question here? Which the petitioner decided to press on at the end on compliance. Is that a fact?
- You could say that it's not in compliance with the slip plan that he's put into place. The pre-construction
- meeting was 2024. So the statement that Ms. Pena stated was that Randy had come into the office a few
- times and was getting closer to completion of the pond. I was aware that he was going to be asking for
- the reduction of the release. And so it was stated back and forth.
- I believe with Ms. Penan and with me, the timing was, we believe you're gonna hold off on the amended
- soils and the under drains. So that was two different discussions. One was just verbal and the other
- one was in the pre-construction meeting. Oh, do we have a non-compliance issue? I mean, Erica, I don't
- know if it would be a,
- I don't know if you want to speak to that as far as like an are you saying an enforcement issue or a
- or just a non-compliance as in like you have a rule and you can rule it's not compliance this is important
- the timeline is yes the sequence of events are not
- they were not done correctly. So what we would have expected was for that pond to serve as a sediment
- basin until the parking lots were in, the buildings were near completion, and then you finish the buildings
- and, or then you finish the pond, the under drains and the mended soils and the flux. That's typically
- how we see it. But as far as non-compliance, I think that the issue is that the project
- you know, the detention base is there to support the buildings on the parking lot. Without the parking
- lot and the buildings, it's just a detention base that's serving extra water quality in the area, but
- there's nothing that's really necessitating its existence until the other development is complete. So
- as far as the sequence of events, we ask that they don't finish it until then towards the end of the
- project. They state that their performance period
- is October 31st, 2027. So to that question, if by that date we're looking at land use certificates,
- the next checkpoint to get through, that would mean their buildings are complete, they're landscaping,
- they're parking. Everything on site matches their development plan. Then we would be looking to release
- the pond performance guarantee and be done with the project. And it was built correctly.
- according to plans. So it's a tricky question about compliance because it's not necessarily something
- we would enforce. It's just a matter of it's out of sequence. We are holding these funds and we don't
- recommend giving them all back as a protection to just make sure that the last part, you know, if they
- don't ever finish the buildings in the parking lot and the amended soils and the under drains get damaged,
- The way I read that language from 2021 is that the county may step in and have to make maintenance
- improvements to that. And that's the worst case. That would be the worst case that would put it on the
- board. Yes. Now, the last question I have is, this is going to be this type of discussion. So is there
- any issue with the precedent?
- on anything we might do in the future or anything we've done in the past, or it's just like a one-of-a-kind
- type scenario because of sequence. As Erica stated, there's been several projects where we'd advise
- the sequencing. So we would not advise people to pre-finish out their ponds before other final stabilization
- is made. If we're taking letters of credit and releasing those in full before certain
- Excuse me, certain aspects are done. You know, all of these are very contextual. I don't know if precedent
- is, you could say like this has the same feature as this project, but they are contextual. So I don't
- think it forces us to decide a certain way on another project, but it does certainly go against what
- the sequencing was at that time.
- I'll come over here so maybe you can see maybe not, but you know part of what prompted us to keep it
- going and to get it cleaned up. There was the tornado on May 16th. This is two days after the tornado
- where we cleaned it up. These are the trees that are laying over the area where the detention pond is.
- You know, we're motivated to do the right thing. The right thing was to clean this up.
- and to get it in the condition that it was going to be in the future. In addition to that, phase two
- is right next to the detention pond and we don't have to be working on phase two, but we are simultaneously
- with the phase one. You probably noticed since last year, we did the tree clearing and then we worked
- on the fill and that's what we were working on when the tornado came on.
- So I'm just trying to create big picture. We did the work. We completed the work and we would like to
- be refunded for the work. We do understand the premise. I don't know why we've been told that word that
- a maintenance bond is not a thing and that this that this is an alternate route.
- I'm hesitant about this alternate route because it almost states that those three items have not been
- completed when in all actuality they have. So those are the only comments that I got. And I really do
- appreciate your allowing the comments tonight. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments
- from members of the commission? I do want to stick to our rules of procedure and make sure at this point
- that since public comments, I'm excited to stick to just plant condition conversation.
- It's going to make a motion. If you have something you wanted to say. I guess, yeah. It seems like there
- was kind of adjustments to the ordinances, like stormwater planning. I guess, is this like phasing very
- detailed on how these installations are supposed to occur? And the reason I ask that is because just
- in the packet, they have a comment where, you know,
- Detention pond was in the first phase of construction, which meant that any building that would
- be constructed in that same phase would not be provided land use certificate or certified certification
- of occupation until the pond was constructed as the drainage for the site is reliant on the detention
- pond. I'm just saying like, now I know there was conversations, there might have been some confusion,
- ordinance changes like,
- Is it highlighted very succinct and clear that these steps shouldn't have been taken? Because just when
- I read that, it's like, well, I need to construct this before I move on to the rest of that phase.
- But again, it's a tough one for me. That statement from there is just kind of, if I read it as a layman's
- person, which I know he don't want to do that with anything,
- has an ordinance tied to it. It kind of sounds like build a pond first as before you complete the buildings.
- So in the pre-construction meeting that happened in 2024, that was when they detailed the sequencing
- of the pond construction. TMB and Randy were both present at that meeting. Yeah, OK. Sounds good. I'm
- going to kind of just defer to my colleagues
- I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm
- not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
- water capture vessel was to act as a sediment basin during phase one or during the building construction,
- correct? And then as, so anything that would happen to filter in from onsite, offsite, wherever, for
- whatever reason was captured there. And then it could be locked out, dressed up, whatever had to be
- done, and then
- as the final, one of the final steps prior to issuance or requesting a building occupation permit was
- that the sod would be put in, the final phase of the under drains, everything would be put in.
- At that point, it would be a working water retention base, correct?
- That's correct, that's the statement. Part of that is if you look at the as built with the very specific
- contours at the end of the project, if there's any siltation, you can easily change the capacity volume
- of that pond. I just wanted to make that distinction that the theoretical reason or the implied reason
- for construction of any entrapment there was to capture sediment during construction and
- and not act as a final working retention. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of
- the commission? I just find that there are a lot of practical difficulties here as far as the tornado
- and the storm damage and things didn't happen exactly in sequence the way that maybe they
- everyone had hoped to, but you know, an emergency happened and equipment was on the ground and they
- got things cleared around and I'd like to move for approval of SIA-GPUD-24-1 and abide by the staff
- recommendation of reducing the performance guarantee amount to $14,934 based on the storm water program
- report and findings in the
- report and so I make that motion. Okay it's been moved and seconded to reduce the performance guarantee
- amount and replace the posted required posted financial guarantee to fourteen thousand nine hundred
- thirty four dollars based on stormwater programs report and the findings. A vote yes is a vote to reduce
- the amount
- Margaret Clements? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. John Henry Randolph?
- I pass. David Bush? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. John Henry Randolph? I'm going to, I guess, say he
- Yes, but reluctant just due to their activism. OK, so that motion was approved 7 to 0. I'd like to ask
- one question was prior to this meeting. I asked Jackie how this would go and she told me we would have
- five minutes for rebuttal and that didn't occur. The rebuttal only comes when there's. Yeah, they just
- told me so I I would like to verify because
- because I've just been told that you and Erica. We had conversation and at no point don't remember the
- amended soil, so I just want to make clear. Did you tell me that or not about the five months? I can
- tell you about the five minute bottle. I was expecting that I would have five minutes to have
- that discussion. So if I'm not because of the rules, just I'd like to make that known about the discussions
- that I. Are trying to do the right thing.
- So when I get wrong direction, I don't know which way to go that's. And now that it's voted, I just
- want to know, we can't reduce the bond or the letter of credit. Because if you read through the packet,
- you will see that it's not a reductionable bill, but a bond. You have to take it all. And then you have
- to use it on the pond. So there's 66,000.
- because I read everything. I have a maintenance bond from a bonding company, which you don't take because
- it's letter of credit. Now, the amount of this bond is for $12,540, which is what Jackie had told me.
- And then when we got to our discussion, it went to 14,000. So I had a bond from our bonding company
- to insert the bonding through Greater Annapel, a $12,540 bond
- costs $315 to guarantee that the count has. That's what it costs for a bond. Now, in order to make sure
- that we move the procedures, because November 22nd, based on what I'm reading from our performance bond
- that we put with the county and my bank, you've just voted on $14,000, which when Jackie goes to reduce
- it or do it, I don't know how it's gonna be done. So I brought a personal check,
- and a cash years check for $14,934. So I just want to know, which one do you want? Do you want a maintenance
- bond that I'll have to get for $14,000 I got for $12,540, which you told me? Do you want the cash years
- check? Or do you want the personal check from our blind squirrels? Can this be addressed? Yeah. Right.
- Well, I have this. It's been a public meeting. Right.
- We just have a full agenda. Every time I have a conversation. Staff can step outside with you and answer
- your questions. I think that would work. Yeah, I'm trying to be clear. You are being clear, but we have
- an agenda, and we have a lot of items. And this is a staff question, and it's a good question. And Dave
- Schilling's here, so you can ask him, too. But I'm just asking if we can just get back to our agenda.
- Yeah, I appreciate you guys giving me the time.
- I just need to clarify these things because when I'm told I'm having these verbal discussions and I
- get mixed reactions and mixed, mixed. Could we step out now or whenever you'd like to. I think maybe.
- I have to cover the second item, but after that, I will. The second and third and then I'll show you.
- Let me give them a minute to figure out how to resolve this last question.
- You know, and I'd like to say something about the rebuttal issue. You know, if you don't mind, it's
- my understanding that if the member of the public makes a comment in opposition to the request, then
- the petitioner has the opportunity for a rebuttal. But when staff is informing us based on our questions,
- that is not a rebuttable kind of item.
- it's public comment that you would have an opportunity to rebut for five minutes. We're, we're informing
- ourselves based on the staff presentation. Am I incorrect on that? So we're sorry for the confusion
- on that, but, uh, and we appreciate your, you know, your presentation and it was compelling. And, uh,
- you know, you informed us quite a bit about
- cost of these bonds, and I didn't know they varied across banks. I learned a lot, you know, and in my
- mind is going 100 miles a minute on different solutions that could be made, but I think it would depend
- on the builder community coming together and doing something proactive rather than, you know, the banking
- community, so to speak. But I don't know. I don't know, but you brought up a lot of really interesting
- issues. So thank you for that.
- Maybe in the meantime, Dave Schilling can work with you on your request about the $14,000. I didn't
- know that the whole bond had to be cashed in. That's news to me, you know. So, Dave, if you can work
- with Randy on that. It would be done. I'd be grateful. Sorry, Jeff.
- Now, let's move on to item number two. Well, Mr. Schoen, yes, since then. So item number two is the
- Todd Locke's reason why we're not bringing this to GV. So this is a email request that we received from
- somebody who has been following up after the CDO map changes. Something that we brought to you all as
- administrative business is the decision point as to whether
- You would like to review the map change as a Plan Commission author rezoned, or if you would recommend
- that the person themselves come back to the Plan Commission and ask for the rezone themselves. So this
- is a property on South Strainridge Road. Basically, they have a vacant lot next to an office building
- that was zoned
- existing business or general business. And then at the change of the CDO map, it was zoned to residential.
- So they're requesting that the area of the vacant lot be rezoned back to general business.
- So this is the lot here in question. I'll go ahead and turn on the zoning map. And so it was zoned before
- a business zone, and now it's zoned residential. One of the considerations that we had when we were
- doing the CDO map was reviewing how properties were currently taxed or used. A long time ago, there
- were a lot of business zones close to Lake Monroe.
- and with us getting rid of both the pre-existing business and reviewing the CDO zoning map, there was
- an understanding or a discussion about vacant lots if they were, and some lots were pre-existing business
- and they were used residentially, a discussion of down zoning those. I could not find anything specific.
- They did not fill out a CDO survey map. They were kind of late to seeing this change.
- So now they're getting engaged and are thinking about what they could possibly do on this lot and would
- like to have it be zoned again to general business. So that is the proposal by this person. And so the
- question before you all is whether you would consider taking this as a plan commission authored free
- zone or if you would like staff to
- I would like to ask Mr. Lox to direct Mister Lox to apply for the reason to the whole thing should.
- Yes, I'm just trying to follow up with a sorry my thoughts are still on that previous petition. So if
- you covered this I apologize. So this wasn't
- I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We read some of it. What I'm saying is that under the. Under
- the administrative work sessions that we did. We did a series of four work sessions with the Planning
- Commission, right? We did not take this one on individually. So it wasn't something that we talked about
- or voted on to change it one way or
- it was rezone from what to what I guess. So general business. This is the map of what the zoning was
- and then it went to residential along with the lot to the direct north. Do they have a general business
- operation or yes? That lot is vacant. OK, so it's vacant. They own the existing business next door,
- which is on
- I think that's a good question. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,
- yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,
- yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,
- I mean, I feel like if I say yes to this, I'm going to say yes to every single other person that does
- that. I don't see where the overlook was, except for the idea of looking at every adjacent parcel to
- every general business zone and vacant lot that's owned by the same person that owns the general thing.
- That would be a big ask. So that's where my thoughts are.
- So if you can leave that back, is that that's our current math, right? So to the West is. What in red?
- This is a convenience storage, right? That's a business duty, so that's all all the red is duty now
- across the street. Is the residential lot going north? Sorry, yeah. Is another.
- residential lot. This one here. This was also vacant and residential. It was also TV at the time. So
- here's what the map was prior to that. That's where I got. So and that's not owned by the same person.
- It's just something I stumbled across to when I was looking at this. Yeah, it's something that up.
- But it was not someone that they owned it. Yeah. So those are two vacant lots owned by two different
- people. Originally, both were GB. Now they're residential. And that's what makes this hard for me, is
- that part of it. Because if it's something where we made an error
- you know, rezoning, I'd say, let's own it and fix it. But do I remember that we talked about these lots
- or was it in that area and it was something similar? I think it was in that area of something similar.
- We had a outdoor park shelter event and there was a farmer there and they talked about this area with
- Tammy Pretty.
- pretty explicitly. So I think nearby people were talking about this area, yes. I don't know that I ever
- talked to Mr. Lux about that. I just feel like we talked about some lots in this area, in this part
- of the county. And the question was, do they go residential or even larger? And what did we do in other
- similar circumstances elsewhere? Would we change from the previous zoning to the CDO
- There was something Mark General Business but was vacant. What did we do? I think that one
- of the considerations was, is it in the eco area? Which I think this one is barely just touching it.
- The GIS would have captured it, but it's really not the full parcel. The other thing that we would have
- done is I think that we did attempt to reach out to some of the people who we had contact information for.
- You know, we had to get rid of pre-existing business, so we had to determine if that was going limited
- business, general business, or residential. So we made a few different decisions based on the switchover.
- But this happened elsewhere. Yes, we did. In the CDO transition map, I think we ended up
- reducing the number of GB zone bluffs in general, but we changed where they were located. It wasn't
- an issue where that was the intent. It was about categorizing things correctly. I don't know where I
- left one. This is number one. How big of a lot is this?
- So good questions. So that's the zero point seven seven years and it's more available there. You know.
- I'm sorry. On the county development map, the pop-up has a category that says sewer and it says sewer.
- I'm going to say. I'm confident. Yeah. It's likely the point is right here and I know that's in their
- service area. It's the packaging. Yeah. It could be a billable lot. Yes. For business or residential.
- That's right.
- is it my understanding that there is a process of place for requesting a rezone? Yes, there's a so the
- typical fee schedule states what the fees are and then what the submittals are is in the ordinance so
- people generally do request rezone but this
- I don't want to be. Coming back with all these one also the time
- Yeah. I do think it's incumbent upon the public to be aware of what's going on. And so this was all
- well advertised. I would have thought that. Anyway, thank you. That's all. Julie's good. I just have
- a follow-up. I am to your point, Dave. Can they go ahead and file for a reasonable and then ask to be
- reimbursed afterwards?
- Or as part of their petition, they can ask for the fees to be reimbursed. You can ask for fees to be
- reimbursed. If the work is done, though, typically we're not supposed to. Got it. Yep. I just didn't
- know if there would be a long route to this one. Sure, we've been checking our... Yeah, I just have,
- I guess, one
- additional comments because this all went through a long process. I was in favor of kind of keeping
- a lot of these general businesses during the process. We did end up reducing it. It's really hard because
- we also consolidated a lot of TIFFs. I think the best way to accurately depict what occurred is the
- uses and what uses still exist in each one of these zones because
- When you consolidate it, you could still call it general businesses, but they might have lost uses.
- Anyways, I'm not going to get on that big complexity there, but I was in favor of keeping a lot of the
- general businesses and uses. And I'll put my cards out. If they come for a rezone, I'd be willing to
- support that, because I probably wasn't too fond of changing this during the process, just knowing that
- there was a functional general business
- zone and lot already operating in this area. But I do have a big concern in this. In my opinion, kind
- of relates to this prior petition that like. If we do this for this person, how are we going to say
- no to the next person and these things? These are things are in place to safeguard some of the concerns
- and mitigate some of the concerns that we have dealt with when this community grows. So that's kind
- of where I'm at. So.
- I won't be supporting this just due to the fact. And I will say it's kind of hard to sometimes follow
- everything that's going on. But that's kind of where my thoughts are on this matter. Mr. Ferris. I think
- it brings up a point about public comment. And I think that in all cases, you should consider that as
- a requirement. And so I believe that if the petitioner
- I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm
- not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
- You know, I think in some ways, if it's a true error, like we had one the other day, they accidentally
- added a PUD lot to a non PUD property. That's a true error that we have to correct. Where there's not
- true obvious errors, then it's more of a decision point. There's no further discussion. Do we have a motion?
- doesn't have a case purged at the time. Okay, on CDO rezone, parcel number 53-11-21-100-017-000-006,
- South Strain Ridge Road, I'm going to make a motion to decline that the planned commission moves this
- petition forward as a rezone
- I'm also going to encourage the property owner to go through the proper procedures. And again, I'll
- put my cards out there. I'm willing to support that. That's the case. That's my motion. Second. It's
- been moved and seconded to let the owner of the property know on South Strange Ridge Road that they
- should go ahead and apply for a rezone if they would like to see the property rezone their general business.
- I meant the planning commission will not be authoring that request. A vote yes is a vote to let the
- petitioner know to apply for their own rezone request. Julie Thomas? Yes. Rudy Field? Yes. Scott Farris?
- Yes. Sean Enright-Randolph? Yes. David Bush? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Motion is
- approved seven to zero.
- Thank you for the good conversation on that one. Moving on to item number three, under administrative
- assistant, Deva Lejeppe. Yes, so we, the county council did update a resolution in regards to how the
- hiring freeze for the county would be implemented. And the first step in asking for a vacancy
- is to ask the County Council just via email if we could get on an agenda. And so we did get past that
- one part. So thank you, David Henry. He was able to say we should be placed on an agenda. All of the
- requests so far for vacancies have been pushed to the 18th. So there were supposed to be two, I think
- at the last meeting.
- There was going to be some at this 10th, the November 10th meeting, and now they've been pushed again
- to the 18th. So I'm going to assume that there's definitely three vacancy requests, including ours,
- if not more at that meeting. I am trying to collect any letters of support or if we want to.
- I guess elect or propose a member of the Planning Commission or if multiple members would like to come,
- we just can't have a quorum at the council meeting to state their support for the filling of the vacancy.
- I think that would be helpful. There are a lot of positions that are going to be requesting to be filled.
- I think they're gonna have to draw a line somewhere. So the packet that we support,
- submitted to council has a lot of data, shows the number of phone calls we take in a year, shows the
- number of submittals we take in a year, shows the number of petitions going to these types of meetings,
- the length of our agendas, the complexity of the cases. So I think we put our best foot forward on paper,
- but it certainly wouldn't hurt to have any additional support. So folks can send an email. Or you can
- send it to us and we can put it in the packet.
- I think that's a good way to go to that we would like more. What date is that? November 18th is what
- I'm told is the date. I have a question and I know we went through some job description updates. Position
- where it had the GIS specialists on the back end, but. Instead of having that long title, now those
- duties are incorporated with job description.
- as yes, so many of you job descriptions actually have that type of. Just you know job performance within
- job description. It's very technical type. No area, so I think that would be something to make sure
- that these this is a position that actually has these duties assigned. That's been a big thing that
- I've been focusing on. So.
- I just wanted to make sure I had that clear. I'll be writing letters. So you need that by the 18th?
- Probably the week before, I guess, because usually the deadline to submit is a week prior to the next
- meeting. So I would say by the 10th. Okay. Yeah. I think highlighting that technical aspect of the duty
- is very important because there's only a handful across the entire counties that have that outlined
- outside of signed.
- So if I look at all the functions of the planning department, there's a position, which previously was
- a filled, funded, and authorized position. Currently, it's not being done in the planning department
- because that person is cooking with it. So we're reassigning duties.
- I think that the timeline for getting things completed will suffer. If I'm going to be honest, we just
- are receiving a high volume of requests. So we like to get back to people pretty quickly. I think we
- showed that the average number of phone calls a year is 504 per planner. Yes, that's not even taking
- me by. So that's
- or emails. So I just think we have a lot of, that's the kind of thing that I think tends to be strained
- first. And then people get the sense that, oh, it's going to, you know, a lot of people are calling
- us day of saying, I'm closing at two o'clock and I do this use on this property. And I'm like, we need
- to do some research for you. And two o'clock today is two hours away. So we try to help people in those
- situations, but I'm worried that with one less person,
- You know, those types of requests will just, I don't know that we'll be able to get to it in a timely
- fashion. As a follow-up, what you're doing here is not creating a new position to pay the ones that
- you already have. Correct. What you're doing is backfill. And a lower pay because it would be a new
- person, hypothetically. So there's cost savings of sorts. And I'm sure your justification would follow
- that model.
- They know that they have frozen even transitions or lateral movements in the same department. Transmits,
- thank you. So we can't even, if we had someone equally in the years of service with the county, they
- couldn't even transfer into that position. So we have to hire new, there's no midpoint hiring. So they're
- aware of the savings and our budget was approved with this amount in it. So it would be a savings
- that they didn't even anticipate the time of the budget approval. May I ask a question? Yeah, and then
- we'll go to commissioners. Did I understand that, and it's hard to hear with some of the other distractions
- in the room, but did I understand that she has some, or excuse me, this position, the person that filled
- the position had some specific
- skills GIS type skills and other talents that don't take it six months to get the person that uh that
- is mission critical you might say we did we were looking to get somebody that looked very good at GIS
- um in this position and we do make that clear in the job description as Tron mentioned it's a highlight
- we also require master's degrees which we have everyone on our team has had master's degrees so excellent
- That's been a few films. Oh, I'm sorry. So the other part of this as well is related to that delay.
- And are there any petitions that have a time limit on them? In other words, are we, because we used
- to have that, I mean, we still have the cell towers, not that they're very normal.
- but those changed. Anything like that might also be important to highlight that if we're short-staffed
- in general, that that can have an impact of
- having petitions approved without actually having them referred. January 1, House Bill 1005 will require
- us to certify all applications for residential structures are complete in three days and issue a permit
- in seven. If we do not abide by that timeline, someone can force us to issue our permits. I think that's
- something to highlight. One more thing. Yeah. Thank you.
- comments on that. Thank you, Jack. Just one comment that's I guess for planning commission members is
- just through this whole process, council first path, which is the personnel advisory committee, which
- is a subset of the council to even go and do like simple job revisions, not even necessarily changing
- the category that might come with a pay increase.
- everyone's broken down into a grid structure with fixed bump ups. And they also froze our ability for
- knowledge, skills, and abilities, KSA, where we were able to hire people at midpoint in that eight year.
- So the fact that they need a very high qualified person is gonna be tough enough to not be able to bring
- them in at any other point except the base minimums.
- I would only say that since all of these things are kind of froze, just to spread out the workload amongst
- all the other planners, I think would just exacerbate the issue because the latitude is limited. And
- we're going to have to bring someone in with great skill sets. And we can't just offload the work to
- everyone else. I think that's just a climate
- or, you know, environment issue as well in the workspace. So I'm sorry. Sorry. Dave Perry, right? Well,
- that's mine. I forget. Who's your planning? Who's your license? David. David, OK. OK, let's move on.
- Thank you all for your comments. And let's move on to the benefits. The first is SIA-22-9, the Hollandfields.
- I was wondering, is there actual tangible updates, or are we just moving this forward multiple times?
- Because we've heard it a dozen times, and I was just wondering if there's actual changes. We tend to
- take a high-level update from staff. Yeah, that's why I was getting answers. This one, we did have a
- meeting with the developer on October the 6th.
- We originally were hoping that this would go to the October Plan Commission meeting, but we wanted to
- meet with them, and so we did. We made some good progress on reviewing an estimate that they had submitted,
- which I can. Yeah, so page 72 packet. We met with them and with county staff. We went line by line and.
- tried to knock out and improve everything that we could, we agreed upon. They had a secondary estimate.
- A contractor come in, and rather than use the NDOT verified amount, they were using a contractor's estimate.
- And we agreed to accept that in some instances. We've made decisions on some landscaping in the basins
- that weren't going to require an extra amount after reviewing our ordinances.
- but we're still needing a final estimate with the items kind of highlighted in yellow. We were hoping
- that we would get an estimate before this packets went out, and we just haven't heard back from the
- developer on this one. The highway department met them on site, did say that they wanted a section of
- the road milled and entirely repaved, not just patched because of a lot of utility cuts due to some
- bad work issues.
- This is the status of where we are on this one, and we are hoping. So we will have an estimate for you
- to review and look at by the next meeting. The petitioner's representatives is in the room. I don't
- know if they have an update or not. It's up for you to decide if you want to hear from them. That is
- all I have. We typically don't take updates from the petitioner at every meeting, so unless anybody
- else would like to vote, they can move forward.
- Okay. Thank you, Tammy. Item number two, as they continue by staff, so let's move on to item number
- three, SIA-22-18. All right. So this is also another SIA. And with this one, we will actually be meeting
- with the developer and their team tomorrow at 3 o'clock. So we hope to have an update on this one.
- It's really, that's the only update I have on this one. The next petition that I'll talk about, I'll
- be a little more explicit and they're kind of linked together. So, well, maybe the one thing I will
- pull up is on page 86 of the packet. This is the estimate that they submitted to us. The original one
- was like for $5,113 or something.
- This one has been updated to 20,000, but county did not agree with all the amounts, so we're not going
- to talk about this tomorrow at the meetings. And hopefully we'll have a good comprehensive update for
- the November 20th meeting. Moving on. So this is a new petition for you. This is the SMN-25-5. It's
- the Holland Three Lot Minor Subdivision.
- preliminary flat amendments. And the amendment, they're requesting it. It was a three lot subdivision.
- They're keeping it right at three lots. But the original preliminary flat showed that a road was going
- to be constructed to 32 feet in width, which would have allowed like kind of a lane to turn right at
- table three.
- When they rebuilt the road, they didn't rebuild it that way. So they're requesting to have it to be
- 26 feet in width, which is what it was built to the second time around. This has already gone to the
- PLAT committee and it was pushed through with a positive recommendation. On October 16th, vote of five
- to zero. There are four conditions of approval
- that were associated with it. At the time, when we asked if the developers' representatives could meet
- the very first one, which was to address all staff comments on October 24th, 2025. They were not sure
- they could, which is why we have a meeting tomorrow with them to discuss these conditions, which the
- other ones were that the developer and their engineers show corrective measures
- to those driveways to Lots 1 and 2 so that developers of Holland Field Space 1 can complete the remaining
- East Holland Drive sidewalk corrections in order to request driveway acceptance. The developer must
- apply for the driveway activity permits for the two driveways to be corrected and complete the work
- on or before May 1st, 2026, which would be an alignment of when the letter of credit expires for Holland
- Field Space 1.
- So we're trying to get those kind of aligned a little bit. Condition three would show the sidewalk along
- South Walnut Street Pike, the one that runs north-south, to go all the way to the northern property
- line. And it sounds like their engineer has a design for that ready to be released. She just can't do
- that yet. And hopefully we'll see it tomorrow when it's supposed to dodge a really big established tree.
- I'm glad that they're thinking of that. And then the other one came up during the drainage board meeting.
- The drainage board would request
- that the individual property owners for lots of them to apply for variances for the fences that they
- built within the planet's drainage easements. That was noticed when we were doing that review. So again,
- staff is hoping that by the time we have a packet go out for the November 20th meeting that we have
- some significant updates right on this one. Staff is trying, we're trying to get people in the room,
- we're trying to get some solid documents on file so that we can kind of
- is a solution to this area. I mean, and the packet does have some of the, it has a good timeline in
- it and then also has the plans that they, this is the original plans are showing them with what it was
- and then a new set of plans here in this area.
- where they would also be adding curb and gutter and correcting the sidewalks up here. So hopefully you're
- going to see a new set of plans that just finishes out this area. Any questions? Maybe it's part of
- the request, but if you scroll back up just a little bit to where you were just highlighting the curb.
- Oh, right there.
- The drain was actually placed, that's a deviation too, and they are requesting that. That did go to
- the drainage board, everyone is in support of it, and it goes along with kind of the reduce road request
- too. I just want to make sure that all the requests that deviate from the original one are part of this
- request, and those are the two things that stand out. Is it a complete request? I guess it's my question.
- Inlets was not a requirement of the Platte Committee, whereas the road was. So the Platte Committee
- is able to look at the plan set and say we approve. And then if there's amendments by stormwater or
- highway that fit within the ordinances, we can make small adjustments. Maybe my understanding, I thought
- we needed to approve any deviation from the original submittal and the drain was placed in a different location.
- And if that's not the case, that's fine. I think they're showing it on this plan set though, right?
- So if we adopt that, that's fine. But I just want to make sure that that request is complete and I don't
- get paid because we didn't approve this deviation as well. If that makes sense, my colleagues.
- Moving on to item number three, Z-25-6. Yes, I'm going to cover this briefly. This is the request to
- rezone the Monroe County Nature Preserve that's going to be off of South Knight Ridge Road. It's a request
- to rezone the property from conservation residential to institutional public.
- We have had quite a few questions from the public on this one, but we sent a very detailed letter of
- the information we have, what we know about the property. Also, if anyone didn't see it, we have a circuit
- court case that kind of stipulates what is recreational activity for those joining neighbors that are
- nervous about what this could become. It's very well-defined and delineated of what the boundaries are
- for that type of activity.
- So other parks in the CDO map are zoned institutional public. Of course, from Greenway, for instance,
- I believe Leonard Springs Park. So this is a request that would allow the same use parks and playgrounds
- would be permitted under institutional public. So otherwise it's a pretty straightforward rezoned. Any
- questions? I'm in support of this. I do have a general question.
- I know that there's obligations that the county has to be to kind of accept this and that's just to
- kind of create it as a nature preserve kind of keep it as a as a like a open space, which I think is
- fine. I just. I just don't know the detail behind what the county has to kind of. Off that they're obligated
- to receive this as a gift, so I'm going to ask.
- to attend our meeting and I don't our regular meeting for this because he's been the attorney working
- with the trust. There are things we can and cannot do that are more limited than what I P allows. So
- it's going to be much more limited than what's in the ordinance in our CDO. But it is.
- It is not a money-making venture. It is not soccer fields. It is not, I mean, what is not is much greater
- than what it is. And we have the first work will be done using food and beverage money because the council
- failed on the chart.
- the geobond, even though it didn't do this work, we couldn't get the lamp frame from the truss, which
- just don't mean to me. But that's what the council decided. So in essence, what's going to happen is
- there's going to be very little actual
- maintenance work done, but there are some things that have to happen in order to allow people to access
- property safety. And so that, so public safety is one thing, but also driving permits, other things
- that have to happen that's going to happen. There's a large volume of gas, natural gas underground.
- sort of in the middle of it all, and that has to be avoided as well. So it's really just the bare bones
- that the food and beverage will pay for, and that's $905,000. Now, after that point, once we do get
- to the trust, this land and trust, there's a stipend that comes from the trust to continue preserving
- the lands and maintaining it.
- And that actually probably is going to be sufficient to do what needs to happen after this initial,
- make it safe, make it accessible moment. In the results, just one of the first logical steps. Well,
- I think the reason the Board of Commissioners has requested this is because this stands out as something
- that needs to be addressed. It can't be CDR. We own it as Board of Commissioners and we're doing this on it.
- We're not building houses. So I think it just makes the property use and the zoning match, which is
- something that we always try to achieve. And I'm 100% behind this. Thank you for accepting. It'll be
- more limited than what's here. And I think that that's why I would like to have Justin attend the meeting,
- because I can understand neighbors being concerned. Because if you look at the list of IP,
- it could be much more active than what's actually planned. Any other questions for staff or for Commissioner
- Tomlinson? No, I'm just excited that this happened. I've been following it quite closely with also our
- parks director. Her excitement is contagious.
- Okay, let's move on to the last item on the agenda, the Bella Vista sidewalk and street creating waiver
- request. So not too much of an update on this one. It was continued from the last meeting, the day of
- the last hearing. One of the residents of the subdivisions stated that they had not received an official
- notice as a owner of the subdivision. And upon review of the consent letter,
- You know, we had received a letter stating that there was 100% consent from all owners when we actually
- went back and looked at the GIS of all the owners, you know, vacant land owners. That was the most glaring.
- They had not signed the petition, so what we did was we continued it to make sure we were in alignment
- with rules procedure. Everyone is getting flutter, so that's what that'll be on the 20th. So that's
- the main update, and we did have to cash the letter of credit
- it was going to expect. So we have that as a line in our budget. We did have to cash through a letter
- of credit. It's been appropriated into a certain line.
- and it's held and basically the auditor's treasurer's control. In order to get that released, we're
- going to have to go through a legal and make sure that we do it correctly to release it back to either
- the original issuer or however, if it doesn't get approved, if the waivers don't get approved, then
- we're going to have to work to expend those funds to put in the street trees and the sidewalks and then
- do what we need to do for the remainder. I'd just like to reiterate how the
- Request I've made before and staff is very good at researching this. To the extent that funds exist,
- I'd like to figure out some way to spend them on cleaning up the mess that was created by the builder.
- So, you know, I know that you have your constraints, but... Yeah, on this particular project or are
- you saying in general? On this particular project. Oh, okay.
- Like with all the fees associated with everything that they have to do for surveys. Oh, I see. The developer
- ended up paying that. Oh, good. So not the neighbors. Yes. Bella, show them that just a little bit about
- what the developer ended up paying for. Yes, the developer ended up hiring by companion associates.
- So they've, to my understanding, paid all the survey fees. They paid the filing fees. So there's been
- no fees paid for by the neighbors. Good.
- But my question is about what happens because there certainly isn't enough money. For example, if we
- find a way to do grants or something using that money for anybody in that development who wants to add
- trees to their property, we could do that, right? Because I thought that was a good way to do it. Even
- if it's not at the street level,
- You know, you're adding trees to the area. I don't know if that's something we can do. But then that
- sidewalk issue remains on the deeds. Right. And we can't remove that. No. OK. But they could remove
- it themselves by a majority vote, is my understanding. A majority vote of their neighborhood. Oh, well,
- let's give them that info.
- They can amend, right, Dave? They can amend their own covenants. Oh, they don't have an HOA. I've been
- made aware of that multiple times. Oh, yeah. I don't know who organized it. Right. Right. Well,
- you know what? They're going to have to. But if we give them that info, I feel better. I think that
- was my note. But I just was wondering if that was some way we could do that, which would be to use the
- money, provide trees, but not be so like, oh, we're going to plant them and we're going to tell you
- where to plant them. But then say, hey, if you want a tree, let us know.
- you know, $14,000 credit at this whatever and or whatever, you know what I'm saying? I don't know if
- that's something we can do. It's different. We haven't done that before. But if there's a legal way
- to do it, I'd love to do that. You lost those own trees from the Amarillo dashboard. OK, I'm going to
- do the devil's advocate. I've been thinking about that for several days. And I want somebody to tell
- me I don't know what I'm talking about. OK. And so.
- In a normal situation with the petition. If we would take. And essentially. Required them to put a sidewalk
- here. And therefore we wouldn't take. And you know waiver for the site. Their process would request
- a variance, correct? A waiver that's and they would go through the.
- Is the Board of Zoning Appeals, has that been approved? It goes through the Planning Commission if it
- was part of a subdivision. So the sidewalk requirement was requirement of the subdivision, so then it
- would go through the Planning Commission as they approved the subdivision. We're ongoing with that as
- the process. So we don't want to set a precedent that we can't live with later. So what is the downside
- if we require them to do that?
- If we require them to install the sidewalks or? Yes, we come back to us and request a sidewalk. We.
- So they are right now requesting a sidewalk waiver in a street treeway. I read that yes, but if we deny
- this or the yeah, if we deny the sidewalk waiver, then what we're doing is the money that we've cashed.
- We have to start expending it in those ways and then when there's not enough.
- We need to follow the February 33. What I'm saying is we denied the sidewalk waiver. The heck with the
- discussion about I'm in favor of what you're suggesting. I said that way. I'm just trying to make sure
- we don't walk ourselves in ourselves in the corner. We have something down the road and it becomes precedent.
- People are going to come back and say, well, you did this, right? And we let's say we deny the sidewalk
- waivers. OK, if we don't have this discussion about how you could spend this money on other things,
- What would be the next step for the homeowners? Would it be the developer or would it be the homeowners
- at that point with respect to coming back to the planning commission with another request? Who would
- it be? Well, I mean, they've already, so they originally received approval for the subdivision with
- an alternate plan, right? The subdivision code at that time would have required sidewalks on both sides
- of the street.
- they already received essentially a half waiver to get sidewalks only on one side. So if you deny a
- full sidewalk waiver, I'm not sure what other alternate circulation plan they would be able to propose
- that would be any. So then would they be obligated to put sidewalks? At that time, they would be obligated
- to put sidewalks. And they have no other course of action? The developer is still responsible, but if
- the developer does not fulfill their obligation,
- It falls on the county. Is that what you just said? So we have the $50,000 that we just cashed in a
- budget line. That money has to be spent for street trees or sidewalks. If we do not have enough under
- Chapter 833, one of the options is to sue the developer. And so we would just work with the developer.
- What the developer does from there is not our control. And you're telling us the developer has now
- has been working with you as of late. The representative has been working with us before they were not
- working. I think that they have always been wanting to kind of close this issue out since we started
- contacting them. They really started paying attention when I placed them on the Planning Commission
- agendas. So they have wanted to close this issue out. They've been responsive. My comments are devil's
- happy. Make sure we cross the T's. Worst case scenario,
- how he has to install and then sue. Worst case scenario. I don't even know if we have the ability to
- expend funds we don't. That's what I'm saying. Then we get into this market higher if the developer
- doesn't pay, which that's a lot of money. They won't. Then every poll owner gets on the hook and they're
- stuck paying for something they don't want.
- So it's, yeah. Hot mess. That's my definition of hot mess. That's the thing. I keep coming back and
- hearing this thing about they don't want it. And it's like, to me, that is just not. It's just not.
- You don't want it. Well, you bought it.
- You know, I mean, these people say they don't, they didn't know about it. But if I wouldn't expect that
- ever, that entire insurance, say, God, this whole thing identified us. So I don't see how we could,
- as a group, say, oh yeah, okay, you don't want to, we're going to let it go, which is what we're talking
- about. And I just don't see how we can do that without setting precedent that is just going to be,
- you know, hanging over our heads forever.
- So tell me again one more time how we're going to spend this money. The $50,000 that we have would only
- be able to be spent on sidewalks and straight trees. And who manages the expenditure of those funds?
- The highway department and the planning department does collect it. Yeah, so the developer's not in
- the pool at all. They have no input whatsoever. And the homeowners would have to come to you with their
- proposals, et cetera, on how they're going to take and spend that money. You would just want more to
- do something.
- We do an inspection, compare the inspection with the approved construction plans on file, notice the
- deviations, assume, you know, our highway department has very good understanding of how far 50,000 will
- get you, and they could bid out a project for, you know, two, three lots of sidewalk to the general
- contractors, and they would place bids. We would select the lowest bid for the best quality of work.
- We did that for another subversion and expend those funds and try to get to the amount that we have
- as best as possible. Then the rest of the project, between the 50,000 and the 650,000 that we anticipate
- it's going to cost, we would have to work with the legal department. That wouldn't be a complete project.
- You have to do sidewalks over street trees?
- Uh, that was an example. So we can do just the street tree. It's terrible. It's terrible. It's a, it's
- a no-win situation that we'd like to end it. So $50,000 from sidewalks. We get it. Street trees and
- sidewalks. Why would that make everybody mad? Yeah. So each of the sidewalks would
- likely necessitate the driveways to each of those homes be out of commission for a day or two until
- they were done, which I know is going to make people. There are parts of how the community is laid out
- where I don't know how you'd even add sidewalks at this point either. No. Yeah, there are issues. I
- get your point, but it's not
- I don't know how we do this without dragging people through court when nobody wants to be dragged through.
- This is the opportunity for us to reconcile bad governance with good government and by using our process.
- The governance was in accepting the streets into the inventory with highway.
- And the government is this process through the Black Commission where we can alleviate, use our common
- sense, our collective common sense to say, no, this isn't going to work in this neighborhood. And we
- need to involve those neighbors into helping us clear up their deeds. They need to have a meeting. They
- don't have to have a homeowners association meeting, but everybody will be better off if they. Why am
- I concerned about their deeds? Why am I? Because we like
- government, and we're part of that process. Right, they can do that, so that's not on them. But I worry
- that if we go down the path of, there's going to be a sidewalk, and we force it, we're just forcing
- people into a terrible situation that nobody wants. We don't want it.
- It's a bad, you know, it's a hot mess. And so if we put a sidewalk on one of those lots, you know, that's
- going to make us look bad. No, I didn't buy that max sleep. We are essentially cleaning up broken ones.
- That's what we're doing here. And I believe this is a common ground solution. That's what this is. And
- I believe that difficult scenarios such as this, we need to be going toward a common ground
- It's not perfect. It's not the perfect solution, but it's something that we can take and go and argue
- to anybody who asks us the question why we did what we did. But that's why I wonder if we could be a
- little more creative and maybe establish some credit somewhere of 40 whatever thousand it is. I thought
- it was 40 something. But if we establish that money somewhere and say,
- This is a tree fund for your neighborhood, for this subdivision. And they can only use it on trees,
- and I don't care where they end up being as long as they're somewhere in that subdivision. And then
- we use the money. We've met part of the issue, which is street trees, and we're not forcing litigation.
- And we tell them, please remove this from your
- Covenants that make that decision as soon as possible so that we don't have to come back to do the sidewalks
- and see if we get them on a timeline and get them doing what they have to do. I don't know. I'm just
- throwing stuff out there to see if anything can save me. If it's back to the pool funding that can be
- used by the people who live in the neighborhood, it's primarily going to be used for trees. What do
- you need and can we stipulate?
- that has to be dealt with at a certain period of time, a certain period of performance associated with
- this. They can take control of this thing out there. So typically when we're looking at just, let's
- say your decision is to approve the sidewalk waiver and deny the street treat waiver.
- What we would be looking at is planning the location of those street trees that need to be located in
- the county doing the work without regard to working with those neighbors. We would just be contracting
- with the landscaping company directly and those street trees going in per the code every 40 feet that
- accepting driveways. I'm so the property on private property 5 feet out of it. So I will take that part
- of buying.
- They've been a neighborhood that's relatively, let's just say, an expensive neighborhood. And they had
- a requirement for trees. And they had really no set. And the trees were brought in, and they were put
- where they were put. And once they were put in, nobody was maintaining them.
- And of course, if you don't water something, it's going to die. And the trees are little. I mean, whatever
- they are. I mean, if you're going to do something and spend 50K or 60K or whatever it is, how do you
- make sure it's actually done right? And the homeowners who are actually going to have this stuff parked
- in their front yard or along the roadway there, how do you get their buy-in and make sure that everybody's
- happy with it? Because you don't want to see a situation where
- magically come home one day from work and you see it. You've got trees planted. What are these? How
- do you do that? Is that something that the planning department does? Overseas stuff like that,
- do you think? The state requires that we accept letters of credit or cashier's check or whatever the
- financial guarantee is in response to allowing them to final apply to subdivision without improvements.
- Basically what they're saying is you can't
- make a developer put in all the public improvements to get the final plan to create these lots. So if
- we could say, OK, before you get the certificate of occupancy, this lot needs to have its sidewalk and
- its two street trees before you have somebody own the home, then the understanding on day one is, this
- is my home. It contains a sidewalk.
- and it contains two street trees, the county has approved it, it meets the standard, I move in. What
- we're seeing is people move in and years later, they then are like, oh, we're gonna hurry up and get
- the sidewalk and street trees in because we want county acceptance into the inventory. And everybody's
- like, I don't want this. And now you have, instead of just the builder and the developer, you have the
- developer, the builder, and now
- you know, 50 owners to work with. So you see on the service here, what we're doing is we're talking
- about approving a tree waiver. And we're talking about essentially approving a sidewalk waiver. Yes.
- With the condition that the money that remains is for the planting of trees. Well, that would be an
- additional condition. Right now, if you just approve the waiver, you'd just be returning the funds.
- Here's the answer. Here's the answer. It's not street trees. We're waving the street trees, but we're
- using the money for trees. But they may or may not be on the street or I see from the street. So I can
- have common area. I could build a little, what do we call that area? Or if you lost a hundred trees
- through the emerald ash borer, then you might get a little relief
- from the grant. So do we need to stay any of those conditions or is that something that you guys are
- waiting? We will have to work with the legal department. I don't know that we would even maintain those
- funds or if it would be a red commitment by the developer to just provide those trees or I don't know
- how we would do it because when you maintain the funds, we can't necessarily have it be. I don't think
- we have a process in place for homeowners to provide us with a grant application and release the funds
- to them. I know the auditor's office is very
- particular about who we release the funds to when funds came in from a different person can go to council.
- So I don't want to get too rich. It might be a landscaper who gets the money, who's told it can only
- be used to install trees in this neighborhood period under a contract or something. I don't know,
- but yeah. So that's, I didn't anticipate like grant applications coming to us. Okay. Okay.
- I anticipate in like a credit, a bunch of money going to a company as a credit and used for anybody
- in that neighborhood and that. This is regular, right for me. How many huts are there involved? 50.
- 50. So 50 into 40. They each get about 2,000 for trees or something like that. 1,000.
- Yeah, let's say how many of them. Yeah, a lot of people have stated they don't. And that's fine, then
- another one else can. That's fine. That's fine. OK, so are we done for today? One question. Who submitted
- the last page? Oh, I think that was with that. That's the one commissioner who said that it was an anonymous
- demonstrator.
- they preferred to have a name and email address. This is her discussion. Okay. Not somebody who necessarily,
- they may or may not be a resident. Who knows? I just don't know. All I saw was that. Outside that is
- reading the history of all the minutes. Thank you for putting that in there. Cheers. Are there any other
- reports? I'm saying we haven't talked about this.
- I don't think we've talked about it too much. I don't maybe have any other reports. Okay, thank you.