- I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission administrative meeting for April 7th, 2026. So Jackie,
- would you please call the roll? Sure. David Bush? Here. Margaret Clements? Here. John and Ray Randolph?
- Here. Scott Farris? Here. Rudy Fields? Here. David Henry? Jeff Morris? Here.
- Joe Van Dieventer? Here. Julie Thomas? Here. Steve Bishop? Here. Okay, so we have eight voting members
- and one non-voting member. Thank you. And are there any changes to the agenda? There is one change.
- We had a request for continuance of the Westbury North major subdivision, the release request. They're
- going to work with their engineer and try to come back hopefully in a couple weeks, if not early May.
- And then on the agenda and still correct is the point PV has been continued. I also believe that the
- preference has been continued, so we just won't talk about it under the new business, but that's just
- under reports. All right, then let's pardon me. Let's go to the administrative business. Start off with that.
- So the first item on the agenda is the House and World Act 1001. We briefly talked about this during
- the Ordinance Review Committee and decided to bring this to you all. One of the items in here is that
- if you have a unified development ordinance, you are required to host a hearing not later than January
- 1st, 2027. And so we will be required
- After speaking with legal, even though ours is called a CDO, it's still defined as a consolidated document
- with both zoning and subdivision rules in it. We will be required to hold a public hearing to go over
- the following factors. So one, providing for higher density development of duplexes, triplexes, and
- fourplexes in areas designated for single family homes.
- Constructing other housing types, including accessory monuments and manufactured modular housing, adaptive
- reuse of commercial buildings for residential use, such as allowing multifamily development and retail
- office and light manufacturing zones, increasing allowable floor area ratio and multifamily housing areas,
- Waving or eliminating regulations such as garage-sized placements, steeper roof pitch, minimum lawn
- size and square footage, greater setbacks, off-street parking, design standards that restrict or prohibit
- the use of code-compliant products, or property height limits. Number six, reviewing impact fee zones,
- which we do not have. Streamlining or shortening the permitting process timelines, including through
- a one-stop and parallel process,
- permitting by 15 days or more, using property tax abatements to enable higher density and mixed income
- communities, and lastly, donating vacant land for affordable housing development. Once we host this
- hearing, we will be required to submit that to legislative services along with a housing study. And
- that is what was signed by the governor.
- So we need to determine the date of our public hearing to comply with this. I spoke a little bit with
- the city and they said that they're actually going to bring forward a tax amendment with this kind of
- tagged along to it. So it's it's odd on all the planning.
- A lot of people are like, we're not really sure how to host this because it's not something that we're
- actually proposing in the text amendment. It's just a discussion. But they are saying that they will
- just kind of pose these questions. And if there's anything that they decide to take forward, they could
- do that later. I think we just need the minutes to show what we are. We're not going to entertain, I guess.
- Um, and we would also be able to go through some of these and say, not applicable or here's where we
- allow accessory dwelling units already. So we could make that clear to the public. So with our process,
- uh, separate from the cities, correct? Yes, we would hold a hearing separate, just like just a plan
- commission meeting where this is on the agenda.
- a regular meeting with us on the agenda. And then after that hearing, we decide which of these items
- that we wish to adopt and integrate and which we do not. Is that correct? You could ask us ahead of
- time to put together like a text amendment that addresses some of these items, and then we could put
- a note saying what the other ones are. I think the point of the hearing is that people would be able
- to speak to this. Well, how do you tee it up? Yeah.
- Um, uh, yes. Um, I mean, if you say we're going to have a public hearing, this is what we're going to
- talk about, but there's nothing of substance agree or disagree or hate. It could be a non-meeting. Right.
- Excuse me. Commissioner Thomas. Yeah. Um, I think, I think what could happen is an informational piece
- for the public on each of these points regarding what is currently in, um,
- our CEO, and then we take public comment, I guess, if there's any portions that people want to comment
- on. And then from that, we can decide, I don't see a text amendment here, I see a, let's explain each
- of these points, what's in the CDO now, and then hear from the public and from the client commission,
- I guess, if there's any case for reviewing or
- re-litigating any portion of this, then we can see what the interest is at the next ORC meeting after
- that. Yeah, I was just going to say, I think the idea is just to allow for public commentary on the
- items they've lined out, and if those are concerns for anybody in the community, and if they're not,
- then you don't have to address them. Scott?
- dental's advocate, so you tee it up, you put the topics out there, you even talk about our CDO looks
- at it or doesn't look at it, and you get feedback. Okay, I'm now a petitioner or I'm a public commenter
- or whatever, and I say, I take issue with what you did in the CDO. Because it does or doesn't address
- this. That's right, then what? Are we back into going back and opening up the CDO again?
- and requiring us to sit down as a group and address each and every one of those comments and go through
- the same drill we went through when we were coming to closure with the original CDO. I mean, I could
- take a bill of watch here if you're not careful. Right. The requirement by the state is to host the
- hearing and then to essentially report the minutes. And then any newly developed or amended UDO as a
- result of the review under section three, it must provide a written description of the ways the UDO
- was changed to support housing development.
- I do think, you know, if the minutes reflect that, you know, the public says, let's say that they wish
- for more accessory dwelling units and more zones, but that, you know, we only have it for four zones,
- let's say, then if we don't address that later, I do think the state could take some liberties next
- year to do another version of this and change the law.
- That's my guess, because before this last minute change, because it looked a lot different than this,
- as you saw on iterations, there were all these opt-out procedures, and it was relating to allowing more
- accessory dwelling units, allowing two family dwelling units. So I'm guessing this is just an information
- gathering, and then they could be making more changes, but. I think there are obviously some
- counties and cities that don't allow accessory dwelling units, for example, let's use that example.
- And I think that's why they're doing this. And I think the report we send to the state should be the
- outline of the information from our CDO on these points because it'll make it clear that we do a lot
- of this. And I don't know that just having public comment on an item or two makes it something that
- we have to change. I think it should be considered by the ordinance review committee
- But I don't think it requires a change just because one person stands up. Is it one, is it two,
- is it eight? I mean, how do you draw that line? So that's my take on it. OK. And I will say, then, that
- earlier iteration, before they got to this origin, it did say we were allowed to ask that we will serve
- letter, which assumes sewer. So I do think that having it constrained to the zones we do are the zones
- that are more likely to either be on sewer or be in a more
- or have a larger standard that allows for a septic system. So keeping in mind the holidays, it starts
- Thanksgiving and runs all the way through into December. And we all know what happens starting
- in Thanksgiving and all the way through the end of December, not a whole lot gets done. And so if you're
- using that as a planning factor, backing off from that date,
- and allowing time to repair the minutes and the written response for a proposed text, which we may or
- may not have. How far back should we do that? That's the question. We're at October 22nd and November
- 17th. OK. If there's a chance that there is a large turnout and you want two hearings, I would say starting
- in October and then
- having November as a flexible month. That would be my recommendation, but we could do earlier if you
- would like. The point is you should have everything done before Thanksgiving. So September. So September
- and October. It's up to you all. I know, I'm just trying to. I just don't understand that part about
- vacant land donation.
- I agree. Some of these, I mean, we have no control about using tax abatements to enable air density
- development. So we just have to state this would be something that the council would need to take up.
- Yes. This is not a planning issue. Oh, thank you. That would be my opinion, but I don't. Joan's got
- to say it really slow. Just recognize Joan. Thank you.
- Yeah, thank you. I'll just raise my hand. We had a discussion at the ORC, so we covered this once already.
- My question is more about the scheduling and then the plan kind of leave that you have, Director Jelen.
- Is there a timeframe where you think that we can have the hearing, get the discussion, and do that prior
- to your leave? Because that is one consideration
- at least for me, as far as the scheduling goes, have you, you know, along with us as much as possible.
- So you're answering. Yeah. I don't, because we sent out the notice this month already for April's meeting,
- and I don't think that that will be possible. So I think that, you know, September, October, November,
- those are all good windows I would be hearing be available.
- The planning factor, I would suggest September. That way, if we need to recover for some reason, you
- have a little more time to recover. If there's additional meetings or additional requirements, it also
- gives you more time to craft whatever you have to craft. Great. I agree with the September window just
- because of, well, I guess it's just personal. Are we doing it in regular planning conditions?
- It will be during the week. I was going to say, because other dates are not going to be widely available
- in September because of the cultural budgets. September 23rd. OK. Wednesday. Wednesday. Wednesday? Budget
- hearings. Yeah. Yeah, we get tossed all over the place during September and October. And will we have
- special meetings in October, special? It'll be hard.
- A budget hearing, just take over all of it. October 23rd, which is a Wednesday. So it's October 22nd.
- October 22nd is a Thursday. Which is a Thursday. We kind of tried to give variety. But if you don't
- have anyone show up on the Wednesday, you still have it on the Thursday because you've announced it.
- I mean, you know. You mean in the earlier meeting? Yeah, no one comes in.
- September, then you. We could wave the final hearing. I mean, I don't know, because you can announce
- it. It's right. Would you automatically schedule it for two years? I don't know that we have to. No,
- I would do one and then hold the date on the other. Yeah. And then if we have to have it, we'll have
- it. That's a good idea. Instead of announcing it, because I don't think you want to announce it if there's
- only a couple of people that show up.
- And if it's not combined with an actual text amendment, it ends at the Blake Commission. It doesn't
- go to the Board of Commissioners. If you have a text amendment, you have to have some sort of a review
- process for the text amendment. The text amendment would continue on to the Board of Commissioners.
- But if we're just doing a hearing and stating we'd like to talk about these items, I don't think that
- would be a commissioner decision unless it leads to a text amendment. Am I right, Dave? Yes.
- So I would say then the text amendment would come out of a recommendation from staff based on what happens
- here to the ORC, which then goes to planning and goes to planning. Which does not have to happen before
- January. There you go. You have to have a hearing before January. Right. So it just says later that
- we would report. Will settle it. Yeah. Ways in which they were changed.
- So I mean, if we have that information by September and we say, OK, we're willing, we're going to look
- at this feature or this factor, I would report that to say the timeline is next year. But out of this
- came this change that we anticipate next year if that happened. Do we need a motion or is it something
- we just need to consensus?
- I think we can do raise of hands or motion. I'm happy to take a roll call on the September 23rd is the
- date for this. So go ahead. I had a question. Okay. What will the public be commenting on? Are they
- going to get a copy of this and say, okay, well then I just wonder
- And again, making work for somebody. But if you took these points, all these points, and you, you know,
- in a nice pastel color underneath the point, say, this is where we are with it. You know, you had some
- sort of a brief narrative that says, hey, this is what we're already doing. This is what we're doing.
- So that might diffuse a lot of, because, you know, if that's something that could be created and then,
- you know, put out for public consumption. And so that,
- when people come in, they've at least got some notion as to where you are with that. Right. I would
- personally plan on just doing this similar to a staff report and having that information tied
- into screenshots or visuals of the CDO and trying to do it that way. I wasn't planning on doing a big
- informational push on this hearing just because I think it's
- Some of these questions are not really planning questions, but we can do a bigger push if people want
- us to advertise it or get more people involved. Send out $15,000. Well, we don't have to do that. Yeah,
- we're not required to do that. That would be a very expensive undertaking. So we're just going to hold
- it like a regular area. It's a good idea, because I'm tired of reliving this over and over and over
- and over again. I'm on my eighth life and I'm not feeling well.
- I'm afraid people will think you're opening up the CDO for a little bit around the negotiation. That's
- not what we're playing on.
- And so I'm wondering if you can just diffuse it somehow and say, yeah, we already do this. It's nothing
- straightforward. You don't have to go into chapter by chapter of how to do it and say, yes, we've anticipated
- this. We do this. The CDO addresses this. Right. Or doesn't. Right. Or doesn't. Right. Yeah. But you
- are banally required to do a public hearing on this. Yes.
- Yeah, right. And the more information, you know, if we can keep it, we'll keep it concise. But if we
- can give people information, then I think at least the people that then make it to the meeting will
- have a more hopefully informative discussion with the planning commission to say, okay, I'm looking
- at the code and this is what I want to change. I think it's very clear that this is what they're asking.
- This is what the CDO says. Right. Well, this element for me.
- Just what does the public think? Yeah. Right, but in your presentation of them, this is what they're
- asking. This is what the CDO says. These are the ones here that may or may not, if they have some that
- don't apply, this does not apply to us. And then you just, that's as simple as that. And let the discussions
- begin. I mean, we should be cultivating the discussion based upon what Margaret just said. We've debated
- over and over and over and over again on some of these topics.
- I think if people understand that we have looked at that and we have talked about that and it has been
- addressed, you wouldn't have to go into chapter and verse just to say, yeah, we have looked at that.
- And, you know, it's just like a very brief sort of thing. I think we're all saying the same thing.
- So let's, let's make it official. Who wants to make a motion on this? Well, she just did. I did do a
- hand raise. Sean, are you okay with September 23rd? Everyone else raised their hand.
- Sure, as long as planning is comfortable with that. I'm good. Okay. And then the other component of
- this House Enrolled Act also requires us to do a housing progress report and after January 1, 2027 not
- change our fees.
- for five years, so we're gonna, we've placed the fee schedule on the November Plan Commission agenda,
- and we will give you a draft of the Housing Progress Report in December, if that's okay. Give us the
- 25 words or less on the fee schedule, just so everybody's aware. On the fee schedule? Yes. Why they
- made it so they can't change it. So in the House Enrolled Act, they said that
- You can only change your fees once every five years and that it cannot be a certain percent deviation
- from the consumer pricing index or you have to host a hearing. So we're just hoping to tie up our fees
- as nicely as we can so that if we have a five year time limit, they're as good as they can be for five
- years. Yes, I think that's important because, you know, I have to say,
- I'm really upset about the hiring freeze for the county. I can understand it for other units of local
- government, but for our county, we're pretty sparse and thin. I mean, we have things covered just as
- they should be, no more, no less. The roads are like that. And I think that the county planning department
- is like that. And I have to go beg for somebody's job.
- I think to me, so I think that the fee structure is one avenue through which when the county council
- loses something like $4 million that we're able to recoup and secure a job position for our hardworking
- county people. And I think that's an important thing to be more generous with yourselves in asking for
- in terms of fees than conservative because it's putting us in a box of a four-year moratorium and you're
- on job hiring moratoriums and things are about to change quite a bit. The other thing, Jackie, please
- talk about how, whether we're in the black or in the red with respect to our fee structure and the revenues
- we generate as a result.
- We in previous years were able to cover about 20% of our overhead this year because of the fee increase.
- We have seen a substantial amount more of fees coming in. So I'll be curious. We're going to run that
- analysis soon because of budgeting coming up, but I bet we're close to 30% coverage of our overhead, but still
- 70%. This is a direct contradiction of the goal of affordable housing, but we're being pushed into that
- box. It's not right, but this is the box we're being pushed into if we have to be self-sustaining,
- I think. We do a lot of inquiry, answering, so I think we estimated it was like
- 40 phone calls per planner per month or something that we do. And we don't get paid for inquiries or
- walk-ins or helping people with their plans. We only get paid if they actually pursue construction and
- permitting and their variances, things like that. But we are mostly educating and things like that.
- Yes. Just sort of as a word, the fees that we garner are placed in county general. They're not placed
- in a separate fund.
- And it's never been the intent ever to have the planning department become self-sufficient economically
- because it does serve a public good beyond what rate payers pay for plans. So I don't anticipate that
- that's the goal. You want to make it the goal? No. I don't think you want to make it the goal. The fees
- would be very high. Yes. Yes.
- To report back, I have not heard and planners have not heard complaints from people about the fee changes.
- So that means I think that we were low, and I think that now we're more accurate. I know that there
- are members in the building community who complain about the fees. They may not complain to us, but
- I do know that they find it a hindrance sometimes to the work that they do. Sure.
- there's a balance. Any more discussion on HEA 1001? If not, let's move on. OK. Sure. Let's move back
- now. OK. So the Highland Park of States is located just east of Helensville, kind of at the Highway 46.
- This is a status update on the subdivision. You guys kind of got a brief introduction to it last year
- because of the fifth phase. This is the second phase that includes like Cheryl Drive and Emma Drive.
- It does not have any financial guarantee on file. It still has not been accepted into the public inventory.
- We have phase three.
- We do have a surety bottom file with no expiration. Those were kind of difficult to collect. And it
- consists of this amount. I think these are the only two lots that are not built out in this subdivision.
- I think they're kind of just being preserved. But they did get sidewalks recently installed. And then
- we have another phase four, consists of this.
- looked at all of these together and there is a letter of credit on file for this one for $132,000. Again,
- these three phases are not accepted into the county inventory yet. They do have some issues that need
- to be addressed with regards to sidewalks, ADA compliance, cross slopes and driveways that were installed
- incorrectly. So we've been, last year there, I guess it was in 2024, we had
- The fifth phase, which was this little chunk up here, came before you all. And as a part of this petition
- to kind of re-allow those five lots to be flatted, we required a, this is the five lots up here, but
- we required a condition that the developer's written commitment to the Planning and Legal Department
- stating the timeline for completion
- of improvements with phase two, three, four and five regarding or requesting acceptance through the
- county inventory. So to date we don't have a written commitment and this preliminary plat expires in
- about one year from now. We have the letter of credit in August that will expire for phase four. So I think
- You know, staff's been working with this developer. We've been kind of trying to nudge him along. We
- even wrote a letter, a template letter that he would be able to send out to neighbors to let them know
- that he needs to correct their driveway, their sidewalks in order to get this accepted into public inventory
- and the county can push the snow out there rather than him. We have not, we've not to date heard that
- this letter has gone out.
- What we want is to have the developer complete all of these phases and get it done and into the inventory.
- We do know that he's kind of on this timeline with the preliminary platform phase five set to expire
- a year from now, which impacts kind of the other three phases. It's like there's not a carrot anymore
- to some degree. And so I think we are just kind of wanting to have a discussion with the planning commission
- about how to review these subdivisions that did not meet their performance period deadline. We never
- really officially got an up-to-date estimate because the written commitment was supposed to cover that.
- The written commitment for them to plot the five lots and sell those lots was going to hopefully be
- the carrot to either give us an updated estimate with the financial guarantee behind it and the updated
- performance bond document and the updated subdivision improvement agreement or
- get all of those into the inventory, and then sure, go and plot it. So we don't have that yet. We are
- kind of looking to see if should the developer go beyond March 5th, 2027 when the plot expires. We would
- like to recommend the plan commissioned, not that the developer not receive any further approvals, and
- that any funds available should be collected through the subdivision phases into the inventory.
- I think we're just sort of putting it out there at this point in time. This developer has a year. We're
- hoping that he kind of sees the writing on the wall, that we need to get this one done, because we thought
- it was going to get done last year. We were being told it was going to. And yeah, we just want to see
- that action. Anyone have any book? So our perfect world, since you
- shown us the disconnects. If you were to correct those disconnects, what would be your recommendation
- to us on how we proceed to do that? We're going to have discussion about it, but what do you think we
- should do? I mean, I'm hoping that the message is sent that we need to see this done in the next year.
- And that actually happens, and the corrections are made, and that this all gets accepted into the inventory.
- and that he doesn't have to walk away from a five lot subdivision to the north, that he basically built
- the infrastructure too. Like those roads were built, those sidewalks were done, and the street trees
- are in. He just needs to finish out the rest of it and he can sell those five lots. So what we're kind
- of hoping is that the message is loud and clear that it's very possible that come next March, we will
- start collecting. How can we help you with that message?
- That's a good question. We have told them that this is a meeting that's happening tonight, so they'll
- be listening to the recording. I do think that it is important for us to understand both sides of the
- coin, which is one side is that we want developers to finish their developments correctly, but that
- we also have an ordinance that allows us to collect and bid out this work in-house.
- The part of bidding it out and doing it in-house is difficult because at this time, we don't know if
- the amount that we're going to collect is going to be sufficient to actually do the work. It might be
- for phase three. It might be for phase four. We don't have an amount on file for phase two. When's the
- last time that you sat down with the developer, the petitioner, or whatever we're calling this person,
- and laid all of this out, just like you did for us,
- and say, okay, how do we get to there? We call them once a month for the past six months. And what's
- been a response when you call them? I will get to it. How often have you called? Once a month,
- once a month. They're about six months. It's just like the whatever fire is burning brightest, right,
- for some of these folks. There's not as much
- We thought they were waiting on the construction season for winter because you can still pour concrete
- in the winter and they were waiting for like the asphalt plant to shut down and then they were going
- to get busy.
- I think they've made, I mean, as we've called, they put in the street trees, which was a lot of people
- calling and being upset about them putting in the street trees. So we get that. And then they put in
- the sidewalks. Yeah. But now they're down sidewalks that were easy. Now the last part is the hard part,
- which is going on to people's driveways, telling them, Hey, you can't access your house for a certain
- period of time while I fix this issue. And I just, I think that that is the part where people really
- don't want to do it.
- Put it on my compliance hat again. If I were to look at each of these phases, you have a list of items
- and non-compliance. Ben has sent them a list similar to what you saw with the Highlands parcel E. So
- you can see where I'm going with that. In phase two, what are the non-compliance items? Phase three,
- what are the non-compliance and so on? To me, that is the starting point.
- the level of the playing field, these are the areas that you need to bring in compliance. And when it
- comes to bonds, guarantees, funding, et cetera, that is a follow-up to that to ensure that we have a
- levered leverage, okay, to enforce that compliance, right? Yes, but I mean, do we have ever the authority
- to stop work until the compliance is,
- Well, we kind of have. We cannot do anything with those five lots to the north at all. Like they cannot
- be final plotted until they have a written commitment. The one thing that has been dodged is As-Built.
- We've never had As-Built submitted. We did get As-Built for the rest of it not because they wanted to
- go and make the corrections first before spending the money on As-Built. They didn't want to pay for
- it twice. So we kind of maybe don't even have full extent of
- How many cross slopes are off the driveways? Because we were promised that they were just going to get
- it done first, then submit that. I see. Yeah. I see. I think we need to take kind of the list
- of non-compliance by phase. And I think this is my own personal views. And I think we need to take in
- a form of those non-compliance. How do we do that? Does this comes out from our ring funds? Or does
- that come from signed out by the Planning Commission?
- I don't know the answer to the question. For highway, I don't know. Highway can help to some degree,
- but they are staff short for something like this. Yeah. Yeah. We need an engineer to go out there and
- do that. You're saying this is Lisa? Ben Ayers does a lot of that field work, I would say.
- But lately we've been trying to rely on the as-builts, but we cannot get them to do the as-builts until
- they're getting closer acceptance. So then we try to say, do the work so you do the as-builts. That's
- why we're having this discussion. Because we're getting the run around. I just don't know how to start
- unless I know what's broken. So I need to know what's broken, and that's non-compliance. Then you can
- address the funding aspect of it. Julie?
- opinion is we should ask Dave what he thinks about this, what he thinks we should be doing. Well, I
- think he should continue to work on it, but there's not much more he can do. We've had a lawsuit against
- him to enforce, and it's been in the court for months. And the statutes keep changing to make it more
- difficult for us to pursue. So all we can do is keep calling in, and if
- If you want another lawsuit, we can do that, but it's not going to be a quick fix. Again, I don't understand
- a lot of the fine points here, but life to me is always a series of sticks and carrots. How do you put
- a stick on somebody like this? And it's like if a developer is at a point of not reliance on a project,
- and he brings you something else, you just turn it over and say, we don't look at that until you're
- in compliance with the other one. Is that something that is doable? It is not. Okay. Should I stop here?
- Are homeowners in this neighborhood aware of this? And I'm asking the question because if the homeowners
- are aware, maybe that's some more leverage and some more people that would be concerned about this.
- I do think homeowners in the area are aware since the street tree discussion, they've been more aware
- and we did do a update maybe a year or two ago on because of phase five and put this in the report.
- So I do think they're aware and worried that the HOA has not been started. So there are no funds in
- the HOA and they're seen writing on the wall all the things that they may have to cover
- day one and there's no money in the account. I have a question regarding the sidewalks and the slopes
- and ADA compliance. This is not the only site that this has happened on and is this something that has
- recently changed or how do these builders keep missing this? Is it through convenience or
- they're not understanding what's required of them? The percent maximum for ADA, the 2% is extremely
- flat. I just think they're missing the mark by sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot. But I do think
- if we're going by the book and we're doing the 2%, it shows up and they don't necessarily, like James
- said, do the as well per lot. They're not trying to add on to the cost before they transfer the ownership.
- In an ideal world, you would build the driveway, build the sidewalk, street trees, house at the same
- time, get those approved by law, maybe do it as built by law and transfer ownership and say, this one's
- going to be compliant. We also have a timeline issue where things get developed over a series of years.
- Phase two is approved in 06 or 07.
- But we have to follow the ADA standards that are in place when we accept it because we take on the tour.
- Yeah, I was just trying to drill down to see if this non-compliance was intentional or whether it was
- through regulatory change or whether it was just through ignorance or not knowing what's required. And
- so that does seem to be happening again and again.
- So if I'm hearing it right, then that timeline between 2006 when they submitted it and 2026 is when
- different regulations have changed that caused their non-compliance. For phase two, it was approved
- back. I think it was recorded in 07. But I do think that I would have to check when the cross slope
- was updated last for ADA.
- I'm sorry, I'll smoke this thing the same, but other ADA, truncated domes and things of that. Okay.
- Yeah. Why the truncated domes? The plates, you see it, cross slots. Buttons. The raised. Yeah. Yeah.
- Okay. The domes. The domes. Okay. So if you would like, we can come back with a more refined
- report where we show the lots that are non-compliant for you. I was just checking with Tammy. I was
- asking her, do you recall how many driveways are compliant? And you said almost all of them are not.
- So to give me a list. If I could see it broken down by two, three, four by fakes. So you have a nice list. No?
- Oh, and he said that will not. I said that wouldn't be a cheap thing. So I'm sure there's elevation
- problems. Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, we, I just, I mean, so we're really, we have good relationships.
- So this doesn't happen. And in what role does highway
- I want to answer where the state comes to clarify for me what role was Highways might think that you
- would do with coming up with a list of non-compliance? So the PIN is already a compilable list in terms
- of the inspection report, but as far as, like, sidewalks, we usually rely on the developers submitting
- ASVILT. The Highway Department reviews those for compliance, finds anything that's not correct.
- And then we can develop a new estimate from those as-built saying, oh, you have to rip up sidewalk here,
- fix it. And we know we can come up with a pretty good cost estimate and then even add inflation if we
- think it's going to take a long time. But we just don't have, if not have cooperation on joining as-builts.
- Because we assume they've been getting, this was going to be done last summer. And then this winter.
- Should be on the list again.
- I think in the next step we mentioned to the developer, we'd be discussing this tonight. We'll send
- them the meeting recording and just let them know, you know, we'll continue to follow up with you. But
- our hope and our intent is to cash the letter of credit by March of next year and not allow for the
- renewal if possible of the subversion phase five. And hopefully that allows them enough time now to
- work backwards to get all of the driveways done.
- they want to go ahead and get it accepted. So when's the next time we'll see this? We can, as I mentioned,
- we can include the inspection report from Ben. We can do more visuals, but without an ASPIL,
- as Tammy said, I don't feel comfortable coming. We wouldn't be able to come up with a new estimate for
- phase two, like for instance, if we wanted to require that. So, but we could ask them for an estimate.
- It's kind of,
- up to you all if you want us to prompt them to say, okay, instead of waiting until March of next year,
- we would like to solidify better letter of credit for phase two and phase three, which is a surety bond.
- Give us your new estimate by X date and we'll put you on the planning commission because we can certainly
- do that based on the code by this point. I think that's a good idea. Yes. Okay. So before then, anybody
- else object to that?
- I mean, that makes more sense to me. This is moving it down the road a little bit further and putting
- expectations on the table. We'll obviously have to expand at some point if in fact there's
- more non-compliance, because you've got stuff somewhere. Okay, so we'll ask for phase two and phase
- three to require a new engineer estimate for remaining improvements.
- his braids like art, you know? This doesn't have to be in there. Do you want it also for phase four,
- which is a letter of credit that would be renewing in August for $123,000? You confirm that that's renewable?
- Well, it's renewable by his consent. Well, banks have a certain amount of time they can decide to non-renew
- those. So if that's been communicated to him, he doesn't necessarily actually communicate that to you.
- So it might be worth checking with whichever financial institution is holding that instrument within,
- I'd say, 30 days about just finding out, is there a renewal plan for this? And if there's not, I suppose
- that's one we could actually. Sure, go ahead. Phase two, when did that lapse that we no longer have
- a financial instrument there? We didn't have a letter of credit. So it was with the highway department
- at the time. And I believe that it
- It had a date of like January 2nd, January 3rd. This year? No, several years ago. Okay. And I think
- the person had not updated their calendar. True. And also vacation, weirdness, and it just felt a weird
- calendar date. Gotcha. So do you have any sort of resource when you ask for an instrument on this that
- they say, yeah, I'll do that?
- I think we would ask the developer at this point to repost it, to give us just a brand new one. But
- can they push back and say no? Yes, and then I think I'd go to the legal department. Yeah, they're only
- this far along. That's right. I would say something. Right. These are not comfortable cubs. And I do
- think they have some pride in this
- subdivision, they want to see it done and they don't want to push the snow out here forever. So there
- are some other, like there's, there are some small parts. And walking this is not anything like the
- Wickens project that you've seen. It's not like Holland fields. Holland fields. There are no like,
- oh my gosh, that is going to be a huge problem. It's more subtle. So I think this is all achievable,
- which is why we've just been hoping that they would just be motivated.
- So real engineering feats that need to happen. What did you say? Renewable ones. It's 8.5. So could
- we give the developer until beginning of August so that we can report back on this renewability and
- then have them hopefully come up with new estimates for phase two and three? Is that doable? OK.
- Are you going to give them a timeline for when they need to have that phase two instrument to you? Because
- I think if you've got it open ended, it might be what they do this. Right. So do you get to give them
- like 60, 90 days, something along that line? If this went to the August Plan Commission administrative
- meeting, that would give them enough time to give us, definitely enough time to give us engineer estimates,
- possibly as built if they're able, if they're willing.
- I would hope that we would approve the estimate with the necessary inflation, and then they would be
- able to post it like within the next week or two. So, lining up, it's really helpful for staff, although
- it never happens, but if you can line up the letter of credit expiration dates by seven weeks, then
- we can have a bigger conversation with them a little bit. Any other questions on this? Okay, come back.
- And then, like I mentioned, this one is being continued. It is close. So we're working with them on
- that. This item was continued because they still do not have information from the Eagle Bay one and
- two consent and easement agreement. This item was requested for continuance as well. They're working
- on an easement, I think. And so we're down to the minor subdivision, the foster minor subdivision.
- This is a pretty simple minor subdivision to create four lots. The reason that this is before you all
- and not a Platte Committee decision is because they are requesting one waiver, which is to the special
- flood hazard area assets requirement of 832-95.
- basically the petitioners existing home and lot gains access to what's mapped as special foot hazard
- area, but that it was actually improved by the county when a bridge was put in just south of it. So
- we are recommending approval of the waiver. So that is your consideration.
- at the regular meeting. And they're quite large lots. All of them have well over an eight-year of building.
- They've met all the requirements for submitting soil tests or wastewater permits. There's some history
- with this that you saw at the top about how they received the variance for technically a data, but they're
- committing the subdividing and then the written commitment that they submitted will
- eventually get rid of the allowance for the data and it'll just become a single family home on a single
- lot. So they are meeting everything else except for the access waiver, single floodplain. I'll show
- you a picture of that. Let's see where we are.
- This is the existing driveway. Here's the bridge that we put in in 2015-20. And then there's a quite
- significant culvert under this drive as well. There's a topography change pretty quickly here, which
- makes it so that to relocate this drive would be actually more environmentally destructive in our opinion
- than to keep it.
- And this culvert seems to be functioning well, and there doesn't seem to be any issues in the density
- out here is pretty low as well, and it's an existing driveway. So otherwise, in the code, we do have
- ones that gives exception to existing drives that have this issue, but because they're creating density
- to the north, then this has to get lower.
- There's the buildable area map with the topography that kind of shows how the challenges that they would
- have if they needed to redo it. This is right here. This is 25% here. Still floodplain. It was a new driveway.
- Yes, we might not be supporting that. That's why we're trying to make sure things are good for the future
- as well. So here's a lot of configuration. So all the other lots would actually be accessing off of.
- So their driveways are up here, way out of the floodplain, which is down here. So the Supply Committee
- looked at this? Yes. Oh, sorry. No, they didn't have a quorum.
- but it can go to the Black Committee if we'd like it to go this month, or it can just go to Black Commission
- regular for a decision. If you all would like to forward this to the Black Committee, although I believe
- most members of the Black Committee are here right now, so if you don't wanna hear it twice, then it
- can go to the Black Commission. Any questions on this? Okay.
- And the last item is the County Development Ordinance changes. This is, I will say that the timeline
- for this was also driven by, there was a Senate Enrolled Act, I believe it was 425, where they created
- an allowance for bi-right energy production zones, which in fact, it could capture anything from small
- nuclear battery energy storage system was recently added to that. And so we realized that in our code,
- we had an umbrella category of major utilities that was pretty broad, where some of these other uses
- could fit under. And as a discussion from the ordinance review committee, we wanted to address
- and particularly add information about small modular nuclear and battery energy storage systems.
- So the moratorium under that Senate and World Act 425 ends July 1 of this year. So if we can get this
- text amendment before that moratorium, then we have in place sort of a regulatory ability to make sure
- that any new proposals come in and follow the CDO if we're allowed to regulate them. The Senate and
- World Act also made it so that we cannot regulate certain things if they're done on a property that
- wasn't old
- mine or an energy production facility, it was starting to kill a lot, which we're not sure that we have
- by definition. But we just spoke down in our eyes and passed it on to this. Yes. So just to clarify,
- you've added it, but you noted that it's not, the use is not permissible, right? So it's, yeah. So it's,
- when you read it here, it looks like we're adding it in all instances. Right.
- And I'll bring you to the use table. Not for a minute. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. I had a little mini heart
- attack. And I'll go ahead and go through the actual changes. I could do that too. So let me fix that
- summary there. OK, so the first change that we have are also worth
- and having some staff changes as we use the code and make sure it's clear. So we're adding some information
- about people are confused about the front sit back when they're accessing through an easement. So we're
- adding some information about what they should look into for the definition. So that's just the clarity
- point. And we've added that. We forgot a footnote to be 10 instead of one. So we added that. So there
- was some clarity there. That's the same.
- This is under the RNH summary, dimensional standards. We had actually shifted everything down. So we're
- shifting it correctly now. So it's not a substantive change. It's just a fixed staff error.
- Battery energy storage system. We're adding it as conditional to the IP zone and then also to the only
- have to add school in every zone per state code as well. We added it to heavy industrial. And then this
- is airport.
- You had to add school to airport and mineral extraction? Yes, by state code, it has to be permitted
- and everything. The limestone school would be an island. Rocks. Yeah. Yeah, so school is now permitted
- with seedlings and everything. Wow. Wow. Is they so cheap? Maybe on the airport runway, you know, you
- have to be able to extract it all.
- Battery energy storage system is conditional, and that matches the major utility zones where those are
- allowed as well. So like an electric substation, for instance, would be similarly in these zones. And
- then we put together standards, which I will get to. And then they change all of these letters. Small
- modular nuclear reactor we're adding is just not permitted, so we'll fix that in a summary.
- And then these are the standards for a battery energy storage system. We looked into what the state
- application requires. And then since we're not allowed to overlap with their requirements, we came up
- with some other guiding information that we would like to have. And we used some case examples that
- our O'Neill fellow put together for some other battery energy storage systems around the state and how
- they applied to get approval. We were able to look at their applications.
- and see what was helpful. So we're asking for making sure that they have an application with the Department
- of Homeland Security, which mostly checks for like fire protection and the state actually does those
- inspections. It prevents our building department, local building department from inspecting these sites.
- It's only the state that can inspect them. So, and then a transportation plan, a drainage plan, visual
- screening with a certain buffer yard laid out,
- statement of compliance about noise. So we did some research about noise zoning setbacks 200 feet from
- the residential and 50 feet from any other property and then the decommissioning plan if it gets to
- that point. And so there's nothing in there about the size, the overall size because that state says
- you can't limit that.
- I think that we were in the discussion with the Ordinance Review Committee and Kirkley-Farmeron, we
- were looking at the overall maximum previous cover. And I don't know, we talked about like housed versus
- the unhoused battery energy storage systems. I don't think we were allowed to mandate that. We could
- break it out into like large and small if we wanted to by each, I'd say with our different standards.
- I guess my question then is, what are the different standards? I mean, and what is large, what is small?
- I would have seen like number of feet, thousands of square feet size or whatever, but we can't say covered
- or not. And we can't do anything with impervious versus pervious. We can't do anything like that.
- This is a general note for the zoning. The fly zone has the impervious standard. OK, so that would apply
- here. Got it. OK, OK, OK. All right, that works for me then. OK, thank you. Thanks for the reminder.
- There's some staff corrections and data numbering here. This has recently come up, so I want to make
- sure this was
- So we have permitted projections into setbacks. So we are changing this just from detached garages can
- project two feet into the setback to the roof can predict two feet. And then we realized what you can't
- be. We did not have the 0.99%. Someone was caught between 19 and 20.
- Changing some language to be consistent. Under our sidewalk requirements for subdivisions and also site
- plans, we're changing the requirement to only be related to five priority road or greenway corridor
- areas of the map.
- and we're getting rid of the moderate priority road improvement. So there is going to be less triggers
- for sidewalks or subdivisions in site plans, but we realize that there's a lot of overlap between the
- moderate and the other requirements, such as if it's within an urban area boundary as defined. We are
- finding that some of the sidewalks on moderate priority were leading to, for instance, we had one on
- North Business 37,
- that was going up to the interstate. So we don't necessarily want to encourage people to go that way
- when there's another path nearby. So we're just finding that some of the sidewalks that were being required
- were not maybe the best locations. And we do want to take a new look at the map, alternative transportation
- map, and come back to this. But this is kind of an immediate fix for some of the things that we've been noticing.
- good catches. This was a correction that we feel is helpful. So there's an exception under the eco chapter
- for building. And we want to make sure it was clear in approving an exception for single family residence.
- We had something about house footprint not exceeding 2500 square feet in total. And we want to make
- sure that that's clear that
- that's for when the house partially encroaches on the non-buildable area because they have no other
- buildable area on the site. So if they don't meet other standards such as they're not two and a half
- acres in size, but they're totally on flat ground, we don't necessarily need to make sure the house
- is less than 2,500 square feet. So we're fixing that here. These are just some written on here.
- This is the information about when we can pay members of the planning commission for your attendance.
- So we're listing those out as well. And then we're defining battery energy storage system with exceptions.
- This is actually in the state code as well. So we're utilizing their definition in this part. Making
- some fixes. We had two new definitions, but the same thing.
- The screen is there. And then just being a little bit clearer with a picture so that people can understand
- what we mean when we're saying that if you're accessing through an easement, which side is your front
- yard? So if you're accessing from an easement, we'd say that this line is your front based on where
- the easement is and your house placement, as opposed to this being your front line, which was
- what we used to do because that was the closest to the right way. We take this aside. So that's a little
- bit different, and that's been helpful. And then we also just made sure it was clear that we are excluding
- major utilities from small modular nuclear and battery energy storage as we define those two things.
- And then this is the definition we came up with.
- Okay, and that's the extent of the changes. Any questions? Good work. Okay, so this will go to the April
- 21st meeting if you're requesting a waiver final hearing and then it definitely be in by the market.
- I don't have anything else. We just want to hear when everything goes well. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you.