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.