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.