- David Bush, Barbara Clement here, Sean Enright-Grandolph here, Scott Beres here, Pretty Fields here,
- David Henry here, Jeff Morris here, Julie Thomas here, Joe VanDeventer and Steve Bishop here. Okay,
- so we have seven voting members and one non-voting member in attendance in the form.
- All right, let's go ahead and begin with the administrative business. And I think first up is a discussion
- about the Monroe County Airport Association. Apartment. Apartment Association. What did I call it? Airport.
- For the insights. Airport Association. Now in discussion. So Tammy attended a presentation at the Apartment
- Association in early June. And from that meeting, there were some group
- meetings, discussions, follow ups from that meeting and they sent to us an addendum from those meetings
- regarding some of their board memberships, feelings about this year's leasing opportunities and what
- kind of issues that they're facing. So we wanted to share this with our group. Make sure that you were
- able to read through this and we appreciate your support in going
- this apartment association board. I think the discussions are always really interesting to us. It's
- really helpful even being at a round table with those guys to kind of see the different challenges that
- they're faced with and to also see where planning fits in. So I know I've appreciated in the past, I
- appreciate Tammy attending again this time. And basically our presentation to them was
- You know, we passed the county development ordinance. Here are some of the changes that we've made to
- date, things like that. So I think that they appreciate us continuing to attend. And I know that David
- Hiddle, prior planning director with the city, also presented. So it's good to have the county and the
- city there and present. So I just wanted to bring this to your attention. If there's anything that you'd
- like to discuss in the group or ask us, we're here. But just wanted to share this with you all.
- I think we should have a group discussion about this, because this is significant. It's 90%, below 90%
- is the first time I've seen a formal document, because this was a public notice, right? This was something
- that they sent us as a stakeholder in the apartment association. They didn't say necessarily that it
- was confidential, but it was something that they shared with us.
- So it's open-sourced. Less than 90%, you should all, if you haven't read this thing, you should read
- it because this is a very important data point for other discussions that we keep having about housing.
- Yeah, it's a very special reason. She pointed out was that the new student housing complexes on the
- north side of town had already come to her for reductions in their tax settings because they're not
- facing up.
- And they've only been around for a couple of years. So if they haven't heard of it, plain scenes are
- obviously not going to have a scene. Anybody else have them? I would like to get a report from J.D.
- Sharp. And there are a lot of these reporters coming before a lot of
- new parking complexes are yet to come online. There's like a thousand-ish beds going on this year and
- they were like four or five years last year. Yeah and there's still some that have been approved that
- haven't yet been built and I think there might be more than a thousand coming online. I'm sure it's
- a polluted number.
- Is any of this? I know it's it's separate from the recent developments with Hunter properties, but I
- know there's some discussion there about the lack of a hand type entity at the county level. Is that
- anything that kind of involves this discussion as well? I actually was going to mention that too.
- I mean. We're talking about the rental space. I know we will jump in, but I'm just wondering like where is
- involvement as we start permitting actual rental units that share structural walls and things of that
- nature, not necessarily like someone renting out their actual single family, but multi-unit homes, triplexes,
- duplexes, apartment complexes, and the ability for planning to add language that
- has some type of authority where we're not dealing with the same issues where the recourse for property
- management is going to the health department on a case-by-case driven basis or structural issues and
- going to the building department. And there's a loophole with some insects
- your experience like migration of insects, rodents, and things like that, there is somewhat of a loophole
- where it's a structural issue because you have a shared ball. But again, the only authoritative mechanism
- is going to court and dealing with that on a case-by-case basis instead of holding a developer
- I know you want to defer to Dave, but I do think that's a big part of this discussion, hearing from
- the rental community from what their needs and concerns are. But what are other thoughts of what you
- need to do as a county by seeing more of these developments and where does cleaning actually have a play
- such as hand. They did that maybe, I don't know, five, six, seven years ago at the state level, but
- hand is grandfathered. So even if the county wanted to start their own inspection program, we are now
- part of it. Yeah, I mean, the front of battle I can do is women who are involved by hand and willing
- to go, because if they're permitted and somebody comes in and has a complete application,
- And I think that those two issues are separate. And we've just heard that you really can't do in like
- the city, but quantity is is what's addressed in
- over supply and shifting tenant behavior and qualifications. So I don't know if we can agree to stick
- to one issue or we're going to be talking about. I personally disagree. I've seen one in the same quality,
- quantity. I understand that they want to focus on that.
- let's just permit all this housing with no quality assurance behind it. I can't distinguish between
- it. I think it's a fair point. I don't know if that question surprises my curiosity or that answer as
- far as we have conditions, we have standards. Could some of those be, if you want to do this, a condition
- If it's not a condition, we could put conditions in place where they would have to commit to these things.
- Enforcement is a big part of it. Also, understanding true occupancy and true demand is a complex issue,
- too. So I'm appreciative of the letter, understanding that. It's just there's a lot to unravel there.
- And personally, just based off of what I was
- really nothing. It's not like I wasn't the only one that was interested in that discussion. That's just
- my feelings around the matter.
- like this. Mr President, what's that dry house? If you pause the question because we lost our teams.
- Why are these people continuing to build? If this is like. Stand by for a second. Let's go get reestablished.
- I mean, why do people keep building? Is there an element to shove the money into multifamily, affordable
- kinds of things? Will you give me a favor? Because we lost teams. Just restate what your question was.
- My question was, what is the city's position on with this condition that we're talking about here with
- the department association? I don't think it's been
- uh, brought up in one of our meetings yet, um, because this would happen, I think in between the, but
- it's certainly something that probably used to be addressed, uh, from either Linncoin or elsewhere.
- Um, but I know that, you know, it's, it currently sits with the UDO. I mean, you cannot allow these
- things to go forward, but in terms of investment, uh, money,
- I can't tell you the reason why they're continuing to go forward other than these projects have long
- runways and they were already in the works and it's probably no trouble to stop them to continue with.
- And one thing I would do is to say that in the past, most of the financing was done by local banks and
- banks and they had a finger on the pulse of the market. The money now is coming from hedge funds and
- all over the place where they- Venture capital. They don't care.
- So perhaps the only, if you do believe that the role of planning is to steward development on land,
- wise use of land, if you believe that, then the UDO has to change and the CDO has to prevent, make some
- corrective actions so that we don't continue to have this oversupply and rampant kind of
- use of land that could be used for the type of product that the residents say they want, which
- is single-family homes. Yard, you know, this is the Midwest, this is what the surveys have shown that
- people want. They don't necessarily. We would hope that a market analysis for a developer coming into
- our area would take a look at the market
- and see what the availability because of the input of additional students at IU, et cetera,
- or loss thereof. And as a result, come up with a plan on whether or not they're gonna invest in another
- apartment complex or even a hotel for that matter. If we're a convention center, you would hope that
- that market analysis would be done. If I were investing in something like that, I wanna make sure those
- people were doing their market analysis. But how do they do a market analysis on these zombie properties?
- Like there are 4,250
- units that are approved for the summit district on a PUD and that is not expired. That's a question
- for the North Park. It's a question for these guys. I ask to follow up on that. It's like expiration
- because we always talk about like things that have approval, underlining approval. Do we have language
- that starts to make these a lapse?
- and they have to go through a process again. Also, even if a PUD was granted or a major minor 10 years
- ago, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't, if they started today, they wouldn't have to start complying
- with it, or do they have to, or are they held within the context of what the ordinance was when they
- first got their approval? It depends.
- It depends. So it's a subdivision. It's final cloud and they just haven't built out the residences.
- They're likely just going to go in and build as they are. There's no exploration to that. The lots are
- created. But PUDs, if they haven't done a development plan yet, but they have an ordinance, that does
- have a timeline to get an expiration. But it has to come before this board to officially expire it.
- We've done it.
- I believe one time we did it down in Harrisburg. We tried to bring forward one to expire, but then it
- ended up being amended and kind of lessened in terms of intensity, but it wasn't expired. It's something
- that we can look at at a whole state. I feel like it's a fair point to bring up of where all of these
- potential underlining by right situations are, if you will. A handful might have to come back
- and renegotiate, but my
- overall thoughts on there is there is no guarantee that these underlining approvals means that they
- will ever get to a build out phase. So, you know, by adding that into our equation of how many units
- are actually available, that doesn't really reflect what the built out environment and actual units
- are there for people for that year. So like, it's a very complex
- discussion, but also I just want to touch on that since you brought it up, Ms. Clements, that I'm not
- finished. Thank you. I know, but Mr. President, when I hear the signing and things, it's disrupting
- and it makes me lose my train of thought sometimes. Sorry. It's just a complex situation. I just want
- to distinguish between the two
- and we do need to be problematic to make sure that we are looking at sustainable build-outs and growth.
- Okay. Okay. There again are some mixed confusing kind of levels of analysis. One is we're referring
- to expiration that the county has on PUDs and we're not talking about
- expiration that the city has on BUDs. And the example that was raised, which was the Summit District
- BUD with 4,250 units, that was approved in 2024. We don't know exactly when that BUD expires, and we,
- this body, have no control over that or oversight
- with that. The same is true with the Hopewell project that has 750 units. And that was approved, I guess,
- this year. And we don't know when the expiration of that project is or even what form it's going to
- take because it hasn't been fully through the proposal process for the contractor to build the unit.
- Never mind.
- Nevermind, there are still a lot of units that have really come online in the last several years that
- have resulted in what I see is this foreseeable conundrum, which we have an oversupply of one type of
- housing. And it has now become alarming to the apartment association. And there are still many approved
- apartments
- that have yet to be built. So I think that that's the issue and that we should be charged with discussing
- and what role the county should take as a plan commission when we see this type of multifamily housing
- come before us and what type of collaboration can we do with the city to ensure that we can work to
- ensure that the type of housing that people who live and work in Bloomington actually want is being
- built, you know? Julie or David Henry, is David Henry on there? Yes. You guys have any comments, Julie?
- None at this time, thank you. Okay, David Henry? None for me either today, thank you.
- My, I think we had pretty good discussion. My only point was is that I treat this as a, almost as a
- public document of this kind. And in our discussions, as we continue down this housing conundrum, as
- Margaret said, this is a data point that we should bring up on occasion. And this now becomes,
- in my mind, a source document. This is now a source document. It's a data point that we can use in the
- discussions.
- If in fact somebody is going to come in and they want to build something in the county, one of the questions
- we're going to ask if this is still valid is that your occupancy rate is below 90%. Is this something
- you still want to do? Is it something your investors want to take and invest in? And they might say,
- well, that's not our interest because it's one of these out-of-state investment consortiums that want
- to come in and just build, build, build, and then after 10 years walk away. But this, in my mind, is
- a data phone. That's what this is.
- Who is the department association? I mean, how many people, what's their backgrounds? What's the? So
- the executive director, Suzanne, I believe her background is she owns a private company that partially
- helps with management of private HOAs. So you can hire her on to help with your subdivisions, HOA management,
- make sure fees are collected and things are getting done on time.
- It's made up of a lot of different apartment complexes in the community. I don't know if they're getting
- the ones that are outside investors, but there are a lot of familiar names there at the organization.
- There is some overlap with the building association, but I would say more so it's two separate groups
- talking about on the round table. So it's nice that you get to discuss with them
- What tactics are these folks using to get more leases and how is that impacting your business? Tammy
- overheard one person say they offer first month of rent free and people were actually moving in for
- one month and moving out and getting free rent for a month. Yes, so they were having to deal with the
- turnover and the cleanup and short term leases are certainly causing that more breakup of continuity
- of leases.
- Excellent. Any other questions on this topic? Okay, let's move on to the next item of administrative
- business. And correct me if I'm wrong, because this admin business, number one, there's no public comment,
- and it will be decided by this body, correct? Okay, now the first Southern Meadows items here,
- phase one, phase two, phase three,
- Do you want to do them as a bundle? You want to do them independently? You want to take them and do
- a bundle and have individual motions? What's the best way to present them? I would say the first one,
- phase one, could be done separate and then phase two and three together. Is that okay? David, please
- proceed with- Okay. Well, SIA 22.3 will share phase one performance period extension and inflation adjust
- performance guarantee amount. Okay. So- Yes.
- The screen is not being shared, at least on the laptop. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Over to you,
- Jack. All right. So phase one, this was continued from our original discussion in March. So this one
- is a request to extend the period of time. So those phases one through four have been recorded.
- I believe it was late 2024, early 2025 that the Planning Commission reviewed the phasing change to Southern
- Meadows for phases 4, 5, and 6. They stated that they wanted to rearrange some phasing due to the demand
- of housing. First three phases are pre-CDO, last three phases are post-CDO. That's kind of the difference here.
- Though they have the bond and the performance guarantee in place for phase one, now that the timeline
- has come to their performance period, we need to do an inflation adjustment for the extension and get
- it officially granted. So they're asking for two more years. So originally their expiration is this
- August 18th, 2026. They would like until August 18th, 2028
- to complete all the improvements and get it accepted into the inventory. So the red text here is what's
- different than what you saw in March. So I just wanted to give an update. So basically the Planning
- Commission when you met, you asked, what are some of the progress items that have been made? What's
- going on out at phase one? So they have been communicative and basically they have focused in on the
- What's called Walmart the conditional letter math revision which is needed for the turn lane on South
- Roger Street. They said that that basically the application is in they've received the first round of
- comments and they estimate it could be 12 to 36 months for approval. So best case scenario August twenty
- twenty seven worst case August twenty twenty nine.
- So we also received a letter of the blind squirrels or the C I and L property that adjoins the phase
- one has been purchased by a new developer and they are moving forward with developing that property.
- There's footings in on the townhomes, one of the phases, but they're okay with the multi-use path going
- in after they finished construction. So something that they were supposed to do a long time ago.
- but this new owner says, wait, I'm going to be doing the townhomes. I don't want it to be basically
- torn up and then have to redo the path myself. So they've come to an agreement on that part. So we do
- have those two new exhibits in the packet. I'll also mention that the Highway Department has continued
- to express concerns about the lack of a turn lane on South Rogers Boy both ways and continues to get
- complaints by the public.
- We talked about internally, maybe some signage that we could add, but we're not sure what that might
- be, where it would be located. Really, we just like to see the full market approved so that they could
- do the construction in that area and make it safer for the motor public and the end conditions. So other
- than that, we did receive as well before the last meeting and we've assessed, you know, missing items. So,
- We have missing street trees, a few missing sidewalks, curb and gutter missing in some places. And usually
- that coincides with the lots left to be developed. So we do have some 2026 aerials in place now, but
- most of the phase one, you know, it is mostly built out, but phase one does include the common area.
- And then they also did, um,
- Do some bill in the floodway, which is kind of what progressed the, the, uh, Walmart necessity on South
- Roger street. So they had to do compensatory storage. So basically they had to dig out in the area for
- where they overfilled and make that net neutral as best they could. That is shown in the aerials and
- this is the plat for phase one. And then the original estimate here, which totaled.
- $337,382.64. And then I've included some as well. So here you can see that they've got the contours
- and the sidewalks for certain segments. So for instance, the long lots, 71, 70, and 69, there is no
- sidewalks. But as of the date of this aerial, those homes are not yet constructed. So that's not unusual
- that they wouldn't put the sidewalks in until that time.
- And then the last exhibits down towards the end of the packet, like I mentioned, are the letter from
- the developer to the West stating they're okay with the timeline for the multi-use path being later.
- And then the FEMA confirmation that they did in the submit, they've been in correspondence with us on
- that. So staff is recommending for this phase, a inflation adjustment.
- and the two-year extension. And that is partially because we would like to see this phase one and all
- the phases completed by the developer. And with that inflation, it would be a total of $371,120.90.
- And as a reminder, here's what we have actions to be able to do if we deny them from a performance period
- extension.
- So we draw the financial guarantee the county can or may complete all or some of the improvements as
- the funding allows. So taking this amount without the inflation adjustment and withdraw that and try
- to complete the fund, complete the project using an outside contractor.
- And then if there's any necessary additional funds needed, sue the developer for any funds necessary
- to complete the improvements and fund the maintenance bond. And then finally, we can seek any remedy
- necessary to review the purposes of this chapter, the performance guarantee checker, and as allowed
- by law or this ordinance. When we spoke about this case in March and the developer did review that recording,
- they expressed in person that they were
- really hoping that the plan commission would give them the ability to have the two more years and that
- they believe that they will get the project done. Rudy, you're up first. Do you have any questions?
- Do you buy it? Do you feel like these people are truly engaged and moving? So from the Asbiltz and from
- what was approved, there are a lot of deviations. I don't think that by the end of
- the completion of all improvements that those will be done in a fashion that will allow the highway
- department to accept those improvements. I think it will get finished. I don't know that it will get
- accepted. And there will be the battle that we have to go forward with, which is how do we get them
- to now take out segments of sidewalk in front of people's homes, including people's driveways that are
- now built out, fix them,
- and then try to get it accepted in a timely fashion. So we will see that for later subdivisions as well.
- Joe, got any questions? What's the impact to the residents that have bought those houses in the neighborhood
- if this continues, if we extend this out two years, does this impact
- quality of life and ownership there. Does it impact safety initiatives by not having certain infrastructure?
- I guess that would be my question. I would say that luckily the big components are in the stormwater
- infrastructure is in bus curb and gutters and pavement is in what I think is, you know, problematic
- as we keep these extensions going. Maybe not the first two years, but beyond that time period is that
- the maintenance of those infrastructure improvements are on the developer. Every snowstorm, that developer
- is out there plowing or hiring someone to plow. Over time, they can lose some interest in doing that.
- They can get some of the neighbors to complain, hey, I've got to really be out of the neighborhood at
- five in the morning, you can't come at seven. I think that that kind of thing would not organize by
- the county or a governmental entity or
- you know, something like that, there's a little bit of back and forth that can occur. But otherwise,
- the delay for the later phases, which we'll talk about, is impacting some neighboring connectivity of
- development of another major subdivision that was reliant upon some of these timelines stated. So without
- this getting done, then another development is not getting done. So.
- As far as like safety signs things, I know there's some concerns about your lanes and things like that,
- and especially with no removal, that's another safety issue. Is there anything, if these do continue
- to be issues, you know, six, 12 months down the road, but within the two-year period, is there anything
- we can do at that time or is this kind of a we're setting this in motion and it has to stay in place
- for the duration? So the inflation adjustment is getting people moving.
- I also think that the developer was entertaining or interested in getting a reduction. And when we reviewed
- those as built with them, we actually saw not a reduction, but an increase by like $2,000. So they kind
- of walked away from the reduction idea because they weren't able to achieve that. So holding that amount
- of money does get things
- moving in the right direction. I don't think that a two-year timeline is going to impact the quality
- of life of those residents in that phase. I'm glad to see that phase four was plotted, which gave them
- access to College Drive. There was at least two instances in the last two years where that one access
- point at Baton Rogers was closed off for a short time period, whether it be
- the tornado that went through that area or flooding or things like that. We're glad to have that other
- access point there. Margaret? Well, I just have to commend you, Jackie and Tammy, for all the work you
- do in working with the developer, knowing all these details, advocating for the residents in
- those neighborhoods, foreseeing the complications that can arise if
- this is prolonged. And I just am so impressed by the report you've given and the detail of information
- and your work with the developer. So thank you for doing all that. I appreciate it. I think the Strongline
- program has done a fantastic job of being out there and trying to work with the developer as well with
- the deviations that we've seen between plans and what gets built. They're trying to work with them the
- best that we can. That's great. Thank you.
- Yeah, yeah, I expressed public safety concerns when we talked about this in March and it's been five
- months and nothing has changed other than the situation getting worse. Now that the blind squirrels
- 2.0 construction is started and I saw somebody walking in the road just a couple days ago right in that
- area. So I realized that the new developer doesn't want the side path there while they're doing construction,
- but I think the reality is that side path should have been there years ago, so it should have already
- been there. So I just think we're at a point where.
- what we're trying to do isn't working, and we need to go in a different direction. Julie, you got anything?
- I do not. Thank you. She said, I do not. All right. David? I do not. Thank you. OK, Tron? Oh, yeah.
- Where exactly is that side path, like on the area at all? Sure. And my question is. It would go like
- this. And then it connects. And where is the area that's in the flow plane for the FEMA, the LOMA? Basically.
- There. Oh, man. So it's not necessarily the entire side path, but it's within.
- The side path is with the outside of the flood. Okay. It's cool, right? Okay. So the side path,
- you know, that was like, that's a different phase, which actually was forecast where I'm going to bring
- this conversation. And it's just the same. So just, I want to make sure that like where they're looking
- to work within that floodplain, forget Loma, where it's like almost
- change. Even if we went about it and didn't extend this performance bond and wanted to go and try to
- do some of these improvements, we also would have to go through that process, that construction in the
- floodway or Loma. So it's not going to help expedite that issue. I think that also goes with some of
- the discussion with safety, like the developers are already going through it.
- I would almost think that we'd have to restart the process and it might delay it a bit because they're
- already going through that process. So I just wanted to kind of bring a little light to that. So it
- looks like they could be working on the side path. That would be nice. Is that side path in this phase
- or they committed to do it in phase one?
- And that's what I was really going to ask. And I spent some time trying to find the phasing plan, but
- I didn't find it. And that's not the faculty, is it? No, I don't think so. This is phase one, though,
- right here. So each of the packets have their different phases. And I guess my point there is there
- is that connection to the school that's in a different phase, where luckily we allowed a switching of
- the set phases so they could actually make that second connection.
- which was really important. And I guess my real point is, personally, I think we might be more in a
- carrot versus a stick situation by extending this and also getting those other phases completed where
- it does have some community benefit with the connection to the school.
- And also to that development that needs to create that second egress too. And if we decide to pull and
- not extend the funds and do what we can limit, it'll be limited. It won't be exactly what we're hoping.
- The developer may not pursue with the additional phases. And that's a big concern.
- for me. And then I guess my question is, and I know it's more opinion, they can defer not to answer,
- that's fine. Would you agree with my analogy that right now we have like a better carrot situation than
- a stick with extending this performance period? I would say that they still have homes and lots of they
- want to sell in phase one and we'll continue to improve on those and get those improvements in.
- I agree with your statement that even if the county takes this project on, we still have to do the Clomar
- process. And so that's not going to save us any time if they've already submitted for that. So I don't
- know if the county can do it any faster than Tom at this juncture. I will say that the issue of phases
- five and six being final plotted,
- because of the requirement before phase five could be plotted that they had to do the turn lane, they
- will have to let it expire because it also expires the 18th. And we told them that back in March and
- said, please come back to the plan commission and redo your approval. So it does not expire. And essentially
- they said they'll just let it expire right now. Well, that's unfortunate.
- And this is the Shermer major subdivision that was going to connect if this got plotted in a certain
- time period. So now Shermer is also subject to exploration. Well, thank you for addressing my question.
- Again, I just don't know what would put us in the best situation. My feelings are extending it and seeing what
- else can be improved and readdressing this in two years, even though I agree with you that it would
- be nice that this would move a lot faster. So my comments are, I'm a worst case guy. So let's assume
- the worst case here. Let's assume that we do not think and extend the period of performance.
- And in fact, we stop what's going on out there. There's work stoppage at that point.
- on that entire facility in phase one, does it all come to a halt? Is he obligated in any way, shape,
- or form to finish any type of change order or task order or anything with any of the homeowners who
- live in that area already? Is he obligated to do that? Or does he just say, you're not gonna extend
- my period of performance, so I'm going to take and stop all work on the property? Do you ask him to
- stop all work or that he would voluntarily stop all work? And he do stop work.
- Uh, he could, I mean, if we cashed his credit, he's not going to touch any more sidewalks. I got it.
- You answered my question on that. Who owns the property? He does, right? On the lots not sold. He is
- both the developer and the builder. Okay. And so assuming that assuming he can still move forward with,
- um, could he develop on those individual lots at that point? That's the trickle. Not as a, not as a
- subdivision, but as an individual lot.
- There's been some state law on how to defer a date. Would you think we can still issue a permanent location
- permits for vacant lots without a valid performance guarantee if we knowingly cash it or don't extend
- the timeline? If there are funds under the law, if there's any performance left, then you have to keep issuing.
- the occupancy permits and building permits. I don't know whether funds in hand from that letter of credit
- would be the same as a letter of credit. Can't you check versus? I just don't know. When you say don't
- know, do you mean like that would be determined by like adjudication and a judge?
- that the legislature declared. Even if you had case law that wouldn't give you a certainty, the arbiter
- would still be a judge to make that determination? Well, it would be a case law. As in, that means the
- judge had. Where I'm going with this is that if, in fact, we decided not to extend a period of performance,
- and, in fact, this would go to litigation, everything would pretty much come to a halt until a judge
- decided what's going to happen in that step, correct? You would think. I would think.
- So that impacts the people who live in that area. And so let's assume that, let's say that he has a
- work stoppage and now the county is responsible and we have that 330,000 K and some change, who is going
- to take into response before taking that money and building out the rest of the infrastructure? Who
- does that go to? Does that go to the highway department to do that or you have to contract it out? We
- contract it out.
- Okay, so we go through a period of time and do you have to compete that you have to compete that contract
- will be like an RFP or something like that. Okay, you see we're going with this. It's this is the you
- go through litigation you go through your P process you have to bring on a contractor you got to take.
- We got to hire more staff and so it's so let me let me take another step and so if the county is now
- responsible for that area because we didn't extend the period of performance.
- Does everything have to be done with respect to everything that needs to be done for the area before
- the county would accept an inventory and start plowing the neighborhoods? That could mean even taking
- out what's there and replacing it correctly. It would not happen until all of those things are done.
- OK, so you can see what we have. We got the people left high and dry. They they're not getting the work
- done that needs to be done because it's all caught up in like litigation. The the.
- bring it into an inventory is delayed because we've got RFPs out there which are competing and we don't
- have a contract and so on and so on. I mean, this is a, in my opinion, this is a very serious question
- that we're trying to resolve here. I mean, it also has a precedent for anything we do in the forward
- as we move forward. I accept what Jeff said over here and we've had some dealings with
- with this developer before in other areas and it's almost risk mitigation. We're in a risk mitigation
- at this point. How much risk do we want to take and expect versus if we don't accept that risk, what
- the outcome is and who in fact is going to take and manage something like that. So I will say though
- that the amount that we are asking for with an inflation adjustment is going to be over
- what it would take for anyone to do the work, right? Hypothetically, because we're adding the 10% per
- year and there's been progress, albeit not all that could be accepted, but let's say 70% of it could
- be considered correct and acceptable. If we just take the money that we have today without the inflation,
- maybe, but if we continue to assess the inflation, I think that gets us closer to the mark and gets
- us in a safe spot should the county have to take it on.
- and do the work. But as long as they're in the game, I would encourage us to continue to just assess
- the inflation adjustment, establish real timelines, and keep the feet to the fire and let them continue.
- I like that. I think that keep it booked and sorted out the end. I don't know, to Jeff's point, if we
- could condition the two-year
- extension on possibly the side path going in any sooner. Such as like see above the town homes or or
- at least I'm not sure what they did not state a new timeline other than the developer of the town said
- I'm okay with it not going in right now building. So I don't know what that means. So I'm sure so.
- The addition of a side path, though, would that yield a decrease in financial obligation that he doesn't
- put up? Would there be a release of that predicated on that being completed to spec? So they did apply
- for a reduction without that side path. But if they didn't put the side path in, yes, that's part of
- the estimate. So we would explicitly be able to reduce the amount.
- What they submitted so far for reduction, like I said, we kind of evaluated the as-built and there were
- certain segments of sidewalk either missing or maybe not incorrectly. And with the in-dot cost changes,
- we just weren't able to get there with a true reduction. So as they make progress and come back, yes,
- we could consider a reduction. If that seems like an easy path for them to get a reduction, it's definitely
- something. Right.
- So it seems like they're the shortest barriers to decrease the amount of the side path, regardless of
- what the other developers. Okay. The problem with it is if they put in the side path today and they
- don't get acceptance review for two more years and the developer destroys that side path of, you know,
- clear creeks developer.
- It's still on SOMO's developer to come back and redo it. So that's why there's been a delay. They don't
- want to do a choice. That was my question. That was my exact question. All right. Anybody else have
- any comments? David or Julie? I guess I have a question to a fellow.
- I can just remember based off of the understanding that if they built that out in advance and then the
- other development damages it or even makes it unfassable, does that constitute a difficulty, a practical
- difficulty in a sense where that I understand that we should have had it already done and maybe even
- accepted, but since that was kind of something that you've
- focused on. I was kind of curious what your thoughts were, if you want to share now after this discussion.
- Yeah, I mean, I understand if I were the developer of Blind Schools 2.0, I wouldn't want to put it in
- either because I would be afraid it would get torn up. But my biggest concern is the fact that this
- was approved and started in 2022, I think, and we're four years in, and this continues to impact the
- safety of the neighborhood.
- fear that someday I'm going to hear sirens and, you know, find out somebody was hit in that area. Is
- there a temporary, there's something that they could do on a temporary basis? Oh, we haven't talked
- about that. Is there a temporary thing they can do? Clear Creek trails over, you know, to the west,
- the Clear Creek trail is there, but the post office, you know, rebuilt and then the parking lots on
- that, the blind spoke property. So you have,
- passing traffic back and forth, albeit with a crosswalk, there is no sidewalk. So we have an encouragement
- for pedestrians to get from the parking area to the post office crossing that intersection where we
- don't yet have a turn lane. So we impose a temporary fix. People are using Roger Street to access the
- trailers to spur across Southern Meadows. And then there's the part Jackie's talking about that intersects
- that road.
- A hundred feet west of rogers. So they're just fucking on the shoulder there. Yeah. Walking through
- the dirt. There's a, yeah. So it's like a parking area here. And then the rail. Trail right here, the
- clear freak trails right here. So you can actually park here. Go to the post office or come up and go
- to this trail here. It's a trail. Yeah. And it's, it's not.
- I think it's people in the neighborhood that are walking the trail, but it's not isolated. It's multiple
- times a week I see people on foot with now construction traffic on both sides of the road. So that's
- my only thought. So we don't do tiptoe. They could do a gravel path of some sort, but I don't know that
- it's something that we would, I mean, you're putting people between the right of way of road
- Rogers and a construction site zone. And is there a portion that is complete, like the bioretention
- area, perhaps maybe just having a short segment that could be built because they are finished with the
- bioretention area might be more reasonable. So you keep people on. But then you're not really totally
- encouraging them to be right next to the construction of a building. Yeah.
- I'm trying to directly answer your question. I'm going to hesitantly vote in favor of this, because
- based on the discussion, I think that the developer continuing is the best path forward. I just want
- to share my thoughts around the safety issues. And your concern matters. And it's getting close to splitting
- hairs, so more understanding of where you're at helps me make the decision. Thank you. I do have one
- last question.
- When we take and ask for the increase for the performance bond, what we say here is from a reasonable
- time period. Can we put a stipulation on when that should be done? Just like that? No, I'm talking about
- the reasonable time period for the increase in the performance, the later letter of credit. We say there
- in a recommendation, you have to prove the developer's requirement to sign a new performance bond document
- and update the amount posted within a reasonable time period.
- Yes, we can state what the deadline is. You can put a date, yeah, and you put a specific date in there?
- Yes. I would need a new letter of credit before the 18th, because that's when the performance. Can we
- put a date on that recommendation then? Pick a date, what date? 18th. Okay, put that on there. For the
- expiration date, okay. I reluctantly,
- and moving toward approving this as well. Just because of the argument or comments I put on the table
- is that be careful what you ask for. It might be worse than what you currently have. So anyway, I think
- we're at that point unless there's no more comments for a motion. Do we have a motion? Sure.
- You got it. I moved in the matter SIA-22-3
- the extension of performance completion schedule. The staff recommends approving a two-year performance
- period with our inflation adjustment amount. Is that what I really need to read all that? They have
- approved the developer required to sign new performance bond documents, update the amount posted within
- a reasonable time period with the thought that additionally that the date of that
- performance bond would be included with this recommendation. He wants to be late today. It's 18 August.
- Yeah. Yeah. 18 August. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second.
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve SI 22-3, which is the Southern Meadows phase one performance
- period extension. There's been a motion and second to approve until August 18th, 2028. And with the
- stipulation that a new performance bond document and a new letter of credit with the amount of $371,120
- and 90 cents is submitted to the planning department.
- by August 18th, 2026. The vote yes, is a vote to approve. Brown and Red Renda? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes.
- Jeff Morris? Hesitantly yes. David Henry? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Also hesitant yes. Margaret
- Clements? Yes. Okay, the motion does pass seven to zero.
- All right, let's turn the page. Now, did you want to bundle the 22, 27, and 23.5 into one? Yeah. Okay,
- go ahead. The reason being for those two remaining phases, I think the issues are minimal compared to
- phase one. There's not any common areas in these phases, and so you're really just looking at built
- out lots. So I'll just show you pictures of phase two,
- This is phase two here. So primarily constructed. There are some segments that are yet to be built out.
- And I've zoomed in on those for you. And you can tell kind of where the sidewalk ends is consistent
- with those plots that have yet to be built out. And then we have an estimate of 106,000
- $863.89 with inflation that goes up to about 117,000. And then we do have the as well. So we've assessed
- what's left in the neighborhood and what is still remaining. I did want to be transparent to state that
- we have been working with the developer on an enforcement case. They have started to address some of
- these items such as in the green box. So there were some lots that
- were being occupied without MS4 coordinator at the time, now Stormwater program manager, review of the
- ASVILS, which was allowed to hold up certificate of occupancy. So there are still some remaining lots
- that we believe are occupied, but do not have certificate of occupancy at last check, which was right
- as this packet was published.
- But you can see they have been making progress to rectify some of the past lots that were being occupied
- without certificate of occupancy. And then they have done the remediation work for the placement of
- the fill in the floodway. And then phase three is they have a letter of credit on file for $193,920.29.
- Renew the letter of credit, and if this performance period is adjusted to two more years, it would go
- up to $213,312.32. This one is even more straightforward. It does not include any common areas. There
- was one cost feature on this lot, but otherwise, there was just lots for development. So mostly built out here.
- We do still see some issues such as the ADA crosswalks. There was a driveway put in a slightly different
- spot. So we only have one ADA ramp on this side instead of the two that were originally in the plans.
- So we've worked with them. This one is the closest to maybe being at the point of a possible reduction,
- but they're still trying to work with us on the other two phases. So they're making progress on this area.
- So that's phase three. So with that, staff is recommending approval on both phases two and three, getting
- those additional two years. And we would recommend since the first phase as a performance bond document
- and new letter of credit with a deadline of the 18th, we think that's a good idea to include on these
- other phases as well. All right, let's go with comments. Tron, we'll start with you this time.
- Just one. And stipulate whether it's phase two or phase three with your comments? I'm not certain, and
- that's the question. I was trying to pull up, I think, what was it? Phase two, I was able to see the
- other phases. Phase two, and then I was able to see phase three. So my question is, I guess, the lower
- part, is that all phase five where the two houses are built out? And my question is, are we still looking at
- creating that connector to the school. So that was part of phase five that got re-figured with
- the re-phasing. Phase five and six are to the south. So they so far plotted phases one, two, three,
- and four. I see some homes south already built out. Sure. On the 2026 area, that might be phase four.
- which has been plotted. Right. Because phase four got split into some. And this kind of goes back to
- what we were talking about. Part of phase four is like up here and then the other part was. Yeah, that's
- right. Yeah. So if you zoom in like right there, see where that whole structure is. So I guess they
- don't really have, they have the property, but it would be a big ask to ask for that connector. I really was,
- excited about that potential connector. That's true. So the connector is supposed to come off of a cul-de-sac
- that comes roughly in this area and goes down to the school, I think, through this way. It wasn't. They
- do have a path that's going to be, you can see it graded in here. So that will be part of this phase,
- and they are constructing that. OK. That's fine. Thank you. That was my question. Hard to piece everything
- together without seeing all the faces.
- David Henry, you got a question? I do not, I'm good, thank you. Okay, Julie? No questions, thank you.
- Yeah, Margaret? No. And Rudy? All right, I don't have any questions. Do we have a motion for both 22
- 27 and 23. So we'd have to stipulate each price maybe. Do you want to take them one at a time or do
- you want to take them both at the same time? We can do them one at a time. Okay, let's go ahead and
- do 2227 first. Do we have a motion for 2227? We have a motion that we approve the two-year performance
- period extension with the required inflation adjustment amount of $117,550.28.
- If approved, the developer is required to sign new performance form documents and update the amount
- posted within a. 18 do we want to 18? OK, August 18th, 2026. That is my emotion. Do we have a second
- second motion or second? OK, it's been moving second to approve.
- as a dash 22 dash 27, which is a two-year performance period extension until August 18th, 2028. The
- developer is required to post a new performance guarantee in the amount of $117,550.28, along with a
- new performance bond document. And that will both be submitted to the Planning Department by August
- 18th, 2026.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve with that requirement. Scott Farris? Yes. Jeff Morse? Yes. David Henry?
- Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Brandon Wright-Randolph? Yes. Motion
- is approved, seven to zero. All right, let's move on to 23.5. Do we have a motion? I'm prepared.
- I recommend approving the two-year performance period extension with the required inflation adjustment
- amount of $213,312.32. If approved, the developer is required to sign new performance bond documents
- and update the amount posted within a with posted with the date August
- on or before August 18th, 2026. Second. Again, it's been moved and seconded to approve SAA-23-5 Southern
- Meadows Phase 3. A vote yes is a vote to approve an inflation adjustment of $213,312.32 valid until
- August 18th, 2028.
- and also to require the developer to submit a new performance bond document and new letters of credit
- in the inflation adjustment amount by August 18th, 2020. This vote yes is the vote to approve with that
- requirement. Jeff Morris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Maria Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Mark Clements?
- Yes. Tron and Ray Randolph? Yes.
- Scott Farris? Yes. Motion is approved, 7-2-0. All right. So we're going to move on to Highland Park.
- And I think you probably want to present these all together, correct? Is that the way you want to do
- it, Tammy? Mm-hmm. Okay. And that's 2234, 225, and 226, please proceed.
- This one is looking at three SIA numbers and just sort of an update with phase five. You all actually
- saw this back in April 7th, 2026. We did kind of an update back then.
- And you all had recommended that we continue to work with the developer to see if they could complete
- some improvements or provide estimates because they really do have this carrot of phase five that they
- recently replatted and they weren't to be able to sell those five lots and finish out that part of the
- subdivision. That phase five is due to expire in March next year.
- And so they're really, I actually just did talk with the developer on the phone today. And I think after
- them reading this report, it is kind of lighting the fire under them to want to get this done and start
- sending out letters to the neighbors with their driveways that are not compliant, fix the sidewalks
- and that sort of thing. But back in April, we had sent them this letter right after the meeting.
- gave them a lot of information on what they could do, what are the next steps, what we need to see them
- do. And they didn't really do anything. Jackie has talked with them within the last week. I just talked
- with them today after they read the staff report. And so I think that they are still wanting to not
- have us cash the bonds. They want to finish this work themselves and get it accepted into the inventory,
- work with the highway department.
- And yeah, I think this one, we still have a bond on file for phase three. This is a surety bond, $310,000.
- And we have a letter of credit for phase four for $132,000. And he's confident that this is more than
- enough to fix what's out there, even though we've never seen an estimate, we've never seen as bills
- like redone for these phases. The problem is that we can only spend that money in phase
- Phase 3 for Phase 3 and Phase 4 for Phase 4. We have Phase 2 that has never been completed and we do
- not have any financial guarantee on file for that one. So just to kind of reiterate, this is Phase 2.
- If you don't have a financial guarantee on file for this section here, then it's completely built out,
- but we still need to see corrections to the sidewalks. This is Phase 3. They still have two vacant lots,
- but they did put in the sidewalks for those
- And we do have that 310,000 in a surety bond, which we have actually asked to be a letter of credit.
- Surety bonds are more difficult for staff to administer if you do need to cash them in. And then phase
- four has the letter of credit for 132,000. And I think it's mostly built out also. What they haven't
- finished is phase five. And phase five, this is the petition that was approved
- In 2024, it is set to expire early 2027. It's five lots. They are unable to flat it until they meet
- these conditions. And the conditions are basically complete phases two, three, and four, or submit as
- builds, give us new estimates with the inflation, and get those things done.
- I am not sure if they've gone to the traffic commission for parking signs yet. I think they did do this
- 24 foot wide road change. And this is what the flat looks like. Those are these two roads. And they
- have the sidewalks in and they have street trees in for this. Like it's ready to be platted, but because
- we have a written commitment, well, because we have a condition that we require a written commitment
- that they tell us
- When they're gonna have the other phases done, or they finish those other phases, it's not something
- they can pursue yet to get this plan done and recorded. So our recommendation for this one is to extend
- the performance period until December 31st, 2026 to complete all the work and have an application submitted
- to the highway department for acceptance into the inventory. If the developer fails to meet
- This final deadline staff recommends that we draw all financial guarantees on file and forward this
- to legal department to file a complaint for not completing the improvements in the time period required
- under the subdivision and provision agreement and as extended by the plan commission. I will say that
- Jeff Crider was unable to attend this, but he gave me his cell phone and if we wanted to ask him questions,
- we could call him
- He thought that the language in staff report was a little bit harsh. He didn't think it needed to come
- to the point of us getting the legal department involved. He really thinks that within the next four
- months, he could get crews out there, notify the neighbors, have things lined up to get this work completed
- and looking to be something that the highway department would accept into the county inventory.
- I think that's all I have to say about that. Do you want to talk about, or do we need to talk about,
- and obviously what you're recommending here is a little bit different than what you're recommending
- for the other ones, correct? Are they all the same recommendation? They are. I mean, the recommendation
- is to extend performance period for basically
- all three of them, it would be nice if we had an estimate and performance, like financial guarantee
- for phase two, but it's unlikely we can get that without having pass votes, an estimate discussion.
- So we're just leaning on getting it done. All right, so let's go ahead and start over here with you,
- Rudy. Questions? Steve? Arthur?
- Jeff. Julie. I just have a comment, which is pretty basic. I understand that they may believe that this
- language is harsh, but it's been a long time and I think we need to proceed this way to ensure that
- things get done. Thank you. David. No comment. Okay. Over to you from.
- You said the care is another face is that the face of the more that it's vacant, not blathered right
- now. That's only five blocks. Yeah, five blocks. That's a common area. And they built the road sidewalks.
- I see the road. Okay, cool. I just wanted to understand the size of the size of that care.
- No other questions.
- I support the recommendation and the language, which is pretty direct. So we're ready for a motion.
- For cases SIE-22-34, 22-5, and 22-6, I move extending the performance period until 12-31, 20-26 to complete
- all work and have an application submitted to the Highway Department for acceptance under the inventory.
- If the developer fails to meet this final deadline, staff recommends we draw the financial guarantees
- on file and forward this to the legal department to file a complaint for not completing the improvements
- in the time period required under the subdivision improvement agreement and was extended by the commission.
- Is it okay if I ask you about a question about your motion? It says staff recommends we draw all financial,
- or are we going to readdress this or if they don't make that deadline, are we instructing that we do
- move forward with drawing? That's a question. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that correctly
- with your motion. And if you would permit, I would be curious what staff is looking for because that's
- ambiguous a little bit to me. Are you okay with me having to
- jump in the middle of that motion? I can share my thought on it. My thought is by making this motion,
- I'm saying that we go ahead now and approve staff to do this what we've mentioned here at the end of
- the year if it's not done. OK, so I guess if that's what your intent is, I would say the staff recommends
- you would say that we have staff. I would say we direct staff then instead of recommend.
- Great. I'll second that motion to extend the discussion period and see what planning was intending with
- that. I think we have a motion and a second. I don't think there's any other discussion required. I'll
- go ahead and reiterate just to approve it and then reread it. So the motion and the second is to approve SA-22-34
- as a dash 22 dash five and as a 22 dash six. And the Parker state spaces, two, three, and four. And
- this is to approve the performance period until December 31st, 2026. And the motion is to, uh, if the
- develop also, it would be to extend the performance period until 1231, 2026 to complete all work.
- have an application submitted to the highway department for acceptance into the inventory. If the developer
- fails to meet this final deadline, the plan commission direct staff to draw all financial guarantees
- on file for this to the legal department to file a complaint for not completing the improvements in
- the time period required under submission improvement agreement and as extended by the plan commission.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve. Dave Henry.
- Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Howard Clements? Yes. Tron and Wright-Randolph? Not understanding
- staff's position. I'm going to abstain because I'm not certain if that was the intent. Scott Fairs?
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay. Motion still passes six to zero to one. All right.
- SIA 2218, which is extension of performance period and inflation adjust performance guarantee a map
- for column three lot minor subdivision. And Tammy, I think this is you, right? Yeah. All right.
- This one. So we currently have a letter. Well, it's a cashier's check for 20,000.
- $777.88 on file. We had done a primary amendment under SMN-25-5, just full under a year ago, so November
- 2025, and that was approved, which had a lot of engineered designs to improve the intersection at Walnut
- Street Pike and Holland Drive.
- and that included some sidewalk rework, some widening of the road, curb and gutter, things that were
- going to make that intersection more safe, which to date that work has not been able to take place.
- There were two conditions that were put in with that, which was to also provide designs for the driveways
- for lots one and two and three, make sure that they had
- ingress egress to those properties, but also worked well with the cross slopes. And to date, I don't
- think I even have seen a lot three right of way activity permits submitted for the driveway design.
- I also don't think it's been to the drainage board for the other two blocks. So they haven't met these
- two conditions. I have heard from the developer of
- all in fields phase one, which kind of intersects with this development. And I also have heard from
- the developer, the developers representative for this Holland three lot minor. And they are going through,
- they were trying to get a mediation date in place. They have one for this coming Friday. And I think
- the purpose of that is to kind of designate who does what, who's responsible for what at that intersection.
- and they still haven't figured out if there's that fiber cable, how much of an interference that's going
- to be with the corrections that are needed for this intersection and this to make it so that the county
- can accept this into the inventory. So I think they still have a little ways to go. They have two, let's
- reiterate, that's this intersection here and fixing
- these two driveways proving that we have a good access to this one and then widening and fixing the
- sidewalks that have never been completed for this area here. So just kind of going through and this
- driveway here would have to be reconstructed. Also this one for lot one also reconstructed because right
- now they're just not safe, not ADA compliant.
- Uh, we did during the, uh, primary plot amendment, we did get a new performance period. Um, we got new
- as builds with an estimate. So previously we only had $5,000 on file to fix this. Now we have this $20,000.
- Um, but they missed their performance period. And so, um, what they need to do and what they're requesting
- is that they extend it until.
- June 30th of 2027. So a little less than a year. They also were willing to add the inflation cost to
- that current estimate that we have on file. So we would need to see this extra $2,077.79 on file. We
- don't accept maintenance bonds until the highway department goes to accept it. So that's not part of
- the conversation really.
- With that, we do have kind of a lengthy recommendation. I'll go ahead and read it into the record. So
- the staff recommends a one-year extension of the performance period until June 30th, 2027 with an adjusted
- inflation amount of $22,855.67 based on the approved estimate shown in exhibit three.
- The amount moving forward will not include maintenance bond amount as that will be required at the time
- of acceptance and release of these funds per chapter 833. It is subject to the following conditions.
- One, that they submit additional financial guarantee in the form of a letter of credit or cashier's
- check in the amount of $2,077.79 by August 28th, 2026.
- An updated performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by September 11th, 2026. An updated
- subdivision improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by September 11th, 2026. And
- the petitioner shall apply for right of way acceptance on or before May 1st, 2027. That's the recommendation.
- And this should give them some time to go through their scheduled mediation
- Um, with Holland fields phase one developer and then also, um, just correct. Yeah. So deciding body
- or we the deciding body or is the plan commission property deciding body? I should have put administrative.
- That's new to me. All right. So Tom, we'll start with you on questions. Uh, no questions. David questions.
- None at this time, thank you. Julie? None for me, thank you. All right, Jeff? No. Margaret? No. Steve?
- No. Rudy? No. I have no questions, do we have a motion? For case SIA-22-18, I move that we accept the
- recommendation as read by Ms. Beerman. Second. We have a motion and a second.
- It's been moved and seconded to approve SA-22-18 with the motion and conditions as stated by Henry Beerman.
- A vote yes is a vote to approve. Ruby Fields? Yes. Billy Thomas? Yes. Mark Pellman? Yes. Ronan Raikenda?
- Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. David Henry? Yes.
- Motion is approved, 7-0. All right, that moves us to unfinished business. There is none. So we move
- on to new business, which is a CDO text amendment. And who's going to lead the discussion on this, Janet
- or Jackie? We only have 552 pages in the packet to go. And it says just 25 minutes. It does. It says
- 25 minutes. Did you go through it? Yes.
- So we did review a lot of these track pages from the ordinance review committee. We're glad to have
- our legal department help us with some of the state laws that came into effect starting July one. One
- of the nice things about the CEO is that we do have this revisions page which helps keep us on track
- so you can tell
- what we are asking for. So many of these changes are related to state law changes, but I'll just go
- through and hit the big points because there are some that we are adding that staff led based on some
- of the conversations we've had with the public and also just with staff amongst ourselves. So we were
- recommending to add temporary or seasonal activity to the rez zoning district.
- One of the things that we realized is that when we combined two zoning districts into res, we got rid
- of that ability in one of those zoning districts. And so right now there's kind of a gap. Then we have
- the boarding good, small, medium, large and big box.
- That is a state ball chain, which basically says that exploiting goods stores itself. Firearms are permitted
- in some of the agricultural areas as well as other areas of the county. So we are having to make that
- change in the use table. And so we added that to the two-page here.
- The next things that we're recommending this is staff led is to allow bus terminal in the heavy industrial
- district. And that is partially because there is a. A parcel that is. Then you fought for the purposes
- of constructing a bus terminal on profile parkway. And it's not zone for bus terminal right now. So
- we'd like this be that added to.
- hopefully prevent any issues of a rezone in the future. And then we have indoor shooting range as being
- permitted with standards in several different zones. So like I mentioned, agricultural, limited business,
- general business, and then it's light industrial, heavy industrial, narrow extraction, and I believe
- airport as well. And then
- There have been a lot of changes to the wireless communication facilities and that's one that I want
- to go through a little bit more in depth. And then these are some of the changes again by state law
- for removal of a member of the Planning Commission member. And then there were also some other definition changes.
- So I'd like to spend some time on the wireless communication facilities and explain this so that we
- can make the right change moving forward. There's maybe a little bit of room for discretion or direction
- as opposed to some of these other ones that state law has kind of forced their hand on. Okay, so there's
- wireless communication facilities.
- So this is the beginning of the chapter here a 12 dash three. And one of the biggest changes that the
- state law put into effect was that we are no longer allowed to regulate hike.
- That used to be how we differentiated the process for these wireless communication facilities was if
- it's over a certain height, it would go to the foreign zoning appeals. If it was under a certain height,
- it may be by right and in a residential district. Now after reviewing the code with the legal department,
- we do believe that we can still regulate these towers based on
- appearance so we can say now all towers can be concealed in any zoning district and that's something
- that we want to talk to you about. Do you want to see more concealed wireless towers in the county?
- Is that something that is important to you? Without the ability to regulate height we're getting a request
- in the office for a new 300 foot tower
- They do have some grandfathered towers that are exceeding 300 feet, maybe the one on Nightridge. Is
- that one like 350? I think one off of 045. That's pretty big. Pretty tall. So we do have some that are
- over 300 feet, but we now would not even be allowed to limit, say, a 500 foot tower if somebody were
- to choose to do so. So now we're thinking about
- saying that they need to be concealed. There are some concealed towers in the county currently. There's
- one near target. It looks like a flagpole, but it's a wireless tower. But here are some other examples
- of a concealed tower here. This looks like a tree. Then you can also place it on other structures such
- as a building. Typically, what we see though are new monopoles here with antenna.
- and locations for co-locations. There's also been a lot of movement in state code for small cell facilities
- and micro wireless facilities, which are typically in the right of way. So these would be something
- that could be by right, not even with planning review, but they do have to meet certain requirements.
- So this chapter, we're differentiating based on
- requiring it to be concealed, it can be in any zoning district. If it's not concealed, we are saying
- it can go into any industrial, institutional, or business zoning district. So that leaves out rural
- residential, residential, and airport. And the reason for airport is because there's some FAA rules
- that we can designate for height. So I want to,
- there and say, is that something that the plane cushion agrees with? It's all all towers being concealed.
- And then if they're not concealed, then they would have a different process if in different zones. I'm
- happy to build language. I just didn't quite get that last thing that you said there about if they're
- out in the county and they have to be concealed. If they're
- in a rural residential, residential, or airport district, no matter what, concealed. If they're in some
- of the business or industrial districts, they do not have to be concealed as written. So your farmers
- field has got to have it concealed. Your farming field has to have it concealed. Yeah, that seems a
- little... That's where you're going with that. Yeah, I just don't think that makes a lot of sense. In
- the middle of town, you're going to have it sticking out there like that.
- dog's parts. In the country, you're not. I just think that seems a little ludicrous. Out in California,
- the pine tree, I mean, it's very common out there. I've seen it in New York, all over. As a matter of
- fact, you really don't even know what's a tallow. They look really close. Except a pine tree that big
- in the middle of the corn field. Oh, yeah, absolutely. You've got Sequoia sitting in the rain. You've
- got Sequoia sitting in the rain.
- Oh, I got a big hilltop out there. I know they've been looking at it for a long time. It seems a little.
- You're not paying for it. I know you're not paying somebody. So you're going to have an unsightly tower
- versus one looks like a fine tree out of your field, but you're going to have one antenna. You know,
- I mean, what's the difference? But it's like you love you. Yeah, you put a flag forward. I mean, it
- looks like you're have cell tower.
- I'm so. It's okay Julie. Yes, I. I partly agree with what what Mister field saying I think it should
- be. Masked or hidden everywhere. So that's so the part I agree with his.
- in more congested areas, it's even more important to hide the tower. I actually have a question for
- Mr. Schilling since he appears to be in the room. And that is one of the things we talked about when
- this came up in the ordinance review committee was whether or not we have any ability to regulate these based on
- especially with the larger, taller towers, not so much the micro minis on utility poles, but on the
- regular self-standing, self-supporting towers, if we have the ability to regulate them based on their
- fall zone to protect people and buildings. So I wonder if you could address that. Thank you. Yeah, my
- recollection is that you cannot
- The fall zone can be essentially zero feet. What we're saying is you have to accept the engineer's conclusion
- on the fall zone. And they're coming in now saying, oh, these towers are designed to fall in on themselves.
- And so there's a zero foot fall zone.
- We have a requirement right now that we're allowed to impose a setback plus fall zone. But some of the
- setbacks could be quite small, such as in the business district. I think it's five feet side. So if
- they were to say the fall zone is zero feet, our only recourse under the state laws to hire our engineer,
- a county paid engineer, to dispute their engineer's fall zone.
- I just kind of. That's actually what I was going to ask, so happy that he jumped in there and asked
- that question to Commissioner Thomas. And maybe this sorry I was at the ORC, but maybe this would have
- been better then. But are we able to do anything as far as like immediate structure or residential structure
- that they have to be so far away from so like instead of using a setback,
- we use from a front door concept. It needs to be at least 150 feet away any immediate structure that's
- occupied from a commercial, industrial, or residential. Did you explore that avenue of how we could
- go about regulating leaves? There's always the variance process, so it's not shutting the door completely on.
- the idea of building these, but, you know, it might be limiting where they can go based off of what
- is already built out. Yeah, I don't think so. The way to get that set up is to be sure. OK, well, that
- would just be something that I was kind of curious about. It kind of somewhat goes in line with the
- fall zone. It's if we can't regulate a fall zone, but we can potentially regulate
- you know, a proximity of how much distance they have to be from an occupied structure would be interesting.
- Again, it's like another safety angle to the whole thing. My other question was more broadly, so we
- can't regulate height, but we can regulate zones or we can just put different conditions on what zone they
- So my question is, did they basically build anywhere regardless? Concealed. Concealed. And that's basically
- because we have an ordinance that says they have to be concealed. So the way that the ordinance is currently
- set up is the first part is here's what you can submit to us to get staff level approval and level of caring.
- And then if they can't meet that, then they have to go and get a conditional use from the border. I
- feel it's notified based off of could see it. OK, well, it could be Commissioner Thomas's comment. You
- could say everywhere else we can feel no matter what, right? Which right now in the county we only have
- it say differentiate between height. I think it's 60 feet or less is allowed in residential.
- It's maximum 200 feet, but because we can't do any bike restrictions, then we're looking at other ways
- that we can differentiate the process. So were they allowed to be built at the 150 without being concealed
- in those zones that we're looking at now, industrial and business?
- They were allowed that are not concealed up to 199 feet. So, okay, so now, okay, so we've been allowing
- that for quite some time. We have been allowing up to 199 feet by right. Now they can build anything.
- But now they can go up to 300, 400 feet whenever they would choose, but we've had these other requirements.
- If you want them to be concealed,
- Everywhere we could do that, but they have not had to be concealed everywhere. Yes. And that's thank
- you. That's why I'm getting into Mr. Fields point. I think concealing and just create an aesthetic benefit
- also additional cost where they might be needed to which you could go through a waiver process.
- And we are conditional use process. And then I guess when we were referring to the city, that would
- be the city's ordinance. So unless you're talking about like the fringe area. So those industrial part.
- Yeah. Yeah. So there is significant area in the county, too. But OK, so I'm curious.
- would we want to say anything that exceeds 199 feet must be concealed and then make that conditional
- and then that preserves kind of what language we have here and they would have to go through a conditional
- process to put anything up that's higher. And that's kind of where my thoughts are is if we already
- had it as is, is that I wouldn't consider it overlooked
- of us reviewing the ordinance is because the state came down with new language, we're reviewing it and
- we could kind of keep it somewhat the same and anything they want to do that exceeds the 199, we require
- it to be concealed. I don't know that we can have a breaking point in the ordinance that differentiates
- the process based on height. That's all I was trying to get at.
- So my question is, and maybe for those folks who are listening, maybe I just didn't hear it. The setbacks
- and the fall zones, where are those dressed in the ordinance right now? I mean, you don't have to show
- me, but they are dressed in the ordinance right now. They specifically state the setbacks and the fall
- zones. So the fall zone itself is defined as the area in which a self-hour is designed to collapse.
- We cannot establish
- All cell towers have a fall zone of 50 feet. That's what's prohibited. My question is, is the language
- in the ordinance assess that? The latter or the former? The latter. Okay, the latter. No, we don't say
- that we're not allowed to regulate a fall zone with a defined distance. We're saying we can require
- a fall zone plus the setback for the zoning district, though. And okay, what you just said, is that
- stated somewhere in the ordinance?
- So we're really talking about whether they need to be concealed or not. That's what the discussion part
- is. OK. And whether you want them concealed in more districts. Right. Or if you like them concealed.
- So Ron has made his point known. Anybody else have any thoughts on this going around the table? Julie or Daisy?
- Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I do. And not to complicate the conversation, but I You know, I guess maybe I may
- have missed it if it came up. I mean, I guess I'd like to see an overlay of the current Your reach of
- cellular or wireless in the county because yeah the the overlap of a rural area in the southern part
- of the county that probably also doesn't have broadband or good access to you know cellular is interesting
- to me from a public safety perspective but also just um you know trying to run like you know ground
- wire out in some of these spaces has been very hard um and so so if i had an understanding of what the
- coverage map of the county was that you know it could probably set up a condition where um
- Some towers, right, I mean, like, would be, you know, with wider reach might make sense in some areas,
- whereas, you know, having infinite towers in rural spaces might not. The technology has changed.
- Even I think, you know, even on this call, I've heard a center change cellular tower with wireless,
- but wireless means a lot of things now. You know, folks do run their
- devices off Wi-Fi as a hotspot pulling off a tower if they don't have a hardwire access. So again, just
- thinking out loud about availability of that utility and what the limitations of height does or doesn't
- do in this space is just, it has my attention. I think seeing an overlay map might help me understand
- just how bad the coverage is in some of these corners that we would be prescriptive in. That's it, that's
- a thought.
- Yeah, go ahead. So would any language that addresses height you think would be kind of difficult? So
- like if we said, you know, any wireless tower that exceeds 199 feet cannot be constructed within a proximity
- of a residential or occupied structure
- you know, within, you know, 150 feet, you know. So you're saying, like, let's say the tower's between
- 60 and 199 feet, we need this setback. If it's 200 to 300 feet, it needs this setback? Or are you saying?
- Yeah, setback, if that's the right term to use in this discussion. But like, just where it's not within
- proximity of occupied structure. Because we can't regulate all.
- Yeah, I mean, I guess I would just caution again against saying that it's not permitted because of the
- height. I think you could maybe there's still some state code language that says that we can call something
- a substantial modification based on a height change to an existing tower. So the state's allowing us
- to say height matters, but they're just saying we cannot regulate it and we cannot discriminate against
- providers based on a height.
- differential only. Okay. So if there's other ways you can think about it other than height, right? Yeah.
- And my main point is like, it almost seems like if they want to build it, there's going to figure out
- avenue to do it. And if it's not ideal, it'd be nice to understand if there is any mechanism out there
- that could prevent it or, you know, restrain it to a certain
- I'm not going to use the trigger word there. Safety concerns take over. The question I would ask is,
- let me play the devil's advocate. I want to build a tower. Who do I talk to? What process do I go through?
- What mechanisms in place to go through these steps on what they can and cannot do? What is the process?
- I think the devil's advocate. Yes. Right now, they start with our office in the building department.
- And the building department is going to say, get your site plan through by planning and then come back
- for the actual permits for construction. So we would talk to them and say, okay, go ahead and submit
- a site plan based on that site plan. We would say you can either be staff level review or you have to
- go to the board is only appeals. And then depending on that outcome, say it's approved. Then we're just
- looking at the things that we're allowed to regulate under this chapter, which is.
- You know, we're allowed to say they have to have kind of a fenced in area around the monopole. They
- have to have vegetation surrounding that fence area. And, you know, right now we're saying there's a
- height, but we had to change that. And set back. Then we go ahead and once the site is approved, they
- get their permits for construction from the building department and us. And then we go out and we do
- what's called a land use certificate to see that it was constructed the way they said.
- Okay, but the deciding body is who? The BZA? If it's conditional use, it's BZA. If it's staff level,
- it's the staff level. And what parameters and legal authority does the BZA have with respect to what
- they can or cannot approve? Yes. I'm just trying to walk us through what the process would be.
- That's all. I mean, I'm staying the obvious in some of this stuff. I mean, what can you do on a BZA?
- Can you tell them? We have granted variances to promote the connectivity across our county and improve
- access. When you start talking about setbacks and fall zones, you talk about that too? Yes, it comes
- before us and they draw it out and they show the coverage map. Staff does a wonderful job. It's based
- on the consensus of the group on whether or not you're going to grant that variance. Yes.
- Okay, that's just answering the question. So here are the conditions or the materials they have to submit.
- They have to submit a copy of the lease from the property owner, evidencing the African's authority
- to pursue the zoning application. So they don't want to buy the land. They usually lease it for 30,
- 50 years from somebody. Then they have a written description of scale drawing of the proposed support
- structure, including the height, the ground structure, design, and proposed materials were allowed to
- reveal the height.
- So we still would see, okay, it's a 300, 400 foot tower. Number of proposed antenna and their height
- above ground level, including the proposed placement of antenna. And then we did take out when locating
- within a residential area, a written technical and operational analysis of why a monopole or similar
- structure of height, less than a hundred feet cannot be used based on the state law. And then,
- Something that we find very helpful with the line of sight diagram or photo simulation, showing the
- proposed structure set against the skyline and view from at least four directions. So they'll actually
- mimic what the cell tower looks like over trees, or if it's going to be completely visible to certain
- directions of sight. A statement justifying wide co-location, so locating their antenna on another tower
- isn't feasible.
- And then it goes on to say, a statement that the proposed wireless structure will be made available
- for other co-locations, notification of surrounding property owners as required, and then fees, a fall
- zone calculation, and then they are responsible for notifying us of any confidential information. Something
- that the state added to is that this is something that legal needs to review
- newer information, but we're, the BCA is technically not allowed to request about a small cell facility,
- about additional wireless coverage or capacity or increased wireless speeds, propagation maps
- or telecommunications traffic studies, that gets business decisions with respect to service, customer
- demand or quality of service for a particular area. So some of this stuff is considered proprietary or just
- We're not allowed to ask. So they are very educational and helpful, though. I think they're forthcoming
- when they come. So, Margaret, when you get a fall zone calculation based upon a certified registrar
- being an engineer, can you challenge that? Well, according to what Jackie said, no. But if we have questions
- about it, we ask. And we ask the proposer.
- to go into further detail about that. They usually simulate a fall zone. And they're actually
- very forthcoming. They show us what they believe will be the enhanced coverage because of their cell
- tower. But I see now that they're not required to. But that aside, the issue on the table today
- is whether or not they're concealed. And I just want to advocate for beauty. You know, I'd like to advocate
- for keeping our skyline a little bit, you know, a little bit more beautiful if we can, if it doesn't
- seem like it's a high barrier. A tree that is a hundred feet taller than anything else around it.
- I don't, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see anything beautiful about that.
- I just, I just know that that particular cell tower on Knightridge, you know, I remember moving into
- our house out in the middle of the countryside and you know, everything was great by day, but then you
- turn off the lights, open up the blinds and you say, Oh crap, damn ugly things, you know, but. Well,
- it's somebody's leasing that space and making two or $4,000 a month on their property. Right.
- you know, and they're paying the taxes. Why don't we have a problem with that? I guess like if they
- can conceal it a little bit, I think it's it's an argument for a little bit more attractive county.
- That's all. OK, so do we have any changes to the language that they're proposing? These are some examples
- of other concealed towers. Yes, could be flagpoles, bell towers, bot towers, crosses, mining and smokestacks,
- not limited to, but. Such as it's not the same thing as for example. Such structures may include, it
- may include, but are not limited to. So yeah, it could include more than that, but we're just giving.
- If someone calls in and says, what counts as concealed? We'll be reading this sentence. So if we're
- going to be differentiating on that topic, I think. What I just heard, there's no proposed changes to
- the language unless somebody wants to offer something.
- I don't have any proposed changes to the language. Okay. I will have legal review this. We didn't put
- in, I don't believe on the agenda that we request a waiver of final hearing. So it is likely to get
- two hearings. So we don't have a waiver of final hearing on all these changes. So that gives us ample
- time to look at it. Okay. Any other questions on that part?
- Okay, I did want to bring up just for your edification that we receive a call from somebody who has
- property on the west side. And they were incorrectly zoned PUD so similar to what we had on South Roger Street.
- Okay, so this was again an area that was formerly under the jurisdiction of the city Bloomington Planning
- Authority. We have these two lots and we have had for several several years. These two lots are zoned
- PUD and they're now for sale.
- Someone came in and asked why this density is drastically less than some of the density of these other
- lots in the PUD. And when we redrew the legal description of what was truly rezoned PUD, it actually
- excluded these two lots. So we have talked with the sellers and some other potential buyers. And we
- stated that we will be taking this to
- ordinance review committee to start the process of an authored reason, similar to what we did on South
- Brother Street. So I just wanted to bring that to your functions since we'll see that. When you were
- asking about the proposed amendments, I thought you were talking about that one discussion with, there
- was nothing else that was driven more from
- County discussion outside of state changes. OK, so going back to the zoning ordinance amendment, your
- question is, is there anything else that does not state law? Yeah, that you would want to discuss because.
- I was looking at it to that section. One general that question in itself like.
- You mentioned a lot of these were more driven based off of state changes. Was there anything else? And
- then I have a particular blog. Just from that running list, there's a lot. There's a lot of subsequent
- change being proposed. And so my question just from that list, what else is not necessarily state-driven?
- And he's been saying to us. The staff. The temporary or seasonal activity with staff. And then I believe
- there were maybe two scrimmage errors that were staff. So I want to address what I find is somewhat
- of counterintuitive or
- I mean, maybe some clarity, but the removal of chapter 846. Sure. The removal number? Yes, 8. Right.
- And this is in a full, I just want to understand it a bit more. And I'm just had,
- So that same language, several channels. I did it twice. Under the Planning Commission serves the pleasure
- of appointing authority. This is verbatim from the state law. Yeah, that's what we talked about.
- can be removed so long as the officer holder who appointed the individual continues to hold the office
- or the board committee or body that appointed the individual retains all of the same members who served
- on the board committee or body. So is that saying like if someone's appointed and there's a new group,
- they can't remove them without cause?
- Well, I'm just trying to follow along. Yeah. Can't be removed without cause of sentinel. So like, let's
- say we get a new extension of representative as a reasonable decision that would change the body, right?
- Or let's say the representative from the county council that we have a new representative there.
- which seems like a possibility. They can't remove that person or reappoint a new person without cause.
- Well, those two examples are difficult. Those require seats on the planning commission, but let's say
- the citizen numbers, if you want to address this question. So if the board of commissioners changes
- hands and the new board of commissioners appoints somebody,
- Can they take out a citizen member on the plan for mission without balls? As there is. It's the same.
- That's what that's saying, right? But if someone changes. They can't. Which I I I favor that honestly.
- I'm just trying to get some so I'm appointed for four years. Yes, and I'm a citizen.
- Okay. And now the county commissioners, they have a, they've had an election and you got new people
- on there. Right. And somebody decides that they don't want me on the planning commission, even though
- I've been appointed for a four year period. Without cost. Okay. Can, can based on the consensus, the
- new consensus of those county commissioners, can they remove me even though I'm in there for a four
- year period? Without cost. Without cost. And that's what that would be under. There's other things with costs.
- If they have an appointment, they can revoke that appointment. That's the way I read it. You said you
- served pleasure. Yeah. That's right. As long as the commissioner's board has the same three members
- as who originally made the appointment, you could be asked to step down. But I think it's a terrible
- law. I think it's a terrible law. I'm not talking about cause. I'm talking without cause.
- I'm not, it's not even talking about costs. It's a terrible, it's terrible. Yeah, I don't love the without
- pause. I think if you should be appointed, you should be able to serve your term. So my question goes
- back up to the section up here, keep going up. And then it's just funny. Where was it? I'm thinking
- of the number three, the term of the office of the appointed county surveyor shall be for one year,
- but may not see the county surveyor's term. So if I appointed someone like the very last day I could
- decide to serve office and then don't run and someone else becomes a county surveyor, that person's
- going to be able to stay as that appointee and can't be removed without costs. Well, it says that you'd
- be- Yeah, they'll just conflict with me. And that's what I'm trying to reconcile with.
- It says that if you appoint somebody. The day before you're to leave office. I that person that appointees.
- Term ends with your term. That's what it says. Yeah, that's what that part says, and is that the state
- part or I would assume it is, but changed, but it kind of conflicts with the new part is what I'm saying.
- Never mind, that's just where my curiosity of wanting to exploit this discussion was. It just seems
- tricky. I agree with what Commissioner Thomas said. If someone's appointed for a four-year term, they
- should be able to serve that term and not be removed without cost. Cost should be a huge consideration
- for removing any type of person that serves on a public board or committee. But that's it. Thanks. Sorry,
- I was just wanting a little clarity.
- Reconciling with me and I don't know if it's so Jackie. Are there any other comments in this ordinance
- that you want to talk about? Are there other areas you want to talk about? I assume everybody has read
- that multi page document that we all have in front of us and I've studied these things in a dead and
- in depth level. 615 pages. OK, because I know I know I did. I spent mostly afternoon going through this.
- Anyway, so if there's no other questions on.
- On ZOA 26.3, realizing, of course, this will go to the plan commission and then to the county commissioners.
- There's no other topics. Let's move on to the last item. And that is any other business not on the agenda.
- And if they're seeing none, let's go ahead and adjourn. So moved.