WEBVTT

00:00:00.482 --> 00:00:10.753
- David Bush, Barbara Clement here, Sean Enright-Grandolph here, Scott Beres here, Pretty Fields here,

00:00:10.753 --> 00:00:20.922
- David Henry here, Jeff Morris here, Julie Thomas here, Joe VanDeventer and Steve Bishop here. Okay,

00:00:20.922 --> 00:00:29.566
- so we have seven voting members and one non-voting member in attendance in the form.

00:00:30.178 --> 00:00:37.900
- All right, let's go ahead and begin with the administrative business. And I think first up is a discussion

00:00:37.900 --> 00:00:45.695
- about the Monroe County Airport Association. Apartment. Apartment Association. What did I call it? Airport.

00:00:45.695 --> 00:00:53.490
- For the insights. Airport Association. Now in discussion. So Tammy attended a presentation at the Apartment

00:00:53.490 --> 00:00:58.686
- Association in early June. And from that meeting, there were some group

00:00:58.818 --> 00:01:06.407
- meetings, discussions, follow ups from that meeting and they sent to us an addendum from those meetings

00:01:06.407 --> 00:01:13.778
- regarding some of their board memberships, feelings about this year's leasing opportunities and what

00:01:13.778 --> 00:01:21.294
- kind of issues that they're facing. So we wanted to share this with our group. Make sure that you were

00:01:21.294 --> 00:01:26.110
- able to read through this and we appreciate your support in going

00:01:26.210 --> 00:01:32.372
- this apartment association board. I think the discussions are always really interesting to us. It's

00:01:32.372 --> 00:01:38.781
- really helpful even being at a round table with those guys to kind of see the different challenges that

00:01:38.781 --> 00:01:45.005
- they're faced with and to also see where planning fits in. So I know I've appreciated in the past, I

00:01:45.005 --> 00:01:50.366
- appreciate Tammy attending again this time. And basically our presentation to them was

00:01:51.010 --> 00:01:56.627
- You know, we passed the county development ordinance. Here are some of the changes that we've made to

00:01:56.627 --> 00:02:02.298
- date, things like that. So I think that they appreciate us continuing to attend. And I know that David

00:02:02.298 --> 00:02:07.970
- Hiddle, prior planning director with the city, also presented. So it's good to have the county and the

00:02:07.970 --> 00:02:13.752
- city there and present. So I just wanted to bring this to your attention. If there's anything that you'd

00:02:13.752 --> 00:02:19.038
- like to discuss in the group or ask us, we're here. But just wanted to share this with you all.

00:02:19.298 --> 00:02:27.221
- I think we should have a group discussion about this, because this is significant. It's 90%, below 90%

00:02:27.221 --> 00:02:35.452
- is the first time I've seen a formal document, because this was a public notice, right? This was something

00:02:35.452 --> 00:02:43.222
- that they sent us as a stakeholder in the apartment association. They didn't say necessarily that it

00:02:43.222 --> 00:02:48.222
- was confidential, but it was something that they shared with us.

00:02:48.930 --> 00:02:55.797
- So it's open-sourced. Less than 90%, you should all, if you haven't read this thing, you should read

00:02:55.797 --> 00:03:02.868
- it because this is a very important data point for other discussions that we keep having about housing.

00:03:02.868 --> 00:03:09.667
- Yeah, it's a very special reason. She pointed out was that the new student housing complexes on the

00:03:09.667 --> 00:03:16.466
- north side of town had already come to her for reductions in their tax settings because they're not

00:03:16.466 --> 00:03:17.214
- facing up.

00:03:17.506 --> 00:03:27.524
- And they've only been around for a couple of years. So if they haven't heard of it, plain scenes are

00:03:27.524 --> 00:03:37.442
- obviously not going to have a scene. Anybody else have them? I would like to get a report from J.D.

00:03:37.442 --> 00:03:44.286
- Sharp. And there are a lot of these reporters coming before a lot of

00:03:44.418 --> 00:03:52.066
- new parking complexes are yet to come online. There's like a thousand-ish beds going on this year and

00:03:52.066 --> 00:03:59.715
- they were like four or five years last year. Yeah and there's still some that have been approved that

00:03:59.715 --> 00:04:07.213
- haven't yet been built and I think there might be more than a thousand coming online. I'm sure it's

00:04:07.213 --> 00:04:08.638
- a polluted number.

00:04:08.898 --> 00:04:16.290
- Is any of this? I know it's it's separate from the recent developments with Hunter properties, but I

00:04:16.290 --> 00:04:23.682
- know there's some discussion there about the lack of a hand type entity at the county level. Is that

00:04:23.682 --> 00:04:30.855
- anything that kind of involves this discussion as well? I actually was going to mention that too.

00:04:30.855 --> 00:04:38.686
- I mean. We're talking about the rental space. I know we will jump in, but I'm just wondering like where is

00:04:41.122 --> 00:04:51.414
- involvement as we start permitting actual rental units that share structural walls and things of that

00:04:51.414 --> 00:05:02.513
- nature, not necessarily like someone renting out their actual single family, but multi-unit homes, triplexes,

00:05:02.513 --> 00:05:10.686
- duplexes, apartment complexes, and the ability for planning to add language that

00:05:11.106 --> 00:05:21.944
- has some type of authority where we're not dealing with the same issues where the recourse for property

00:05:21.944 --> 00:05:32.470
- management is going to the health department on a case-by-case driven basis or structural issues and

00:05:32.470 --> 00:05:40.286
- going to the building department. And there's a loophole with some insects

00:05:44.674 --> 00:05:54.639
- your experience like migration of insects, rodents, and things like that, there is somewhat of a loophole

00:05:54.639 --> 00:06:04.603
- where it's a structural issue because you have a shared ball. But again, the only authoritative mechanism

00:06:04.603 --> 00:06:13.534
- is going to court and dealing with that on a case-by-case basis instead of holding a developer

00:06:16.802 --> 00:06:24.822
- I know you want to defer to Dave, but I do think that's a big part of this discussion, hearing from

00:06:24.822 --> 00:06:32.921
- the rental community from what their needs and concerns are. But what are other thoughts of what you

00:06:32.921 --> 00:06:41.342
- need to do as a county by seeing more of these developments and where does cleaning actually have a play

00:06:52.546 --> 00:06:59.197
- such as hand. They did that maybe, I don't know, five, six, seven years ago at the state level, but

00:06:59.197 --> 00:07:05.982
- hand is grandfathered. So even if the county wanted to start their own inspection program, we are now

00:07:05.982 --> 00:07:12.700
- part of it. Yeah, I mean, the front of battle I can do is women who are involved by hand and willing

00:07:12.700 --> 00:07:18.686
- to go, because if they're permitted and somebody comes in and has a complete application,

00:07:27.010 --> 00:07:44.819
- And I think that those two issues are separate. And we've just heard that you really can't do in like

00:07:44.819 --> 00:07:53.374
- the city, but quantity is is what's addressed in

00:07:56.290 --> 00:08:07.485
- over supply and shifting tenant behavior and qualifications. So I don't know if we can agree to stick

00:08:07.485 --> 00:08:19.228
- to one issue or we're going to be talking about. I personally disagree. I've seen one in the same quality,

00:08:19.228 --> 00:08:25.374
- quantity. I understand that they want to focus on that.

00:08:29.346 --> 00:08:38.685
- let's just permit all this housing with no quality assurance behind it. I can't distinguish between

00:08:38.685 --> 00:08:48.211
- it. I think it's a fair point. I don't know if that question surprises my curiosity or that answer as

00:08:48.211 --> 00:08:58.110
- far as we have conditions, we have standards. Could some of those be, if you want to do this, a condition

00:08:58.210 --> 00:09:07.046
- If it's not a condition, we could put conditions in place where they would have to commit to these things.

00:09:07.046 --> 00:09:15.635
- Enforcement is a big part of it. Also, understanding true occupancy and true demand is a complex issue,

00:09:15.635 --> 00:09:24.058
- too. So I'm appreciative of the letter, understanding that. It's just there's a lot to unravel there.

00:09:24.058 --> 00:09:27.774
- And personally, just based off of what I was

00:09:28.034 --> 00:09:44.178
- really nothing. It's not like I wasn't the only one that was interested in that discussion. That's just

00:09:44.178 --> 00:09:48.990
- my feelings around the matter.

00:10:14.402 --> 00:10:20.481
- like this. Mr President, what's that dry house? If you pause the question because we lost our teams.

00:10:20.481 --> 00:10:27.102
- Why are these people continuing to build? If this is like. Stand by for a second. Let's go get reestablished.

00:10:41.378 --> 00:10:49.374
- I mean, why do people keep building? Is there an element to shove the money into multifamily, affordable

00:10:49.374 --> 00:10:57.218
- kinds of things? Will you give me a favor? Because we lost teams. Just restate what your question was.

00:10:57.218 --> 00:11:05.062
- My question was, what is the city's position on with this condition that we're talking about here with

00:11:05.062 --> 00:11:09.022
- the department association? I don't think it's been

00:11:09.282 --> 00:11:16.034
- uh, brought up in one of our meetings yet, um, because this would happen, I think in between the, but

00:11:16.034 --> 00:11:22.653
- it's certainly something that probably used to be addressed, uh, from either Linncoin or elsewhere.

00:11:22.653 --> 00:11:29.272
- Um, but I know that, you know, it's, it currently sits with the UDO. I mean, you cannot allow these

00:11:29.272 --> 00:11:33.310
- things to go forward, but in terms of investment, uh, money,

00:11:33.666 --> 00:11:39.986
- I can't tell you the reason why they're continuing to go forward other than these projects have long

00:11:39.986 --> 00:11:46.430
- runways and they were already in the works and it's probably no trouble to stop them to continue with.

00:11:46.430 --> 00:11:52.875
- And one thing I would do is to say that in the past, most of the financing was done by local banks and

00:11:52.875 --> 00:11:59.195
- banks and they had a finger on the pulse of the market. The money now is coming from hedge funds and

00:11:59.195 --> 00:12:03.262
- all over the place where they- Venture capital. They don't care.

00:12:05.826 --> 00:12:15.348
- So perhaps the only, if you do believe that the role of planning is to steward development on land,

00:12:15.348 --> 00:12:25.251
- wise use of land, if you believe that, then the UDO has to change and the CDO has to prevent, make some

00:12:25.251 --> 00:12:33.726
- corrective actions so that we don't continue to have this oversupply and rampant kind of

00:12:35.042 --> 00:12:41.434
- use of land that could be used for the type of product that the residents say they want, which

00:12:41.434 --> 00:12:48.297
- is single-family homes. Yard, you know, this is the Midwest, this is what the surveys have shown that

00:12:48.297 --> 00:12:55.159
- people want. They don't necessarily. We would hope that a market analysis for a developer coming into

00:12:55.159 --> 00:12:57.918
- our area would take a look at the market

00:12:58.306 --> 00:13:03.463
- and see what the availability because of the input of additional students at IU, et cetera,

00:13:03.463 --> 00:13:09.292
- or loss thereof. And as a result, come up with a plan on whether or not they're gonna invest in another

00:13:09.292 --> 00:13:14.954
- apartment complex or even a hotel for that matter. If we're a convention center, you would hope that

00:13:14.954 --> 00:13:20.783
- that market analysis would be done. If I were investing in something like that, I wanna make sure those

00:13:20.783 --> 00:13:26.725
- people were doing their market analysis. But how do they do a market analysis on these zombie properties?

00:13:26.725 --> 00:13:27.902
- Like there are 4,250

00:13:28.226 --> 00:13:36.919
- units that are approved for the summit district on a PUD and that is not expired. That's a question

00:13:36.919 --> 00:13:45.698
- for the North Park. It's a question for these guys. I ask to follow up on that. It's like expiration

00:13:45.698 --> 00:13:54.652
- because we always talk about like things that have approval, underlining approval. Do we have language

00:13:54.652 --> 00:13:57.694
- that starts to make these a lapse?

00:13:58.146 --> 00:14:05.651
- and they have to go through a process again. Also, even if a PUD was granted or a major minor 10 years

00:14:05.651 --> 00:14:13.229
- ago, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't, if they started today, they wouldn't have to start complying

00:14:13.229 --> 00:14:20.589
- with it, or do they have to, or are they held within the context of what the ordinance was when they

00:14:20.589 --> 00:14:23.358
- first got their approval? It depends.

00:14:23.458 --> 00:14:30.139
- It depends. So it's a subdivision. It's final cloud and they just haven't built out the residences.

00:14:30.139 --> 00:14:37.020
- They're likely just going to go in and build as they are. There's no exploration to that. The lots are

00:14:37.020 --> 00:14:43.835
- created. But PUDs, if they haven't done a development plan yet, but they have an ordinance, that does

00:14:43.835 --> 00:14:50.516
- have a timeline to get an expiration. But it has to come before this board to officially expire it.

00:14:50.516 --> 00:14:51.518
- We've done it.

00:14:51.650 --> 00:14:58.353
- I believe one time we did it down in Harrisburg. We tried to bring forward one to expire, but then it

00:14:58.353 --> 00:15:05.253
- ended up being amended and kind of lessened in terms of intensity, but it wasn't expired. It's something

00:15:05.253 --> 00:15:11.956
- 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

00:15:11.956 --> 00:15:18.133
- potential underlining by right situations are, if you will. A handful might have to come back

00:15:18.133 --> 00:15:19.710
- and renegotiate, but my

00:15:21.090 --> 00:15:29.203
- overall thoughts on there is there is no guarantee that these underlining approvals means that they

00:15:29.203 --> 00:15:37.396
- will ever get to a build out phase. So, you know, by adding that into our equation of how many units

00:15:37.396 --> 00:15:45.509
- are actually available, that doesn't really reflect what the built out environment and actual units

00:15:45.509 --> 00:15:50.782
- are there for people for that year. So like, it's a very complex

00:15:51.618 --> 00:15:59.441
- discussion, but also I just want to touch on that since you brought it up, Ms. Clements, that I'm not

00:15:59.441 --> 00:16:07.110
- finished. Thank you. I know, but Mr. President, when I hear the signing and things, it's disrupting

00:16:07.110 --> 00:16:14.933
- and it makes me lose my train of thought sometimes. Sorry. It's just a complex situation. I just want

00:16:14.933 --> 00:16:17.310
- to distinguish between the two

00:16:17.410 --> 00:16:27.890
- and we do need to be problematic to make sure that we are looking at sustainable build-outs and growth.

00:16:27.890 --> 00:16:37.968
- Okay. Okay. There again are some mixed confusing kind of levels of analysis. One is we're referring

00:16:37.968 --> 00:16:45.022
- to expiration that the county has on PUDs and we're not talking about

00:16:45.410 --> 00:16:54.849
- expiration that the city has on BUDs. And the example that was raised, which was the Summit District

00:16:54.849 --> 00:17:04.381
- BUD with 4,250 units, that was approved in 2024. We don't know exactly when that BUD expires, and we,

00:17:04.381 --> 00:17:09.054
- this body, have no control over that or oversight

00:17:09.154 --> 00:17:18.521
- with that. The same is true with the Hopewell project that has 750 units. And that was approved, I guess,

00:17:18.521 --> 00:17:27.357
- this year. And we don't know when the expiration of that project is or even what form it's going to

00:17:27.357 --> 00:17:36.282
- take because it hasn't been fully through the proposal process for the contractor to build the unit.

00:17:36.282 --> 00:17:37.342
- Never mind.

00:17:37.858 --> 00:17:47.025
- Nevermind, there are still a lot of units that have really come online in the last several years that

00:17:47.025 --> 00:17:56.191
- have resulted in what I see is this foreseeable conundrum, which we have an oversupply of one type of

00:17:56.191 --> 00:18:05.537
- housing. And it has now become alarming to the apartment association. And there are still many approved

00:18:05.537 --> 00:18:06.526
- apartments

00:18:06.850 --> 00:18:16.432
- that have yet to be built. So I think that that's the issue and that we should be charged with discussing

00:18:16.432 --> 00:18:25.743
- and what role the county should take as a plan commission when we see this type of multifamily housing

00:18:25.743 --> 00:18:34.782
- come before us and what type of collaboration can we do with the city to ensure that we can work to

00:18:35.010 --> 00:18:44.907
- ensure that the type of housing that people who live and work in Bloomington actually want is being

00:18:44.907 --> 00:18:55.199
- built, you know? Julie or David Henry, is David Henry on there? Yes. You guys have any comments, Julie?

00:18:55.199 --> 00:19:03.710
- None at this time, thank you. Okay, David Henry? None for me either today, thank you.

00:19:04.802 --> 00:19:12.001
- My, I think we had pretty good discussion. My only point was is that I treat this as a, almost as a

00:19:12.001 --> 00:19:19.272
- public document of this kind. And in our discussions, as we continue down this housing conundrum, as

00:19:19.272 --> 00:19:26.111
- Margaret said, this is a data point that we should bring up on occasion. And this now becomes,

00:19:26.111 --> 00:19:33.526
- in my mind, a source document. This is now a source document. It's a data point that we can use in the

00:19:33.526 --> 00:19:34.462
- discussions.

00:19:34.722 --> 00:19:40.524
- If in fact somebody is going to come in and they want to build something in the county, one of the questions

00:19:40.524 --> 00:19:45.953
- we're going to ask if this is still valid is that your occupancy rate is below 90%. Is this something

00:19:45.953 --> 00:19:51.329
- you still want to do? Is it something your investors want to take and invest in? And they might say,

00:19:51.329 --> 00:19:56.759
- well, that's not our interest because it's one of these out-of-state investment consortiums that want

00:19:56.759 --> 00:20:02.135
- to come in and just build, build, build, and then after 10 years walk away. But this, in my mind, is

00:20:02.135 --> 00:20:03.998
- a data phone. That's what this is.

00:20:04.290 --> 00:20:12.046
- Who is the department association? I mean, how many people, what's their backgrounds? What's the? So

00:20:12.046 --> 00:20:19.955
- the executive director, Suzanne, I believe her background is she owns a private company that partially

00:20:19.955 --> 00:20:28.402
- helps with management of private HOAs. So you can hire her on to help with your subdivisions, HOA management,

00:20:28.402 --> 00:20:33.470
- make sure fees are collected and things are getting done on time.

00:20:33.602 --> 00:20:40.890
- It's made up of a lot of different apartment complexes in the community. I don't know if they're getting

00:20:40.890 --> 00:20:47.969
- the ones that are outside investors, but there are a lot of familiar names there at the organization.

00:20:47.969 --> 00:20:55.048
- There is some overlap with the building association, but I would say more so it's two separate groups

00:20:55.048 --> 00:21:00.670
- talking about on the round table. So it's nice that you get to discuss with them

00:21:00.962 --> 00:21:08.079
- What tactics are these folks using to get more leases and how is that impacting your business? Tammy

00:21:08.079 --> 00:21:15.126
- overheard one person say they offer first month of rent free and people were actually moving in for

00:21:15.126 --> 00:21:22.314
- one month and moving out and getting free rent for a month. Yes, so they were having to deal with the

00:21:22.314 --> 00:21:29.431
- turnover and the cleanup and short term leases are certainly causing that more breakup of continuity

00:21:29.431 --> 00:21:30.206
- of leases.

00:21:31.202 --> 00:21:38.315
- Excellent. Any other questions on this topic? Okay, let's move on to the next item of administrative

00:21:38.315 --> 00:21:45.851
- business. And correct me if I'm wrong, because this admin business, number one, there's no public comment,

00:21:45.851 --> 00:21:52.541
- and it will be decided by this body, correct? Okay, now the first Southern Meadows items here,

00:21:52.541 --> 00:21:55.006
- phase one, phase two, phase three,

00:21:55.362 --> 00:22:01.500
- Do you want to do them as a bundle? You want to do them independently? You want to take them and do

00:22:01.500 --> 00:22:07.761
- a bundle and have individual motions? What's the best way to present them? I would say the first one,

00:22:07.761 --> 00:22:13.961
- phase one, could be done separate and then phase two and three together. Is that okay? David, please

00:22:13.961 --> 00:22:20.468
- proceed with- Okay. Well, SIA 22.3 will share phase one performance period extension and inflation adjust

00:22:20.468 --> 00:22:23.230
- performance guarantee amount. Okay. So- Yes.

00:22:24.354 --> 00:22:34.199
- The screen is not being shared, at least on the laptop. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Over to you,

00:22:34.199 --> 00:22:43.948
- Jack. All right. So phase one, this was continued from our original discussion in March. So this one

00:22:43.948 --> 00:22:53.214
- is a request to extend the period of time. So those phases one through four have been recorded.

00:22:53.890 --> 00:23:02.800
- I believe it was late 2024, early 2025 that the Planning Commission reviewed the phasing change to Southern

00:23:02.800 --> 00:23:11.462
- Meadows for phases 4, 5, and 6. They stated that they wanted to rearrange some phasing due to the demand

00:23:11.462 --> 00:23:20.702
- of housing. First three phases are pre-CDO, last three phases are post-CDO. That's kind of the difference here.

00:23:21.058 --> 00:23:28.268
- Though they have the bond and the performance guarantee in place for phase one, now that the timeline

00:23:28.268 --> 00:23:35.478
- has come to their performance period, we need to do an inflation adjustment for the extension and get

00:23:35.478 --> 00:23:42.547
- it officially granted. So they're asking for two more years. So originally their expiration is this

00:23:42.547 --> 00:23:46.718
- August 18th, 2026. They would like until August 18th, 2028

00:23:46.850 --> 00:23:54.360
- to complete all the improvements and get it accepted into the inventory. So the red text here is what's

00:23:54.360 --> 00:24:01.580
- different than what you saw in March. So I just wanted to give an update. So basically the Planning

00:24:01.580 --> 00:24:08.801
- Commission when you met, you asked, what are some of the progress items that have been made? What's

00:24:08.801 --> 00:24:16.094
- going on out at phase one? So they have been communicative and basically they have focused in on the

00:24:16.354 --> 00:24:23.398
- What's called Walmart the conditional letter math revision which is needed for the turn lane on South

00:24:23.398 --> 00:24:30.441
- Roger Street. They said that that basically the application is in they've received the first round of

00:24:30.441 --> 00:24:37.692
- comments and they estimate it could be 12 to 36 months for approval. So best case scenario August twenty

00:24:37.692 --> 00:24:41.214
- twenty seven worst case August twenty twenty nine.

00:24:41.826 --> 00:24:48.361
- So we also received a letter of the blind squirrels or the C I and L property that adjoins the phase

00:24:48.361 --> 00:24:54.896
- one has been purchased by a new developer and they are moving forward with developing that property.

00:24:54.896 --> 00:25:01.626
- There's footings in on the townhomes, one of the phases, but they're okay with the multi-use path going

00:25:01.626 --> 00:25:07.902
- in after they finished construction. So something that they were supposed to do a long time ago.

00:25:08.226 --> 00:25:14.692
- but this new owner says, wait, I'm going to be doing the townhomes. I don't want it to be basically

00:25:14.692 --> 00:25:21.287
- torn up and then have to redo the path myself. So they've come to an agreement on that part. So we do

00:25:21.287 --> 00:25:27.947
- have those two new exhibits in the packet. I'll also mention that the Highway Department has continued

00:25:27.947 --> 00:25:34.477
- to express concerns about the lack of a turn lane on South Rogers Boy both ways and continues to get

00:25:34.477 --> 00:25:36.158
- complaints by the public.

00:25:36.706 --> 00:25:43.783
- We talked about internally, maybe some signage that we could add, but we're not sure what that might

00:25:43.783 --> 00:25:51.000
- be, where it would be located. Really, we just like to see the full market approved so that they could

00:25:51.000 --> 00:25:58.357
- do the construction in that area and make it safer for the motor public and the end conditions. So other

00:25:58.357 --> 00:26:05.854
- than that, we did receive as well before the last meeting and we've assessed, you know, missing items. So,

00:26:06.274 --> 00:26:14.645
- We have missing street trees, a few missing sidewalks, curb and gutter missing in some places. And usually

00:26:14.645 --> 00:26:22.546
- that coincides with the lots left to be developed. So we do have some 2026 aerials in place now, but

00:26:22.546 --> 00:26:30.448
- most of the phase one, you know, it is mostly built out, but phase one does include the common area.

00:26:30.448 --> 00:26:32.638
- And then they also did, um,

00:26:32.802 --> 00:26:39.992
- Do some bill in the floodway, which is kind of what progressed the, the, uh, Walmart necessity on South

00:26:39.992 --> 00:26:47.112
- Roger street. So they had to do compensatory storage. So basically they had to dig out in the area for

00:26:47.112 --> 00:26:54.095
- where they overfilled and make that net neutral as best they could. That is shown in the aerials and

00:26:54.095 --> 00:26:59.902
- this is the plat for phase one. And then the original estimate here, which totaled.

00:27:00.034 --> 00:27:08.042
- $337,382.64. And then I've included some as well. So here you can see that they've got the contours

00:27:08.042 --> 00:27:16.049
- and the sidewalks for certain segments. So for instance, the long lots, 71, 70, and 69, there is no

00:27:16.049 --> 00:27:24.458
- sidewalks. But as of the date of this aerial, those homes are not yet constructed. So that's not unusual

00:27:24.458 --> 00:27:29.022
- that they wouldn't put the sidewalks in until that time.

00:27:29.602 --> 00:27:37.030
- And then the last exhibits down towards the end of the packet, like I mentioned, are the letter from

00:27:37.030 --> 00:27:44.458
- the developer to the West stating they're okay with the timeline for the multi-use path being later.

00:27:44.458 --> 00:27:51.960
- And then the FEMA confirmation that they did in the submit, they've been in correspondence with us on

00:27:51.960 --> 00:27:57.182
- that. So staff is recommending for this phase, a inflation adjustment.

00:27:57.442 --> 00:28:06.250
- and the two-year extension. And that is partially because we would like to see this phase one and all

00:28:06.250 --> 00:28:14.886
- the phases completed by the developer. And with that inflation, it would be a total of $371,120.90.

00:28:14.886 --> 00:28:24.040
- And as a reminder, here's what we have actions to be able to do if we deny them from a performance period

00:28:24.040 --> 00:28:24.990
- extension.

00:28:25.410 --> 00:28:32.250
- So we draw the financial guarantee the county can or may complete all or some of the improvements as

00:28:32.250 --> 00:28:39.090
- the funding allows. So taking this amount without the inflation adjustment and withdraw that and try

00:28:39.090 --> 00:28:43.966
- to complete the fund, complete the project using an outside contractor.

00:28:44.482 --> 00:28:50.745
- And then if there's any necessary additional funds needed, sue the developer for any funds necessary

00:28:50.745 --> 00:28:57.008
- to complete the improvements and fund the maintenance bond. And then finally, we can seek any remedy

00:28:57.008 --> 00:29:03.209
- necessary to review the purposes of this chapter, the performance guarantee checker, and as allowed

00:29:03.209 --> 00:29:10.030
- by law or this ordinance. When we spoke about this case in March and the developer did review that recording,

00:29:10.030 --> 00:29:12.510
- they expressed in person that they were

00:29:12.642 --> 00:29:20.053
- really hoping that the plan commission would give them the ability to have the two more years and that

00:29:20.053 --> 00:29:27.248
- they believe that they will get the project done. Rudy, you're up first. Do you have any questions?

00:29:27.248 --> 00:29:34.730
- Do you buy it? Do you feel like these people are truly engaged and moving? So from the Asbiltz and from

00:29:34.730 --> 00:29:40.702
- what was approved, there are a lot of deviations. I don't think that by the end of

00:29:40.962 --> 00:29:47.488
- the completion of all improvements that those will be done in a fashion that will allow the highway

00:29:47.488 --> 00:29:54.079
- department to accept those improvements. I think it will get finished. I don't know that it will get

00:29:54.079 --> 00:30:00.605
- accepted. And there will be the battle that we have to go forward with, which is how do we get them

00:30:00.605 --> 00:30:07.327
- to now take out segments of sidewalk in front of people's homes, including people's driveways that are

00:30:07.327 --> 00:30:08.958
- now built out, fix them,

00:30:09.314 --> 00:30:18.205
- and then try to get it accepted in a timely fashion. So we will see that for later subdivisions as well.

00:30:18.205 --> 00:30:27.435
- Joe, got any questions? What's the impact to the residents that have bought those houses in the neighborhood

00:30:27.435 --> 00:30:33.278
- if this continues, if we extend this out two years, does this impact

00:30:33.410 --> 00:30:40.808
- quality of life and ownership there. Does it impact safety initiatives by not having certain infrastructure?

00:30:40.808 --> 00:30:47.663
- I guess that would be my question. I would say that luckily the big components are in the stormwater

00:30:47.663 --> 00:30:54.451
- infrastructure is in bus curb and gutters and pavement is in what I think is, you know, problematic

00:30:54.451 --> 00:31:01.374
- as we keep these extensions going. Maybe not the first two years, but beyond that time period is that

00:31:01.666 --> 00:31:08.353
- the maintenance of those infrastructure improvements are on the developer. Every snowstorm, that developer

00:31:08.353 --> 00:31:14.728
- is out there plowing or hiring someone to plow. Over time, they can lose some interest in doing that.

00:31:14.728 --> 00:31:21.103
- They can get some of the neighbors to complain, hey, I've got to really be out of the neighborhood at

00:31:21.103 --> 00:31:27.353
- five in the morning, you can't come at seven. I think that that kind of thing would not organize by

00:31:27.353 --> 00:31:29.790
- the county or a governmental entity or

00:31:29.954 --> 00:31:37.152
- you know, something like that, there's a little bit of back and forth that can occur. But otherwise,

00:31:37.152 --> 00:31:44.422
- the delay for the later phases, which we'll talk about, is impacting some neighboring connectivity of

00:31:44.422 --> 00:31:51.976
- development of another major subdivision that was reliant upon some of these timelines stated. So without

00:31:51.976 --> 00:31:56.894
- this getting done, then another development is not getting done. So.

00:31:57.026 --> 00:32:03.143
- As far as like safety signs things, I know there's some concerns about your lanes and things like that,

00:32:03.143 --> 00:32:09.083
- and especially with no removal, that's another safety issue. Is there anything, if these do continue

00:32:09.083 --> 00:32:15.199
- to be issues, you know, six, 12 months down the road, but within the two-year period, is there anything

00:32:15.199 --> 00:32:21.139
- 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

00:32:21.139 --> 00:32:25.374
- for the duration? So the inflation adjustment is getting people moving.

00:32:25.538 --> 00:32:34.207
- I also think that the developer was entertaining or interested in getting a reduction. And when we reviewed

00:32:34.207 --> 00:32:42.555
- those as built with them, we actually saw not a reduction, but an increase by like $2,000. So they kind

00:32:42.555 --> 00:32:50.983
- of walked away from the reduction idea because they weren't able to achieve that. So holding that amount

00:32:50.983 --> 00:32:52.990
- of money does get things

00:32:53.378 --> 00:33:00.484
- moving in the right direction. I don't think that a two-year timeline is going to impact the quality

00:33:00.484 --> 00:33:07.731
- of life of those residents in that phase. I'm glad to see that phase four was plotted, which gave them

00:33:07.731 --> 00:33:14.907
- access to College Drive. There was at least two instances in the last two years where that one access

00:33:14.907 --> 00:33:20.254
- point at Baton Rogers was closed off for a short time period, whether it be

00:33:20.386 --> 00:33:28.692
- the tornado that went through that area or flooding or things like that. We're glad to have that other

00:33:28.692 --> 00:33:36.998
- access point there. Margaret? Well, I just have to commend you, Jackie and Tammy, for all the work you

00:33:36.998 --> 00:33:44.498
- do in working with the developer, knowing all these details, advocating for the residents in

00:33:44.498 --> 00:33:49.982
- those neighborhoods, foreseeing the complications that can arise if

00:33:50.210 --> 00:33:56.902
- this is prolonged. And I just am so impressed by the report you've given and the detail of information

00:33:56.902 --> 00:34:03.853
- and your work with the developer. So thank you for doing all that. I appreciate it. I think the Strongline

00:34:03.853 --> 00:34:10.545
- program has done a fantastic job of being out there and trying to work with the developer as well with

00:34:10.545 --> 00:34:17.236
- the deviations that we've seen between plans and what gets built. They're trying to work with them the

00:34:17.236 --> 00:34:20.030
- best that we can. That's great. Thank you.

00:34:20.546 --> 00:34:25.782
- Yeah, yeah, I expressed public safety concerns when we talked about this in March and it's been five

00:34:25.782 --> 00:34:30.967
- months and nothing has changed other than the situation getting worse. Now that the blind squirrels

00:34:30.967 --> 00:34:36.359
- 2.0 construction is started and I saw somebody walking in the road just a couple days ago right in that

00:34:36.359 --> 00:34:42.062
- area. So I realized that the new developer doesn't want the side path there while they're doing construction,

00:34:42.062 --> 00:34:47.350
- but I think the reality is that side path should have been there years ago, so it should have already

00:34:47.350 --> 00:34:50.046
- been there. So I just think we're at a point where.

00:34:50.274 --> 00:35:04.827
- what we're trying to do isn't working, and we need to go in a different direction. Julie, you got anything?

00:35:04.827 --> 00:35:18.302
- I do not. Thank you. She said, I do not. All right. David? I do not. Thank you. OK, Tron? Oh, yeah.

00:35:18.690 --> 00:35:28.173
- Where exactly is that side path, like on the area at all? Sure. And my question is. It would go like

00:35:28.173 --> 00:35:38.501
- this. And then it connects. And where is the area that's in the flow plane for the FEMA, the LOMA? Basically.

00:35:38.501 --> 00:35:45.918
- There. Oh, man. So it's not necessarily the entire side path, but it's within.

00:35:46.466 --> 00:35:54.087
- The side path is with the outside of the flood. Okay. It's cool, right? Okay. So the side path,

00:35:54.087 --> 00:36:02.343
- you know, that was like, that's a different phase, which actually was forecast where I'm going to bring

00:36:02.343 --> 00:36:10.600
- this conversation. And it's just the same. So just, I want to make sure that like where they're looking

00:36:10.600 --> 00:36:15.998
- to work within that floodplain, forget Loma, where it's like almost

00:36:16.802 --> 00:36:24.590
- change. Even if we went about it and didn't extend this performance bond and wanted to go and try to

00:36:24.590 --> 00:36:32.532
- do some of these improvements, we also would have to go through that process, that construction in the

00:36:32.532 --> 00:36:40.320
- floodway or Loma. So it's not going to help expedite that issue. I think that also goes with some of

00:36:40.320 --> 00:36:46.334
- the discussion with safety, like the developers are already going through it.

00:36:47.074 --> 00:36:53.779
- I would almost think that we'd have to restart the process and it might delay it a bit because they're

00:36:53.779 --> 00:37:00.288
- already going through that process. So I just wanted to kind of bring a little light to that. So it

00:37:00.288 --> 00:37:06.993
- looks like they could be working on the side path. That would be nice. Is that side path in this phase

00:37:06.993 --> 00:37:09.662
- or they committed to do it in phase one?

00:37:10.722 --> 00:37:17.146
- And that's what I was really going to ask. And I spent some time trying to find the phasing plan, but

00:37:17.146 --> 00:37:23.569
- I didn't find it. And that's not the faculty, is it? No, I don't think so. This is phase one, though,

00:37:23.569 --> 00:37:29.867
- right here. So each of the packets have their different phases. And I guess my point there is there

00:37:29.867 --> 00:37:36.291
- is that connection to the school that's in a different phase, where luckily we allowed a switching of

00:37:36.291 --> 00:37:40.510
- the set phases so they could actually make that second connection.

00:37:40.738 --> 00:37:49.657
- which was really important. And I guess my real point is, personally, I think we might be more in a

00:37:49.657 --> 00:37:58.754
- carrot versus a stick situation by extending this and also getting those other phases completed where

00:37:58.754 --> 00:38:05.086
- it does have some community benefit with the connection to the school.

00:38:05.346 --> 00:38:15.846
- And also to that development that needs to create that second egress too. And if we decide to pull and

00:38:15.846 --> 00:38:26.449
- not extend the funds and do what we can limit, it'll be limited. It won't be exactly what we're hoping.

00:38:26.449 --> 00:38:34.910
- The developer may not pursue with the additional phases. And that's a big concern.

00:38:35.266 --> 00:38:42.367
- for me. And then I guess my question is, and I know it's more opinion, they can defer not to answer,

00:38:42.367 --> 00:38:49.680
- that's fine. Would you agree with my analogy that right now we have like a better carrot situation than

00:38:49.680 --> 00:38:56.992
- a stick with extending this performance period? I would say that they still have homes and lots of they

00:38:56.992 --> 00:39:03.742
- want to sell in phase one and we'll continue to improve on those and get those improvements in.

00:39:04.130 --> 00:39:11.609
- I agree with your statement that even if the county takes this project on, we still have to do the Clomar

00:39:11.609 --> 00:39:18.876
- process. And so that's not going to save us any time if they've already submitted for that. So I don't

00:39:18.876 --> 00:39:26.143
- know if the county can do it any faster than Tom at this juncture. I will say that the issue of phases

00:39:26.143 --> 00:39:28.542
- five and six being final plotted,

00:39:28.706 --> 00:39:35.622
- because of the requirement before phase five could be plotted that they had to do the turn lane, they

00:39:35.622 --> 00:39:42.470
- will have to let it expire because it also expires the 18th. And we told them that back in March and

00:39:42.470 --> 00:39:49.861
- said, please come back to the plan commission and redo your approval. So it does not expire. And essentially

00:39:49.861 --> 00:39:54.878
- they said they'll just let it expire right now. Well, that's unfortunate.

00:39:55.906 --> 00:40:05.325
- And this is the Shermer major subdivision that was going to connect if this got plotted in a certain

00:40:05.325 --> 00:40:15.023
- time period. So now Shermer is also subject to exploration. Well, thank you for addressing my question.

00:40:15.023 --> 00:40:25.374
- Again, I just don't know what would put us in the best situation. My feelings are extending it and seeing what

00:40:25.602 --> 00:40:33.039
- else can be improved and readdressing this in two years, even though I agree with you that it would

00:40:33.039 --> 00:40:40.551
- be nice that this would move a lot faster. So my comments are, I'm a worst case guy. So let's assume

00:40:40.551 --> 00:40:47.468
- the worst case here. Let's assume that we do not think and extend the period of performance.

00:40:47.468 --> 00:40:53.790
- And in fact, we stop what's going on out there. There's work stoppage at that point.

00:40:54.754 --> 00:41:00.928
- on that entire facility in phase one, does it all come to a halt? Is he obligated in any way, shape,

00:41:00.928 --> 00:41:07.040
- or form to finish any type of change order or task order or anything with any of the homeowners who

00:41:07.040 --> 00:41:13.153
- live in that area already? Is he obligated to do that? Or does he just say, you're not gonna extend

00:41:13.153 --> 00:41:19.265
- my period of performance, so I'm going to take and stop all work on the property? Do you ask him to

00:41:19.265 --> 00:41:24.094
- stop all work or that he would voluntarily stop all work? And he do stop work.

00:41:25.378 --> 00:41:31.965
- Uh, he could, I mean, if we cashed his credit, he's not going to touch any more sidewalks. I got it.

00:41:31.965 --> 00:41:38.551
- You answered my question on that. Who owns the property? He does, right? On the lots not sold. He is

00:41:38.551 --> 00:41:45.333
- both the developer and the builder. Okay. And so assuming that assuming he can still move forward with,

00:41:45.333 --> 00:41:51.855
- um, could he develop on those individual lots at that point? That's the trickle. Not as a, not as a

00:41:51.855 --> 00:41:54.398
- subdivision, but as an individual lot.

00:41:59.138 --> 00:42:09.193
- There's been some state law on how to defer a date. Would you think we can still issue a permanent location

00:42:09.193 --> 00:42:18.690
- permits for vacant lots without a valid performance guarantee if we knowingly cash it or don't extend

00:42:18.690 --> 00:42:29.118
- the timeline? If there are funds under the law, if there's any performance left, then you have to keep issuing.

00:42:29.794 --> 00:42:39.502
- the occupancy permits and building permits. I don't know whether funds in hand from that letter of credit

00:42:39.502 --> 00:42:48.936
- would be the same as a letter of credit. Can't you check versus? I just don't know. When you say don't

00:42:48.936 --> 00:42:56.446
- know, do you mean like that would be determined by like adjudication and a judge?

00:42:56.578 --> 00:43:02.325
- that the legislature declared. Even if you had case law that wouldn't give you a certainty, the arbiter

00:43:02.325 --> 00:43:08.017
- would still be a judge to make that determination? Well, it would be a case law. As in, that means the

00:43:08.017 --> 00:43:13.985
- judge had. Where I'm going with this is that if, in fact, we decided not to extend a period of performance,

00:43:13.985 --> 00:43:19.566
- and, in fact, this would go to litigation, everything would pretty much come to a halt until a judge

00:43:19.566 --> 00:43:24.318
- decided what's going to happen in that step, correct? You would think. I would think.

00:43:25.474 --> 00:43:31.790
- So that impacts the people who live in that area. And so let's assume that, let's say that he has a

00:43:31.790 --> 00:43:38.422
- work stoppage and now the county is responsible and we have that 330,000 K and some change, who is going

00:43:38.422 --> 00:43:44.738
- to take into response before taking that money and building out the rest of the infrastructure? Who

00:43:44.738 --> 00:43:51.180
- does that go to? Does that go to the highway department to do that or you have to contract it out? We

00:43:51.180 --> 00:43:52.254
- contract it out.

00:43:52.482 --> 00:43:58.829
- Okay, so we go through a period of time and do you have to compete that you have to compete that contract

00:43:58.829 --> 00:44:04.937
- will be like an RFP or something like that. Okay, you see we're going with this. It's this is the you

00:44:04.937 --> 00:44:11.104
- go through litigation you go through your P process you have to bring on a contractor you got to take.

00:44:11.104 --> 00:44:17.152
- 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

00:44:17.152 --> 00:44:21.822
- responsible for that area because we didn't extend the period of performance.

00:44:22.754 --> 00:44:28.282
- Does everything have to be done with respect to everything that needs to be done for the area before

00:44:28.282 --> 00:44:33.866
- the county would accept an inventory and start plowing the neighborhoods? That could mean even taking

00:44:33.866 --> 00:44:39.394
- out what's there and replacing it correctly. It would not happen until all of those things are done.

00:44:39.394 --> 00:44:45.087
- OK, so you can see what we have. We got the people left high and dry. They they're not getting the work

00:44:45.087 --> 00:44:49.630
- done that needs to be done because it's all caught up in like litigation. The the.

00:44:49.858 --> 00:44:56.378
- bring it into an inventory is delayed because we've got RFPs out there which are competing and we don't

00:44:56.378 --> 00:45:02.836
- have a contract and so on and so on. I mean, this is a, in my opinion, this is a very serious question

00:45:02.836 --> 00:45:09.168
- that we're trying to resolve here. I mean, it also has a precedent for anything we do in the forward

00:45:09.168 --> 00:45:14.622
- as we move forward. I accept what Jeff said over here and we've had some dealings with

00:45:15.522 --> 00:45:22.307
- with this developer before in other areas and it's almost risk mitigation. We're in a risk mitigation

00:45:22.307 --> 00:45:29.026
- at this point. How much risk do we want to take and expect versus if we don't accept that risk, what

00:45:29.026 --> 00:45:35.744
- the outcome is and who in fact is going to take and manage something like that. So I will say though

00:45:35.744 --> 00:45:41.598
- that the amount that we are asking for with an inflation adjustment is going to be over

00:45:42.050 --> 00:45:48.570
- what it would take for anyone to do the work, right? Hypothetically, because we're adding the 10% per

00:45:48.570 --> 00:45:55.026
- year and there's been progress, albeit not all that could be accepted, but let's say 70% of it could

00:45:55.026 --> 00:46:01.802
- be considered correct and acceptable. If we just take the money that we have today without the inflation,

00:46:01.802 --> 00:46:08.194
- maybe, but if we continue to assess the inflation, I think that gets us closer to the mark and gets

00:46:08.194 --> 00:46:11.774
- us in a safe spot should the county have to take it on.

00:46:11.874 --> 00:46:20.293
- and do the work. But as long as they're in the game, I would encourage us to continue to just assess

00:46:20.293 --> 00:46:29.046
- the inflation adjustment, establish real timelines, and keep the feet to the fire and let them continue.

00:46:29.046 --> 00:46:37.549
- I like that. I think that keep it booked and sorted out the end. I don't know, to Jeff's point, if we

00:46:37.549 --> 00:46:39.966
- could condition the two-year

00:46:40.322 --> 00:46:48.555
- extension on possibly the side path going in any sooner. Such as like see above the town homes or or

00:46:48.555 --> 00:46:56.952
- at least I'm not sure what they did not state a new timeline other than the developer of the town said

00:46:56.952 --> 00:47:05.022
- I'm okay with it not going in right now building. So I don't know what that means. So I'm sure so.

00:47:05.506 --> 00:47:12.261
- The addition of a side path, though, would that yield a decrease in financial obligation that he doesn't

00:47:12.261 --> 00:47:18.887
- put up? Would there be a release of that predicated on that being completed to spec? So they did apply

00:47:18.887 --> 00:47:25.384
- for a reduction without that side path. But if they didn't put the side path in, yes, that's part of

00:47:25.384 --> 00:47:29.694
- the estimate. So we would explicitly be able to reduce the amount.

00:47:29.794 --> 00:47:36.625
- What they submitted so far for reduction, like I said, we kind of evaluated the as-built and there were

00:47:36.625 --> 00:47:43.455
- certain segments of sidewalk either missing or maybe not incorrectly. And with the in-dot cost changes,

00:47:43.455 --> 00:47:50.154
- we just weren't able to get there with a true reduction. So as they make progress and come back, yes,

00:47:50.154 --> 00:47:57.248
- we could consider a reduction. If that seems like an easy path for them to get a reduction, it's definitely

00:47:57.248 --> 00:47:58.430
- something. Right.

00:47:58.594 --> 00:48:06.123
- So it seems like they're the shortest barriers to decrease the amount of the side path, regardless of

00:48:06.123 --> 00:48:13.504
- what the other developers. Okay. The problem with it is if they put in the side path today and they

00:48:13.504 --> 00:48:21.107
- don't get acceptance review for two more years and the developer destroys that side path of, you know,

00:48:21.107 --> 00:48:22.878
- clear creeks developer.

00:48:23.010 --> 00:48:33.943
- 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

00:48:33.943 --> 00:48:44.456
- want to do a choice. That was my question. That was my exact question. All right. Anybody else have

00:48:44.456 --> 00:48:51.710
- any comments? David or Julie? I guess I have a question to a fellow.

00:48:52.066 --> 00:49:00.090
- I can just remember based off of the understanding that if they built that out in advance and then the

00:49:00.090 --> 00:49:08.270
- other development damages it or even makes it unfassable, does that constitute a difficulty, a practical

00:49:08.270 --> 00:49:16.138
- difficulty in a sense where that I understand that we should have had it already done and maybe even

00:49:16.138 --> 00:49:20.734
- accepted, but since that was kind of something that you've

00:49:21.794 --> 00:49:28.414
- focused on. I was kind of curious what your thoughts were, if you want to share now after this discussion.

00:49:28.414 --> 00:49:34.725
- Yeah, I mean, I understand if I were the developer of Blind Schools 2.0, I wouldn't want to put it in

00:49:34.725 --> 00:49:40.912
- either because I would be afraid it would get torn up. But my biggest concern is the fact that this

00:49:40.912 --> 00:49:47.162
- was approved and started in 2022, I think, and we're four years in, and this continues to impact the

00:49:47.162 --> 00:49:48.894
- safety of the neighborhood.

00:49:49.858 --> 00:49:55.850
- fear that someday I'm going to hear sirens and, you know, find out somebody was hit in that area. Is

00:49:55.850 --> 00:50:01.783
- there a temporary, there's something that they could do on a temporary basis? Oh, we haven't talked

00:50:01.783 --> 00:50:07.716
- about that. Is there a temporary thing they can do? Clear Creek trails over, you know, to the west,

00:50:07.716 --> 00:50:13.648
- the Clear Creek trail is there, but the post office, you know, rebuilt and then the parking lots on

00:50:13.648 --> 00:50:16.318
- that, the blind spoke property. So you have,

00:50:16.674 --> 00:50:23.521
- passing traffic back and forth, albeit with a crosswalk, there is no sidewalk. So we have an encouragement

00:50:23.521 --> 00:50:29.920
- for pedestrians to get from the parking area to the post office crossing that intersection where we

00:50:29.920 --> 00:50:36.447
- don't yet have a turn lane. So we impose a temporary fix. People are using Roger Street to access the

00:50:36.447 --> 00:50:43.294
- trailers to spur across Southern Meadows. And then there's the part Jackie's talking about that intersects

00:50:43.294 --> 00:50:43.998
- that road.

00:50:44.354 --> 00:50:51.140
- A hundred feet west of rogers. So they're just fucking on the shoulder there. Yeah. Walking through

00:50:51.140 --> 00:50:58.061
- the dirt. There's a, yeah. So it's like a parking area here. And then the rail. Trail right here, the

00:50:58.061 --> 00:51:04.983
- clear freak trails right here. So you can actually park here. Go to the post office or come up and go

00:51:04.983 --> 00:51:09.054
- to this trail here. It's a trail. Yeah. And it's, it's not.

00:51:09.890 --> 00:51:17.151
- I think it's people in the neighborhood that are walking the trail, but it's not isolated. It's multiple

00:51:17.151 --> 00:51:24.135
- times a week I see people on foot with now construction traffic on both sides of the road. So that's

00:51:24.135 --> 00:51:31.327
- my only thought. So we don't do tiptoe. They could do a gravel path of some sort, but I don't know that

00:51:31.327 --> 00:51:37.758
- it's something that we would, I mean, you're putting people between the right of way of road

00:51:38.050 --> 00:51:44.895
- Rogers and a construction site zone. And is there a portion that is complete, like the bioretention

00:51:44.895 --> 00:51:51.946
- area, perhaps maybe just having a short segment that could be built because they are finished with the

00:51:51.946 --> 00:51:58.928
- bioretention area might be more reasonable. So you keep people on. But then you're not really totally

00:51:58.928 --> 00:52:04.062
- encouraging them to be right next to the construction of a building. Yeah.

00:52:04.642 --> 00:52:11.409
- I'm trying to directly answer your question. I'm going to hesitantly vote in favor of this, because

00:52:11.409 --> 00:52:18.244
- based on the discussion, I think that the developer continuing is the best path forward. I just want

00:52:18.244 --> 00:52:25.620
- to share my thoughts around the safety issues. And your concern matters. And it's getting close to splitting

00:52:25.620 --> 00:52:32.455
- hairs, so more understanding of where you're at helps me make the decision. Thank you. I do have one

00:52:32.455 --> 00:52:33.470
- last question.

00:52:34.978 --> 00:52:41.017
- When we take and ask for the increase for the performance bond, what we say here is from a reasonable

00:52:41.017 --> 00:52:47.233
- time period. Can we put a stipulation on when that should be done? Just like that? No, I'm talking about

00:52:47.233 --> 00:52:53.449
- the reasonable time period for the increase in the performance, the later letter of credit. We say there

00:52:53.449 --> 00:52:59.783
- in a recommendation, you have to prove the developer's requirement to sign a new performance bond document

00:52:59.783 --> 00:53:03.454
- and update the amount posted within a reasonable time period.

00:53:03.586 --> 00:53:12.312
- Yes, we can state what the deadline is. You can put a date, yeah, and you put a specific date in there?

00:53:12.312 --> 00:53:20.871
- Yes. I would need a new letter of credit before the 18th, because that's when the performance. Can we

00:53:20.871 --> 00:53:29.514
- put a date on that recommendation then? Pick a date, what date? 18th. Okay, put that on there. For the

00:53:29.514 --> 00:53:32.702
- expiration date, okay. I reluctantly,

00:53:32.962 --> 00:53:41.741
- and moving toward approving this as well. Just because of the argument or comments I put on the table

00:53:41.741 --> 00:53:50.692
- is that be careful what you ask for. It might be worse than what you currently have. So anyway, I think

00:53:50.692 --> 00:53:58.697
- we're at that point unless there's no more comments for a motion. Do we have a motion? Sure.

00:53:58.697 --> 00:54:02.398
- You got it. I moved in the matter SIA-22-3

00:54:03.458 --> 00:54:11.333
- the extension of performance completion schedule. The staff recommends approving a two-year performance

00:54:11.333 --> 00:54:18.906
- period with our inflation adjustment amount. Is that what I really need to read all that? They have

00:54:18.906 --> 00:54:26.781
- approved the developer required to sign new performance bond documents, update the amount posted within

00:54:26.781 --> 00:54:32.990
- a reasonable time period with the thought that additionally that the date of that

00:54:33.346 --> 00:54:43.944
- performance bond would be included with this recommendation. He wants to be late today. It's 18 August.

00:54:43.944 --> 00:54:53.726
- Yeah. Yeah. 18 August. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second.

00:54:53.890 --> 00:55:02.181
- Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve SI 22-3, which is the Southern Meadows phase one performance

00:55:02.181 --> 00:55:09.931
- period extension. There's been a motion and second to approve until August 18th, 2028. And with the

00:55:09.931 --> 00:55:17.990
- stipulation that a new performance bond document and a new letter of credit with the amount of $371,120

00:55:17.990 --> 00:55:22.174
- and 90 cents is submitted to the planning department.

00:55:22.626 --> 00:55:33.833
- by August 18th, 2026. The vote yes, is a vote to approve. Brown and Red Renda? Yes. Scott Ferris? Yes.

00:55:33.833 --> 00:55:45.476
- Jeff Morris? Hesitantly yes. David Henry? Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Also hesitant yes. Margaret

00:55:45.476 --> 00:55:51.678
- Clements? Yes. Okay, the motion does pass seven to zero.

00:55:53.026 --> 00:56:00.944
- All right, let's turn the page. Now, did you want to bundle the 22, 27, and 23.5 into one? Yeah. Okay,

00:56:00.944 --> 00:56:08.786
- go ahead. The reason being for those two remaining phases, I think the issues are minimal compared to

00:56:08.786 --> 00:56:16.474
- phase one. There's not any common areas in these phases, and so you're really just looking at built

00:56:16.474 --> 00:56:20.702
- out lots. So I'll just show you pictures of phase two,

00:56:23.042 --> 00:56:31.885
- This is phase two here. So primarily constructed. There are some segments that are yet to be built out.

00:56:31.885 --> 00:56:40.388
- And I've zoomed in on those for you. And you can tell kind of where the sidewalk ends is consistent

00:56:40.388 --> 00:56:47.870
- with those plots that have yet to be built out. And then we have an estimate of 106,000

00:56:47.970 --> 00:56:55.919
- $863.89 with inflation that goes up to about 117,000. And then we do have the as well. So we've assessed

00:56:55.919 --> 00:57:03.792
- what's left in the neighborhood and what is still remaining. I did want to be transparent to state that

00:57:03.792 --> 00:57:11.438
- we have been working with the developer on an enforcement case. They have started to address some of

00:57:11.438 --> 00:57:16.510
- these items such as in the green box. So there were some lots that

00:57:16.642 --> 00:57:23.683
- were being occupied without MS4 coordinator at the time, now Stormwater program manager, review of the

00:57:23.683 --> 00:57:30.655
- ASVILS, which was allowed to hold up certificate of occupancy. So there are still some remaining lots

00:57:30.655 --> 00:57:37.627
- that we believe are occupied, but do not have certificate of occupancy at last check, which was right

00:57:37.627 --> 00:57:39.678
- as this packet was published.

00:57:40.098 --> 00:57:50.057
- But you can see they have been making progress to rectify some of the past lots that were being occupied

00:57:50.057 --> 00:57:59.542
- without certificate of occupancy. And then they have done the remediation work for the placement of

00:57:59.542 --> 00:58:09.406
- the fill in the floodway. And then phase three is they have a letter of credit on file for $193,920.29.

00:58:09.538 --> 00:58:17.841
- Renew the letter of credit, and if this performance period is adjusted to two more years, it would go

00:58:17.841 --> 00:58:26.145
- up to $213,312.32. This one is even more straightforward. It does not include any common areas. There

00:58:26.145 --> 00:58:35.262
- was one cost feature on this lot, but otherwise, there was just lots for development. So mostly built out here.

00:58:35.746 --> 00:58:43.156
- We do still see some issues such as the ADA crosswalks. There was a driveway put in a slightly different

00:58:43.156 --> 00:58:50.355
- spot. So we only have one ADA ramp on this side instead of the two that were originally in the plans.

00:58:50.355 --> 00:58:57.695
- So we've worked with them. This one is the closest to maybe being at the point of a possible reduction,

00:58:57.695 --> 00:59:05.246
- but they're still trying to work with us on the other two phases. So they're making progress on this area.

00:59:07.106 --> 00:59:14.497
- So that's phase three. So with that, staff is recommending approval on both phases two and three, getting

00:59:14.497 --> 00:59:21.749
- those additional two years. And we would recommend since the first phase as a performance bond document

00:59:21.749 --> 00:59:28.862
- and new letter of credit with a deadline of the 18th, we think that's a good idea to include on these

00:59:28.862 --> 00:59:35.486
- other phases as well. All right, let's go with comments. Tron, we'll start with you this time.

00:59:35.938 --> 00:59:43.298
- Just one. And stipulate whether it's phase two or phase three with your comments? I'm not certain, and

00:59:43.298 --> 00:59:50.514
- that's the question. I was trying to pull up, I think, what was it? Phase two, I was able to see the

00:59:50.514 --> 00:59:57.874
- other phases. Phase two, and then I was able to see phase three. So my question is, I guess, the lower

00:59:57.874 --> 01:00:05.662
- part, is that all phase five where the two houses are built out? And my question is, are we still looking at

01:00:05.858 --> 01:00:15.233
- creating that connector to the school. So that was part of phase five that got re-figured with

01:00:15.233 --> 01:00:25.101
- the re-phasing. Phase five and six are to the south. So they so far plotted phases one, two, three,

01:00:25.101 --> 01:00:35.166
- and four. I see some homes south already built out. Sure. On the 2026 area, that might be phase four.

01:00:36.610 --> 01:00:43.322
- which has been plotted. Right. Because phase four got split into some. And this kind of goes back to

01:00:43.322 --> 01:00:50.299
- what we were talking about. Part of phase four is like up here and then the other part was. Yeah, that's

01:00:50.299 --> 01:00:56.944
- right. Yeah. So if you zoom in like right there, see where that whole structure is. So I guess they

01:00:56.944 --> 01:01:04.254
- don't really have, they have the property, but it would be a big ask to ask for that connector. I really was,

01:01:04.482 --> 01:01:11.300
- excited about that potential connector. That's true. So the connector is supposed to come off of a cul-de-sac

01:01:11.300 --> 01:01:17.746
- that comes roughly in this area and goes down to the school, I think, through this way. It wasn't. They

01:01:17.746 --> 01:01:24.069
- do have a path that's going to be, you can see it graded in here. So that will be part of this phase,

01:01:24.069 --> 01:01:30.701
- and they are constructing that. OK. That's fine. Thank you. That was my question. Hard to piece everything

01:01:30.701 --> 01:01:33.118
- together without seeing all the faces.

01:01:34.082 --> 01:01:48.101
- David Henry, you got a question? I do not, I'm good, thank you. Okay, Julie? No questions, thank you.

01:01:48.101 --> 01:02:01.982
- Yeah, Margaret? No. And Rudy? All right, I don't have any questions. Do we have a motion for both 22

01:02:02.114 --> 01:02:09.786
- 27 and 23. So we'd have to stipulate each price maybe. Do you want to take them one at a time or do

01:02:09.786 --> 01:02:17.459
- you want to take them both at the same time? We can do them one at a time. Okay, let's go ahead and

01:02:17.459 --> 01:02:25.361
- do 2227 first. Do we have a motion for 2227? We have a motion that we approve the two-year performance

01:02:25.361 --> 01:02:31.422
- period extension with the required inflation adjustment amount of $117,550.28.

01:02:32.258 --> 01:02:43.047
- If approved, the developer is required to sign new performance form documents and update the amount

01:02:43.047 --> 01:02:53.945
- posted within a. 18 do we want to 18? OK, August 18th, 2026. That is my emotion. Do we have a second

01:02:53.945 --> 01:03:00.958
- second motion or second? OK, it's been moving second to approve.

01:03:01.218 --> 01:03:10.050
- as a dash 22 dash 27, which is a two-year performance period extension until August 18th, 2028. The

01:03:10.050 --> 01:03:18.970
- developer is required to post a new performance guarantee in the amount of $117,550.28, along with a

01:03:18.970 --> 01:03:27.802
- new performance bond document. And that will both be submitted to the Planning Department by August

01:03:27.802 --> 01:03:28.862
- 18th, 2026.

01:03:28.962 --> 01:03:38.561
- A vote yes is a vote to approve with that requirement. Scott Farris? Yes. Jeff Morse? Yes. David Henry?

01:03:38.561 --> 01:03:48.069
- Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Brandon Wright-Randolph? Yes. Motion

01:03:48.069 --> 01:03:57.022
- is approved, seven to zero. All right, let's move on to 23.5. Do we have a motion? I'm prepared.

01:03:58.402 --> 01:04:08.324
- I recommend approving the two-year performance period extension with the required inflation adjustment

01:04:08.324 --> 01:04:18.054
- amount of $213,312.32. If approved, the developer is required to sign new performance bond documents

01:04:18.054 --> 01:04:24.894
- and update the amount posted within a with posted with the date August

01:04:26.530 --> 01:04:38.423
- on or before August 18th, 2026. Second. Again, it's been moved and seconded to approve SAA-23-5 Southern

01:04:38.423 --> 01:04:49.750
- Meadows Phase 3. A vote yes is a vote to approve an inflation adjustment of $213,312.32 valid until

01:04:49.750 --> 01:04:51.902
- August 18th, 2028.

01:04:52.866 --> 01:05:01.489
- and also to require the developer to submit a new performance bond document and new letters of credit

01:05:01.489 --> 01:05:10.281
- in the inflation adjustment amount by August 18th, 2020. This vote yes is the vote to approve with that

01:05:10.281 --> 01:05:18.904
- requirement. Jeff Morris? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Maria Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Mark Clements?

01:05:18.904 --> 01:05:21.694
- Yes. Tron and Ray Randolph? Yes.

01:05:22.178 --> 01:05:31.342
- Scott Farris? Yes. Motion is approved, 7-2-0. All right. So we're going to move on to Highland Park.

01:05:31.342 --> 01:05:40.505
- And I think you probably want to present these all together, correct? Is that the way you want to do

01:05:40.505 --> 01:05:47.038
- it, Tammy? Mm-hmm. Okay. And that's 2234, 225, and 226, please proceed.

01:05:52.354 --> 01:06:06.186
- This one is looking at three SIA numbers and just sort of an update with phase five. You all actually

01:06:06.186 --> 01:06:15.678
- saw this back in April 7th, 2026. We did kind of an update back then.

01:06:15.906 --> 01:06:23.917
- And you all had recommended that we continue to work with the developer to see if they could complete

01:06:23.917 --> 01:06:32.006
- some improvements or provide estimates because they really do have this carrot of phase five that they

01:06:32.006 --> 01:06:40.095
- recently replatted and they weren't to be able to sell those five lots and finish out that part of the

01:06:40.095 --> 01:06:45.278
- subdivision. That phase five is due to expire in March next year.

01:06:45.538 --> 01:06:52.679
- And so they're really, I actually just did talk with the developer on the phone today. And I think after

01:06:52.679 --> 01:06:59.752
- them reading this report, it is kind of lighting the fire under them to want to get this done and start

01:06:59.752 --> 01:07:06.553
- sending out letters to the neighbors with their driveways that are not compliant, fix the sidewalks

01:07:06.553 --> 01:07:13.150
- and that sort of thing. But back in April, we had sent them this letter right after the meeting.

01:07:13.442 --> 01:07:19.941
- gave them a lot of information on what they could do, what are the next steps, what we need to see them

01:07:19.941 --> 01:07:26.439
- do. And they didn't really do anything. Jackie has talked with them within the last week. I just talked

01:07:26.439 --> 01:07:32.688
- with them today after they read the staff report. And so I think that they are still wanting to not

01:07:32.688 --> 01:07:39.249
- have us cash the bonds. They want to finish this work themselves and get it accepted into the inventory,

01:07:39.249 --> 01:07:41.374
- work with the highway department.

01:07:42.306 --> 01:07:49.800
- And yeah, I think this one, we still have a bond on file for phase three. This is a surety bond, $310,000.

01:07:49.800 --> 01:07:56.943
- And we have a letter of credit for phase four for $132,000. And he's confident that this is more than

01:07:56.943 --> 01:08:03.947
- enough to fix what's out there, even though we've never seen an estimate, we've never seen as bills

01:08:03.947 --> 01:08:10.110
- like redone for these phases. The problem is that we can only spend that money in phase

01:08:10.882 --> 01:08:17.359
- Phase 3 for Phase 3 and Phase 4 for Phase 4. We have Phase 2 that has never been completed and we do

01:08:17.359 --> 01:08:23.901
- not have any financial guarantee on file for that one. So just to kind of reiterate, this is Phase 2.

01:08:23.901 --> 01:08:30.506
- If you don't have a financial guarantee on file for this section here, then it's completely built out,

01:08:30.506 --> 01:08:37.240
- but we still need to see corrections to the sidewalks. This is Phase 3. They still have two vacant lots,

01:08:37.240 --> 01:08:40.062
- but they did put in the sidewalks for those

01:08:40.482 --> 01:08:48.123
- And we do have that 310,000 in a surety bond, which we have actually asked to be a letter of credit.

01:08:48.123 --> 01:08:55.916
- Surety bonds are more difficult for staff to administer if you do need to cash them in. And then phase

01:08:55.916 --> 01:09:03.557
- four has the letter of credit for 132,000. And I think it's mostly built out also. What they haven't

01:09:03.557 --> 01:09:09.534
- finished is phase five. And phase five, this is the petition that was approved

01:09:10.050 --> 01:09:18.937
- In 2024, it is set to expire early 2027. It's five lots. They are unable to flat it until they meet

01:09:18.937 --> 01:09:28.003
- these conditions. And the conditions are basically complete phases two, three, and four, or submit as

01:09:28.003 --> 01:09:34.846
- builds, give us new estimates with the inflation, and get those things done.

01:09:36.066 --> 01:09:43.048
- I am not sure if they've gone to the traffic commission for parking signs yet. I think they did do this

01:09:43.048 --> 01:09:49.761
- 24 foot wide road change. And this is what the flat looks like. Those are these two roads. And they

01:09:49.761 --> 01:09:56.809
- have the sidewalks in and they have street trees in for this. Like it's ready to be platted, but because

01:09:56.809 --> 01:10:03.590
- we have a written commitment, well, because we have a condition that we require a written commitment

01:10:03.590 --> 01:10:04.798
- that they tell us

01:10:05.634 --> 01:10:12.815
- When they're gonna have the other phases done, or they finish those other phases, it's not something

01:10:12.815 --> 01:10:20.210
- they can pursue yet to get this plan done and recorded. So our recommendation for this one is to extend

01:10:20.210 --> 01:10:27.889
- the performance period until December 31st, 2026 to complete all the work and have an application submitted

01:10:27.889 --> 01:10:34.430
- to the highway department for acceptance into the inventory. If the developer fails to meet

01:10:34.530 --> 01:10:40.766
- This final deadline staff recommends that we draw all financial guarantees on file and forward this

01:10:40.766 --> 01:10:47.252
- to legal department to file a complaint for not completing the improvements in the time period required

01:10:47.252 --> 01:10:53.613
- under the subdivision and provision agreement and as extended by the plan commission. I will say that

01:10:53.613 --> 01:11:00.347
- Jeff Crider was unable to attend this, but he gave me his cell phone and if we wanted to ask him questions,

01:11:00.347 --> 01:11:01.470
- we could call him

01:11:01.954 --> 01:11:09.232
- He thought that the language in staff report was a little bit harsh. He didn't think it needed to come

01:11:09.232 --> 01:11:16.368
- to the point of us getting the legal department involved. He really thinks that within the next four

01:11:16.368 --> 01:11:23.999
- months, he could get crews out there, notify the neighbors, have things lined up to get this work completed

01:11:23.999 --> 01:11:30.782
- and looking to be something that the highway department would accept into the county inventory.

01:11:32.834 --> 01:11:40.687
- I think that's all I have to say about that. Do you want to talk about, or do we need to talk about,

01:11:40.687 --> 01:11:48.463
- and obviously what you're recommending here is a little bit different than what you're recommending

01:11:48.463 --> 01:11:56.549
- for the other ones, correct? Are they all the same recommendation? They are. I mean, the recommendation

01:11:56.549 --> 01:12:00.126
- is to extend performance period for basically

01:12:00.290 --> 01:12:09.245
- all three of them, it would be nice if we had an estimate and performance, like financial guarantee

01:12:09.245 --> 01:12:18.200
- for phase two, but it's unlikely we can get that without having pass votes, an estimate discussion.

01:12:18.200 --> 01:12:27.244
- So we're just leaning on getting it done. All right, so let's go ahead and start over here with you,

01:12:27.244 --> 01:12:30.110
- Rudy. Questions? Steve? Arthur?

01:12:30.850 --> 01:12:41.026
- Jeff. Julie. I just have a comment, which is pretty basic. I understand that they may believe that this

01:12:41.026 --> 01:12:50.811
- language is harsh, but it's been a long time and I think we need to proceed this way to ensure that

01:12:50.811 --> 01:12:57.758
- things get done. Thank you. David. No comment. Okay. Over to you from.

01:13:01.986 --> 01:13:11.051
- You said the care is another face is that the face of the more that it's vacant, not blathered right

01:13:11.051 --> 01:13:20.564
- now. That's only five blocks. Yeah, five blocks. That's a common area. And they built the road sidewalks.

01:13:20.564 --> 01:13:28.731
- I see the road. Okay, cool. I just wanted to understand the size of the size of that care.

01:13:28.731 --> 01:13:30.526
- No other questions.

01:13:30.818 --> 01:13:39.435
- I support the recommendation and the language, which is pretty direct. So we're ready for a motion.

01:13:39.435 --> 01:13:48.742
- For cases SIE-22-34, 22-5, and 22-6, I move extending the performance period until 12-31, 20-26 to complete

01:13:48.742 --> 01:13:57.790
- all work and have an application submitted to the Highway Department for acceptance under the inventory.

01:13:58.018 --> 01:14:04.298
- If the developer fails to meet this final deadline, staff recommends we draw the financial guarantees

01:14:04.298 --> 01:14:10.763
- on file and forward this to the legal department to file a complaint for not completing the improvements

01:14:10.763 --> 01:14:17.412
- in the time period required under the subdivision improvement agreement and was extended by the commission.

01:14:17.412 --> 01:14:24.062
- Is it okay if I ask you about a question about your motion? It says staff recommends we draw all financial,

01:14:24.418 --> 01:14:31.526
- or are we going to readdress this or if they don't make that deadline, are we instructing that we do

01:14:31.526 --> 01:14:38.985
- move forward with drawing? That's a question. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that correctly

01:14:38.985 --> 01:14:46.233
- with your motion. And if you would permit, I would be curious what staff is looking for because that's

01:14:46.233 --> 01:14:50.526
- ambiguous a little bit to me. Are you okay with me having to

01:14:50.626 --> 01:14:58.236
- jump in the middle of that motion? I can share my thought on it. My thought is by making this motion,

01:14:58.236 --> 01:15:05.770
- I'm saying that we go ahead now and approve staff to do this what we've mentioned here at the end of

01:15:05.770 --> 01:15:13.678
- the year if it's not done. OK, so I guess if that's what your intent is, I would say the staff recommends

01:15:13.678 --> 01:15:20.318
- you would say that we have staff. I would say we direct staff then instead of recommend.

01:15:20.706 --> 01:15:29.776
- Great. I'll second that motion to extend the discussion period and see what planning was intending with

01:15:29.776 --> 01:15:38.759
- that. I think we have a motion and a second. I don't think there's any other discussion required. I'll

01:15:38.759 --> 01:15:48.702
- go ahead and reiterate just to approve it and then reread it. So the motion and the second is to approve SA-22-34

01:15:48.994 --> 01:15:57.558
- as a dash 22 dash five and as a 22 dash six. And the Parker state spaces, two, three, and four. And

01:15:57.558 --> 01:16:06.293
- this is to approve the performance period until December 31st, 2026. And the motion is to, uh, if the

01:16:06.293 --> 01:16:14.686
- develop also, it would be to extend the performance period until 1231, 2026 to complete all work.

01:16:14.978 --> 01:16:21.731
- have an application submitted to the highway department for acceptance into the inventory. If the developer

01:16:21.731 --> 01:16:28.046
- fails to meet this final deadline, the plan commission direct staff to draw all financial guarantees

01:16:28.046 --> 01:16:34.298
- on file for this to the legal department to file a complaint for not completing the improvements in

01:16:34.298 --> 01:16:40.800
- the time period required under submission improvement agreement and as extended by the plan commission.

01:16:40.800 --> 01:16:43.614
- A vote yes is a vote to approve. Dave Henry.

01:16:45.282 --> 01:16:56.176
- Yes. Rudy Fields? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. Howard Clements? Yes. Tron and Wright-Randolph? Not understanding

01:16:56.176 --> 01:17:06.264
- staff's position. I'm going to abstain because I'm not certain if that was the intent. Scott Fairs?

01:17:06.264 --> 01:17:14.334
- Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Okay. Motion still passes six to zero to one. All right.

01:17:14.850 --> 01:17:24.598
- SIA 2218, which is extension of performance period and inflation adjust performance guarantee a map

01:17:24.598 --> 01:17:33.956
- for column three lot minor subdivision. And Tammy, I think this is you, right? Yeah. All right.

01:17:33.956 --> 01:17:41.950
- This one. So we currently have a letter. Well, it's a cashier's check for 20,000.

01:17:42.274 --> 01:17:54.471
- $777.88 on file. We had done a primary amendment under SMN-25-5, just full under a year ago, so November

01:17:54.471 --> 01:18:06.669
- 2025, and that was approved, which had a lot of engineered designs to improve the intersection at Walnut

01:18:06.669 --> 01:18:10.270
- Street Pike and Holland Drive.

01:18:10.818 --> 01:18:18.367
- and that included some sidewalk rework, some widening of the road, curb and gutter, things that were

01:18:18.367 --> 01:18:25.842
- going to make that intersection more safe, which to date that work has not been able to take place.

01:18:25.842 --> 01:18:33.764
- There were two conditions that were put in with that, which was to also provide designs for the driveways

01:18:33.764 --> 01:18:37.950
- for lots one and two and three, make sure that they had

01:18:38.754 --> 01:18:46.510
- ingress egress to those properties, but also worked well with the cross slopes. And to date, I don't

01:18:46.510 --> 01:18:54.189
- think I even have seen a lot three right of way activity permits submitted for the driveway design.

01:18:54.189 --> 01:19:02.098
- I also don't think it's been to the drainage board for the other two blocks. So they haven't met these

01:19:02.098 --> 01:19:06.014
- two conditions. I have heard from the developer of

01:19:07.042 --> 01:19:14.118
- all in fields phase one, which kind of intersects with this development. And I also have heard from

01:19:14.118 --> 01:19:21.689
- the developer, the developers representative for this Holland three lot minor. And they are going through,

01:19:21.689 --> 01:19:28.836
- they were trying to get a mediation date in place. They have one for this coming Friday. And I think

01:19:28.836 --> 01:19:36.478
- the purpose of that is to kind of designate who does what, who's responsible for what at that intersection.

01:19:37.058 --> 01:19:45.402
- and they still haven't figured out if there's that fiber cable, how much of an interference that's going

01:19:45.402 --> 01:19:53.666
- to be with the corrections that are needed for this intersection and this to make it so that the county

01:19:53.666 --> 01:20:02.010
- can accept this into the inventory. So I think they still have a little ways to go. They have two, let's

01:20:02.010 --> 01:20:06.142
- reiterate, that's this intersection here and fixing

01:20:06.242 --> 01:20:14.355
- these two driveways proving that we have a good access to this one and then widening and fixing the

01:20:14.355 --> 01:20:22.468
- sidewalks that have never been completed for this area here. So just kind of going through and this

01:20:22.468 --> 01:20:30.986
- driveway here would have to be reconstructed. Also this one for lot one also reconstructed because right

01:20:30.986 --> 01:20:34.718
- now they're just not safe, not ADA compliant.

01:20:35.394 --> 01:20:44.012
- Uh, we did during the, uh, primary plot amendment, we did get a new performance period. Um, we got new

01:20:44.012 --> 01:20:53.048
- as builds with an estimate. So previously we only had $5,000 on file to fix this. Now we have this $20,000.

01:20:53.048 --> 01:21:02.000
- Um, but they missed their performance period. And so, um, what they need to do and what they're requesting

01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:04.510
- is that they extend it until.

01:21:05.890 --> 01:21:14.688
- June 30th of 2027. So a little less than a year. They also were willing to add the inflation cost to

01:21:14.688 --> 01:21:23.486
- that current estimate that we have on file. So we would need to see this extra $2,077.79 on file. We

01:21:23.486 --> 01:21:32.284
- don't accept maintenance bonds until the highway department goes to accept it. So that's not part of

01:21:32.284 --> 01:21:34.462
- the conversation really.

01:21:34.658 --> 01:21:43.220
- With that, we do have kind of a lengthy recommendation. I'll go ahead and read it into the record. So

01:21:43.220 --> 01:21:52.203
- the staff recommends a one-year extension of the performance period until June 30th, 2027 with an adjusted

01:21:52.203 --> 01:21:59.422
- inflation amount of $22,855.67 based on the approved estimate shown in exhibit three.

01:22:00.226 --> 01:22:07.389
- The amount moving forward will not include maintenance bond amount as that will be required at the time

01:22:07.389 --> 01:22:14.346
- of acceptance and release of these funds per chapter 833. It is subject to the following conditions.

01:22:14.346 --> 01:22:21.234
- One, that they submit additional financial guarantee in the form of a letter of credit or cashier's

01:22:21.234 --> 01:22:25.022
- check in the amount of $2,077.79 by August 28th, 2026.

01:22:25.634 --> 01:22:32.773
- An updated performance bond document shall be signed and recorded by September 11th, 2026. An updated

01:22:32.773 --> 01:22:39.843
- subdivision improvement agreement document shall be signed and recorded by September 11th, 2026. And

01:22:39.843 --> 01:22:47.542
- the petitioner shall apply for right of way acceptance on or before May 1st, 2027. That's the recommendation.

01:22:47.542 --> 01:22:52.862
- And this should give them some time to go through their scheduled mediation

01:22:53.378 --> 01:23:02.398
- Um, with Holland fields phase one developer and then also, um, just correct. Yeah. So deciding body

01:23:02.398 --> 01:23:12.139
- or we the deciding body or is the plan commission property deciding body? I should have put administrative.

01:23:12.139 --> 01:23:21.790
- That's new to me. All right. So Tom, we'll start with you on questions. Uh, no questions. David questions.

01:23:23.234 --> 01:23:33.086
- None at this time, thank you. Julie? None for me, thank you. All right, Jeff? No. Margaret? No. Steve?

01:23:33.086 --> 01:23:42.842
- No. Rudy? No. I have no questions, do we have a motion? For case SIA-22-18, I move that we accept the

01:23:42.842 --> 01:23:50.302
- recommendation as read by Ms. Beerman. Second. We have a motion and a second.

01:23:50.882 --> 01:24:02.312
- It's been moved and seconded to approve SA-22-18 with the motion and conditions as stated by Henry Beerman.

01:24:02.312 --> 01:24:13.424
- A vote yes is a vote to approve. Ruby Fields? Yes. Billy Thomas? Yes. Mark Pellman? Yes. Ronan Raikenda?

01:24:13.424 --> 01:24:19.774
- Yes. Scott Farris? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. David Henry? Yes.

01:24:20.738 --> 01:24:28.774
- Motion is approved, 7-0. All right, that moves us to unfinished business. There is none. So we move

01:24:28.774 --> 01:24:37.211
- on to new business, which is a CDO text amendment. And who's going to lead the discussion on this, Janet

01:24:37.211 --> 01:24:45.328
- or Jackie? We only have 552 pages in the packet to go. And it says just 25 minutes. It does. It says

01:24:45.328 --> 01:24:48.542
- 25 minutes. Did you go through it? Yes.

01:24:49.698 --> 01:24:58.464
- So we did review a lot of these track pages from the ordinance review committee. We're glad to have

01:24:58.464 --> 01:25:07.406
- our legal department help us with some of the state laws that came into effect starting July one. One

01:25:07.406 --> 01:25:16.259
- of the nice things about the CEO is that we do have this revisions page which helps keep us on track

01:25:16.259 --> 01:25:17.662
- so you can tell

01:25:18.018 --> 01:25:25.420
- what we are asking for. So many of these changes are related to state law changes, but I'll just go

01:25:25.420 --> 01:25:32.969
- through and hit the big points because there are some that we are adding that staff led based on some

01:25:32.969 --> 01:25:40.519
- of the conversations we've had with the public and also just with staff amongst ourselves. So we were

01:25:40.519 --> 01:25:46.366
- recommending to add temporary or seasonal activity to the rez zoning district.

01:25:46.818 --> 01:25:57.405
- One of the things that we realized is that when we combined two zoning districts into res, we got rid

01:25:57.405 --> 01:26:08.097
- of that ability in one of those zoning districts. And so right now there's kind of a gap. Then we have

01:26:08.097 --> 01:26:13.598
- the boarding good, small, medium, large and big box.

01:26:13.986 --> 01:26:22.411
- That is a state ball chain, which basically says that exploiting goods stores itself. Firearms are permitted

01:26:22.411 --> 01:26:30.294
- in some of the agricultural areas as well as other areas of the county. So we are having to make that

01:26:30.294 --> 01:26:35.550
- change in the use table. And so we added that to the two-page here.

01:26:36.450 --> 01:26:45.233
- The next things that we're recommending this is staff led is to allow bus terminal in the heavy industrial

01:26:45.233 --> 01:26:53.688
- district. And that is partially because there is a. A parcel that is. Then you fought for the purposes

01:26:53.688 --> 01:27:01.897
- of constructing a bus terminal on profile parkway. And it's not zone for bus terminal right now. So

01:27:01.897 --> 01:27:04.606
- we'd like this be that added to.

01:27:04.866 --> 01:27:13.328
- hopefully prevent any issues of a rezone in the future. And then we have indoor shooting range as being

01:27:13.328 --> 01:27:21.953
- permitted with standards in several different zones. So like I mentioned, agricultural, limited business,

01:27:21.953 --> 01:27:30.171
- general business, and then it's light industrial, heavy industrial, narrow extraction, and I believe

01:27:30.171 --> 01:27:32.286
- airport as well. And then

01:27:32.834 --> 01:27:39.051
- There have been a lot of changes to the wireless communication facilities and that's one that I want

01:27:39.051 --> 01:27:45.207
- to go through a little bit more in depth. And then these are some of the changes again by state law

01:27:45.207 --> 01:27:52.286
- for removal of a member of the Planning Commission member. And then there were also some other definition changes.

01:27:53.090 --> 01:28:01.446
- So I'd like to spend some time on the wireless communication facilities and explain this so that we

01:28:01.446 --> 01:28:10.220
- can make the right change moving forward. There's maybe a little bit of room for discretion or direction

01:28:10.220 --> 01:28:18.993
- as opposed to some of these other ones that state law has kind of forced their hand on. Okay, so there's

01:28:18.993 --> 01:28:21.918
- wireless communication facilities.

01:28:29.826 --> 01:28:38.691
- So this is the beginning of the chapter here a 12 dash three. And one of the biggest changes that the

01:28:38.691 --> 01:28:45.470
- state law put into effect was that we are no longer allowed to regulate hike.

01:28:45.826 --> 01:28:52.978
- That used to be how we differentiated the process for these wireless communication facilities was if

01:28:52.978 --> 01:29:00.414
- it's over a certain height, it would go to the foreign zoning appeals. If it was under a certain height,

01:29:00.414 --> 01:29:07.921
- it may be by right and in a residential district. Now after reviewing the code with the legal department,

01:29:07.921 --> 01:29:12.382
- we do believe that we can still regulate these towers based on

01:29:13.122 --> 01:29:20.786
- appearance so we can say now all towers can be concealed in any zoning district and that's something

01:29:20.786 --> 01:29:28.375
- that we want to talk to you about. Do you want to see more concealed wireless towers in the county?

01:29:28.375 --> 01:29:36.494
- Is that something that is important to you? Without the ability to regulate height we're getting a request

01:29:36.494 --> 01:29:39.454
- in the office for a new 300 foot tower

01:29:39.618 --> 01:29:46.808
- They do have some grandfathered towers that are exceeding 300 feet, maybe the one on Nightridge. Is

01:29:46.808 --> 01:29:54.213
- that one like 350? I think one off of 045. That's pretty big. Pretty tall. So we do have some that are

01:29:54.213 --> 01:30:01.475
- over 300 feet, but we now would not even be allowed to limit, say, a 500 foot tower if somebody were

01:30:01.475 --> 01:30:04.926
- to choose to do so. So now we're thinking about

01:30:05.154 --> 01:30:12.454
- saying that they need to be concealed. There are some concealed towers in the county currently. There's

01:30:12.454 --> 01:30:19.684
- one near target. It looks like a flagpole, but it's a wireless tower. But here are some other examples

01:30:19.684 --> 01:30:26.914
- of a concealed tower here. This looks like a tree. Then you can also place it on other structures such

01:30:26.914 --> 01:30:32.670
- as a building. Typically, what we see though are new monopoles here with antenna.

01:30:32.834 --> 01:30:41.270
- and locations for co-locations. There's also been a lot of movement in state code for small cell facilities

01:30:41.270 --> 01:30:49.081
- and micro wireless facilities, which are typically in the right of way. So these would be something

01:30:49.081 --> 01:30:57.049
- that could be by right, not even with planning review, but they do have to meet certain requirements.

01:30:57.049 --> 01:31:00.798
- So this chapter, we're differentiating based on

01:31:01.154 --> 01:31:09.062
- requiring it to be concealed, it can be in any zoning district. If it's not concealed, we are saying

01:31:09.062 --> 01:31:16.891
- it can go into any industrial, institutional, or business zoning district. So that leaves out rural

01:31:16.891 --> 01:31:24.720
- residential, residential, and airport. And the reason for airport is because there's some FAA rules

01:31:24.720 --> 01:31:28.478
- that we can designate for height. So I want to,

01:31:28.834 --> 01:31:36.202
- there and say, is that something that the plane cushion agrees with? It's all all towers being concealed.

01:31:36.202 --> 01:31:43.361
- And then if they're not concealed, then they would have a different process if in different zones. I'm

01:31:43.361 --> 01:31:50.451
- happy to build language. I just didn't quite get that last thing that you said there about if they're

01:31:50.451 --> 01:31:54.622
- out in the county and they have to be concealed. If they're

01:31:54.882 --> 01:32:01.282
- in a rural residential, residential, or airport district, no matter what, concealed. If they're in some

01:32:01.282 --> 01:32:07.558
- of the business or industrial districts, they do not have to be concealed as written. So your farmers

01:32:07.558 --> 01:32:13.712
- field has got to have it concealed. Your farming field has to have it concealed. Yeah, that seems a

01:32:13.712 --> 01:32:19.988
- little... That's where you're going with that. Yeah, I just don't think that makes a lot of sense. In

01:32:19.988 --> 01:32:24.542
- the middle of town, you're going to have it sticking out there like that.

01:32:24.962 --> 01:32:31.602
- dog's parts. In the country, you're not. I just think that seems a little ludicrous. Out in California,

01:32:31.602 --> 01:32:38.114
- the pine tree, I mean, it's very common out there. I've seen it in New York, all over. As a matter of

01:32:38.114 --> 01:32:44.627
- fact, you really don't even know what's a tallow. They look really close. Except a pine tree that big

01:32:44.627 --> 01:32:51.139
- in the middle of the corn field. Oh, yeah, absolutely. You've got Sequoia sitting in the rain. You've

01:32:51.139 --> 01:32:53.246
- got Sequoia sitting in the rain.

01:32:53.794 --> 01:33:00.853
- Oh, I got a big hilltop out there. I know they've been looking at it for a long time. It seems a little.

01:33:00.853 --> 01:33:07.844
- You're not paying for it. I know you're not paying somebody. So you're going to have an unsightly tower

01:33:07.844 --> 01:33:14.634
- versus one looks like a fine tree out of your field, but you're going to have one antenna. You know,

01:33:14.634 --> 01:33:21.357
- I mean, what's the difference? But it's like you love you. Yeah, you put a flag forward. I mean, it

01:33:21.357 --> 01:33:23.710
- looks like you're have cell tower.

01:33:23.810 --> 01:33:39.968
- I'm so. It's okay Julie. Yes, I. I partly agree with what what Mister field saying I think it should

01:33:39.968 --> 01:33:51.646
- be. Masked or hidden everywhere. So that's so the part I agree with his.

01:33:51.778 --> 01:34:00.154
- in more congested areas, it's even more important to hide the tower. I actually have a question for

01:34:00.154 --> 01:34:08.613
- Mr. Schilling since he appears to be in the room. And that is one of the things we talked about when

01:34:08.613 --> 01:34:18.078
- this came up in the ordinance review committee was whether or not we have any ability to regulate these based on

01:34:18.786 --> 01:34:27.623
- especially with the larger, taller towers, not so much the micro minis on utility poles, but on the

01:34:27.623 --> 01:34:36.637
- regular self-standing, self-supporting towers, if we have the ability to regulate them based on their

01:34:36.637 --> 01:34:45.650
- fall zone to protect people and buildings. So I wonder if you could address that. Thank you. Yeah, my

01:34:45.650 --> 01:34:48.478
- recollection is that you cannot

01:34:48.994 --> 01:35:01.175
- The fall zone can be essentially zero feet. What we're saying is you have to accept the engineer's conclusion

01:35:01.175 --> 01:35:13.134
- on the fall zone. And they're coming in now saying, oh, these towers are designed to fall in on themselves.

01:35:13.134 --> 01:35:17.342
- And so there's a zero foot fall zone.

01:35:20.194 --> 01:35:27.547
- We have a requirement right now that we're allowed to impose a setback plus fall zone. But some of the

01:35:27.547 --> 01:35:34.686
- setbacks could be quite small, such as in the business district. I think it's five feet side. So if

01:35:34.686 --> 01:35:42.253
- they were to say the fall zone is zero feet, our only recourse under the state laws to hire our engineer,

01:35:42.253 --> 01:35:46.750
- a county paid engineer, to dispute their engineer's fall zone.

01:35:50.082 --> 01:35:57.766
- I just kind of. That's actually what I was going to ask, so happy that he jumped in there and asked

01:35:57.766 --> 01:36:05.680
- that question to Commissioner Thomas. And maybe this sorry I was at the ORC, but maybe this would have

01:36:05.680 --> 01:36:14.056
- been better then. But are we able to do anything as far as like immediate structure or residential structure

01:36:14.056 --> 01:36:19.742
- that they have to be so far away from so like instead of using a setback,

01:36:20.162 --> 01:36:30.028
- we use from a front door concept. It needs to be at least 150 feet away any immediate structure that's

01:36:30.028 --> 01:36:39.606
- occupied from a commercial, industrial, or residential. Did you explore that avenue of how we could

01:36:39.606 --> 01:36:50.142
- go about regulating leaves? There's always the variance process, so it's not shutting the door completely on.

01:36:50.722 --> 01:36:58.393
- the idea of building these, but, you know, it might be limiting where they can go based off of what

01:36:58.393 --> 01:37:06.293
- is already built out. Yeah, I don't think so. The way to get that set up is to be sure. OK, well, that

01:37:06.293 --> 01:37:13.964
- would just be something that I was kind of curious about. It kind of somewhat goes in line with the

01:37:13.964 --> 01:37:20.254
- fall zone. It's if we can't regulate a fall zone, but we can potentially regulate

01:37:20.418 --> 01:37:30.236
- you know, a proximity of how much distance they have to be from an occupied structure would be interesting.

01:37:30.236 --> 01:37:39.327
- Again, it's like another safety angle to the whole thing. My other question was more broadly, so we

01:37:39.327 --> 01:37:49.054
- can't regulate height, but we can regulate zones or we can just put different conditions on what zone they

01:37:49.730 --> 01:37:57.285
- So my question is, did they basically build anywhere regardless? Concealed. Concealed. And that's basically

01:37:57.285 --> 01:38:04.911
- because we have an ordinance that says they have to be concealed. So the way that the ordinance is currently

01:38:04.911 --> 01:38:12.606
- set up is the first part is here's what you can submit to us to get staff level approval and level of caring.

01:38:13.186 --> 01:38:20.177
- And then if they can't meet that, then they have to go and get a conditional use from the border. I

01:38:20.177 --> 01:38:27.378
- feel it's notified based off of could see it. OK, well, it could be Commissioner Thomas's comment. You

01:38:27.378 --> 01:38:34.648
- could say everywhere else we can feel no matter what, right? Which right now in the county we only have

01:38:34.648 --> 01:38:41.150
- it say differentiate between height. I think it's 60 feet or less is allowed in residential.

01:38:41.250 --> 01:38:50.470
- It's maximum 200 feet, but because we can't do any bike restrictions, then we're looking at other ways

01:38:50.470 --> 01:39:00.048
- that we can differentiate the process. So were they allowed to be built at the 150 without being concealed

01:39:00.048 --> 01:39:06.046
- in those zones that we're looking at now, industrial and business?

01:39:06.850 --> 01:39:14.825
- They were allowed that are not concealed up to 199 feet. So, okay, so now, okay, so we've been allowing

01:39:14.825 --> 01:39:22.646
- that for quite some time. We have been allowing up to 199 feet by right. Now they can build anything.

01:39:22.646 --> 01:39:30.927
- But now they can go up to 300, 400 feet whenever they would choose, but we've had these other requirements.

01:39:30.927 --> 01:39:33.534
- If you want them to be concealed,

01:39:34.946 --> 01:39:43.195
- Everywhere we could do that, but they have not had to be concealed everywhere. Yes. And that's thank

01:39:43.195 --> 01:39:51.934
- you. That's why I'm getting into Mr. Fields point. I think concealing and just create an aesthetic benefit

01:39:51.934 --> 01:39:59.774
- also additional cost where they might be needed to which you could go through a waiver process.

01:40:00.258 --> 01:40:08.284
- And we are conditional use process. And then I guess when we were referring to the city, that would

01:40:08.284 --> 01:40:16.632
- be the city's ordinance. So unless you're talking about like the fringe area. So those industrial part.

01:40:16.632 --> 01:40:23.454
- Yeah. Yeah. So there is significant area in the county, too. But OK, so I'm curious.

01:40:24.002 --> 01:40:31.530
- would we want to say anything that exceeds 199 feet must be concealed and then make that conditional

01:40:31.530 --> 01:40:39.506
- and then that preserves kind of what language we have here and they would have to go through a conditional

01:40:39.506 --> 01:40:46.960
- process to put anything up that's higher. And that's kind of where my thoughts are is if we already

01:40:46.960 --> 01:40:51.134
- had it as is, is that I wouldn't consider it overlooked

01:40:51.490 --> 01:40:58.695
- of us reviewing the ordinance is because the state came down with new language, we're reviewing it and

01:40:58.695 --> 01:41:06.039
- we could kind of keep it somewhat the same and anything they want to do that exceeds the 199, we require

01:41:06.039 --> 01:41:13.313
- it to be concealed. I don't know that we can have a breaking point in the ordinance that differentiates

01:41:13.313 --> 01:41:17.790
- the process based on height. That's all I was trying to get at.

01:41:18.338 --> 01:41:25.443
- So my question is, and maybe for those folks who are listening, maybe I just didn't hear it. The setbacks

01:41:25.443 --> 01:41:32.347
- and the fall zones, where are those dressed in the ordinance right now? I mean, you don't have to show

01:41:32.347 --> 01:41:39.251
- me, but they are dressed in the ordinance right now. They specifically state the setbacks and the fall

01:41:39.251 --> 01:41:45.953
- zones. So the fall zone itself is defined as the area in which a self-hour is designed to collapse.

01:41:45.953 --> 01:41:47.294
- We cannot establish

01:41:47.618 --> 01:41:54.620
- All cell towers have a fall zone of 50 feet. That's what's prohibited. My question is, is the language

01:41:54.620 --> 01:42:01.622
- in the ordinance assess that? The latter or the former? The latter. Okay, the latter. No, we don't say

01:42:01.622 --> 01:42:08.420
- that we're not allowed to regulate a fall zone with a defined distance. We're saying we can require

01:42:08.420 --> 01:42:15.219
- a fall zone plus the setback for the zoning district, though. And okay, what you just said, is that

01:42:15.219 --> 01:42:17.598
- stated somewhere in the ordinance?

01:42:19.714 --> 01:42:27.996
- So we're really talking about whether they need to be concealed or not. That's what the discussion part

01:42:27.996 --> 01:42:36.039
- is. OK. And whether you want them concealed in more districts. Right. Or if you like them concealed.

01:42:36.039 --> 01:42:44.958
- So Ron has made his point known. Anybody else have any thoughts on this going around the table? Julie or Daisy?

01:42:45.314 --> 01:42:52.848
- Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I do. And not to complicate the conversation, but I You know, I guess maybe I may

01:42:52.848 --> 01:43:00.382
- have missed it if it came up. I mean, I guess I'd like to see an overlay of the current Your reach of

01:43:00.546 --> 01:43:06.462
- cellular or wireless in the county because yeah the the overlap of a rural area in the southern part

01:43:06.462 --> 01:43:12.729
- of the county that probably also doesn't have broadband or good access to you know cellular is interesting

01:43:12.729 --> 01:43:18.587
- to me from a public safety perspective but also just um you know trying to run like you know ground

01:43:18.587 --> 01:43:24.620
- wire out in some of these spaces has been very hard um and so so if i had an understanding of what the

01:43:24.620 --> 01:43:29.950
- coverage map of the county was that you know it could probably set up a condition where um

01:43:30.370 --> 01:43:36.782
- Some towers, right, I mean, like, would be, you know, with wider reach might make sense in some areas,

01:43:36.782 --> 01:43:42.821
- whereas, you know, having infinite towers in rural spaces might not. The technology has changed.

01:43:42.821 --> 01:43:49.046
- Even I think, you know, even on this call, I've heard a center change cellular tower with wireless,

01:43:49.046 --> 01:43:53.342
- but wireless means a lot of things now. You know, folks do run their

01:43:53.634 --> 01:44:00.640
- devices off Wi-Fi as a hotspot pulling off a tower if they don't have a hardwire access. So again, just

01:44:00.640 --> 01:44:07.646
- thinking out loud about availability of that utility and what the limitations of height does or doesn't

01:44:07.646 --> 01:44:14.517
- do in this space is just, it has my attention. I think seeing an overlay map might help me understand

01:44:14.517 --> 01:44:21.657
- just how bad the coverage is in some of these corners that we would be prescriptive in. That's it, that's

01:44:21.657 --> 01:44:22.398
- a thought.

01:44:25.506 --> 01:44:37.537
- Yeah, go ahead. So would any language that addresses height you think would be kind of difficult? So

01:44:37.537 --> 01:44:50.520
- like if we said, you know, any wireless tower that exceeds 199 feet cannot be constructed within a proximity

01:44:50.520 --> 01:44:55.166
- of a residential or occupied structure

01:44:56.002 --> 01:45:03.805
- you know, within, you know, 150 feet, you know. So you're saying, like, let's say the tower's between

01:45:03.805 --> 01:45:11.914
- 60 and 199 feet, we need this setback. If it's 200 to 300 feet, it needs this setback? Or are you saying?

01:45:11.914 --> 01:45:19.870
- Yeah, setback, if that's the right term to use in this discussion. But like, just where it's not within

01:45:19.870 --> 01:45:24.766
- proximity of occupied structure. Because we can't regulate all.

01:45:24.930 --> 01:45:31.499
- Yeah, I mean, I guess I would just caution again against saying that it's not permitted because of the

01:45:31.499 --> 01:45:38.387
- height. I think you could maybe there's still some state code language that says that we can call something

01:45:38.387 --> 01:45:44.828
- a substantial modification based on a height change to an existing tower. So the state's allowing us

01:45:44.828 --> 01:45:51.461
- to say height matters, but they're just saying we cannot regulate it and we cannot discriminate against

01:45:51.461 --> 01:45:53.310
- providers based on a height.

01:45:53.826 --> 01:46:01.324
- differential only. Okay. So if there's other ways you can think about it other than height, right? Yeah.

01:46:01.324 --> 01:46:08.607
- And my main point is like, it almost seems like if they want to build it, there's going to figure out

01:46:08.607 --> 01:46:15.962
- avenue to do it. And if it's not ideal, it'd be nice to understand if there is any mechanism out there

01:46:15.962 --> 01:46:20.318
- that could prevent it or, you know, restrain it to a certain

01:46:23.138 --> 01:46:30.235
- I'm not going to use the trigger word there. Safety concerns take over. The question I would ask is,

01:46:30.235 --> 01:46:37.753
- let me play the devil's advocate. I want to build a tower. Who do I talk to? What process do I go through?

01:46:37.753 --> 01:46:45.061
- What mechanisms in place to go through these steps on what they can and cannot do? What is the process?

01:46:45.061 --> 01:46:52.158
- I think the devil's advocate. Yes. Right now, they start with our office in the building department.

01:46:52.642 --> 01:46:58.478
- And the building department is going to say, get your site plan through by planning and then come back

01:46:58.478 --> 01:47:04.200
- for the actual permits for construction. So we would talk to them and say, okay, go ahead and submit

01:47:04.200 --> 01:47:09.979
- a site plan based on that site plan. We would say you can either be staff level review or you have to

01:47:09.979 --> 01:47:15.871
- go to the board is only appeals. And then depending on that outcome, say it's approved. Then we're just

01:47:15.871 --> 01:47:20.574
- looking at the things that we're allowed to regulate under this chapter, which is.

01:47:20.674 --> 01:47:26.630
- You know, we're allowed to say they have to have kind of a fenced in area around the monopole. They

01:47:26.630 --> 01:47:32.646
- have to have vegetation surrounding that fence area. And, you know, right now we're saying there's a

01:47:32.646 --> 01:47:38.721
- height, but we had to change that. And set back. Then we go ahead and once the site is approved, they

01:47:38.721 --> 01:47:44.736
- get their permits for construction from the building department and us. And then we go out and we do

01:47:44.736 --> 01:47:49.918
- what's called a land use certificate to see that it was constructed the way they said.

01:47:51.650 --> 01:47:59.217
- Okay, but the deciding body is who? The BZA? If it's conditional use, it's BZA. If it's staff level,

01:47:59.217 --> 01:48:06.785
- it's the staff level. And what parameters and legal authority does the BZA have with respect to what

01:48:06.785 --> 01:48:13.903
- they can or cannot approve? Yes. I'm just trying to walk us through what the process would be.

01:48:13.903 --> 01:48:21.470
- That's all. I mean, I'm staying the obvious in some of this stuff. I mean, what can you do on a BZA?

01:48:21.986 --> 01:48:29.168
- Can you tell them? We have granted variances to promote the connectivity across our county and improve

01:48:29.168 --> 01:48:36.210
- access. When you start talking about setbacks and fall zones, you talk about that too? Yes, it comes

01:48:36.210 --> 01:48:43.323
- before us and they draw it out and they show the coverage map. Staff does a wonderful job. It's based

01:48:43.323 --> 01:48:49.598
- on the consensus of the group on whether or not you're going to grant that variance. Yes.

01:48:50.274 --> 01:48:56.016
- Okay, that's just answering the question. So here are the conditions or the materials they have to submit.

01:48:56.016 --> 01:49:01.383
- They have to submit a copy of the lease from the property owner, evidencing the African's authority

01:49:01.383 --> 01:49:06.750
- to pursue the zoning application. So they don't want to buy the land. They usually lease it for 30,

01:49:06.750 --> 01:49:12.224
- 50 years from somebody. Then they have a written description of scale drawing of the proposed support

01:49:12.224 --> 01:49:17.698
- structure, including the height, the ground structure, design, and proposed materials were allowed to

01:49:17.698 --> 01:49:18.718
- reveal the height.

01:49:19.042 --> 01:49:25.731
- So we still would see, okay, it's a 300, 400 foot tower. Number of proposed antenna and their height

01:49:25.731 --> 01:49:32.618
- above ground level, including the proposed placement of antenna. And then we did take out when locating

01:49:32.618 --> 01:49:39.307
- within a residential area, a written technical and operational analysis of why a monopole or similar

01:49:39.307 --> 01:49:45.598
- structure of height, less than a hundred feet cannot be used based on the state law. And then,

01:49:46.050 --> 01:49:52.284
- Something that we find very helpful with the line of sight diagram or photo simulation, showing the

01:49:52.284 --> 01:49:58.705
- proposed structure set against the skyline and view from at least four directions. So they'll actually

01:49:58.705 --> 01:50:05.063
- mimic what the cell tower looks like over trees, or if it's going to be completely visible to certain

01:50:05.063 --> 01:50:11.609
- directions of sight. A statement justifying wide co-location, so locating their antenna on another tower

01:50:11.609 --> 01:50:12.606
- isn't feasible.

01:50:13.538 --> 01:50:20.523
- And then it goes on to say, a statement that the proposed wireless structure will be made available

01:50:20.523 --> 01:50:27.717
- for other co-locations, notification of surrounding property owners as required, and then fees, a fall

01:50:27.717 --> 01:50:35.260
- zone calculation, and then they are responsible for notifying us of any confidential information. Something

01:50:35.260 --> 01:50:40.638
- that the state added to is that this is something that legal needs to review

01:50:40.738 --> 01:50:48.172
- newer information, but we're, the BCA is technically not allowed to request about a small cell facility,

01:50:48.172 --> 01:50:54.827
- about additional wireless coverage or capacity or increased wireless speeds, propagation maps

01:50:54.827 --> 01:51:02.048
- or telecommunications traffic studies, that gets business decisions with respect to service, customer

01:51:02.048 --> 01:51:09.694
- demand or quality of service for a particular area. So some of this stuff is considered proprietary or just

01:51:09.922 --> 01:51:18.400
- We're not allowed to ask. So they are very educational and helpful, though. I think they're forthcoming

01:51:18.400 --> 01:51:26.551
- when they come. So, Margaret, when you get a fall zone calculation based upon a certified registrar

01:51:26.551 --> 01:51:35.437
- being an engineer, can you challenge that? Well, according to what Jackie said, no. But if we have questions

01:51:35.437 --> 01:51:38.942
- about it, we ask. And we ask the proposer.

01:51:39.394 --> 01:51:48.220
- to go into further detail about that. They usually simulate a fall zone. And they're actually

01:51:48.220 --> 01:51:57.704
- very forthcoming. They show us what they believe will be the enhanced coverage because of their cell

01:51:57.704 --> 01:52:06.718
- tower. But I see now that they're not required to. But that aside, the issue on the table today

01:52:06.882 --> 01:52:14.681
- is whether or not they're concealed. And I just want to advocate for beauty. You know, I'd like to advocate

01:52:14.681 --> 01:52:21.974
- for keeping our skyline a little bit, you know, a little bit more beautiful if we can, if it doesn't

01:52:21.974 --> 01:52:29.051
- seem like it's a high barrier. A tree that is a hundred feet taller than anything else around it.

01:52:29.051 --> 01:52:35.550
- I don't, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see anything beautiful about that.

01:52:35.650 --> 01:52:43.020
- I just, I just know that that particular cell tower on Knightridge, you know, I remember moving into

01:52:43.020 --> 01:52:50.536
- our house out in the middle of the countryside and you know, everything was great by day, but then you

01:52:50.536 --> 01:52:57.907
- turn off the lights, open up the blinds and you say, Oh crap, damn ugly things, you know, but. Well,

01:52:57.907 --> 01:53:04.766
- it's somebody's leasing that space and making two or $4,000 a month on their property. Right.

01:53:04.930 --> 01:53:11.898
- you know, and they're paying the taxes. Why don't we have a problem with that? I guess like if they

01:53:11.898 --> 01:53:18.867
- can conceal it a little bit, I think it's it's an argument for a little bit more attractive county.

01:53:18.867 --> 01:53:26.253
- That's all. OK, so do we have any changes to the language that they're proposing? These are some examples

01:53:26.253 --> 01:53:33.918
- of other concealed towers. Yes, could be flagpoles, bell towers, bot towers, crosses, mining and smokestacks,

01:53:34.594 --> 01:53:40.593
- not limited to, but. Such as it's not the same thing as for example. Such structures may include, it

01:53:40.593 --> 01:53:46.652
- may include, but are not limited to. So yeah, it could include more than that, but we're just giving.

01:53:46.652 --> 01:53:52.592
- If someone calls in and says, what counts as concealed? We'll be reading this sentence. So if we're

01:53:52.592 --> 01:53:58.651
- going to be differentiating on that topic, I think. What I just heard, there's no proposed changes to

01:53:58.651 --> 01:54:01.918
- the language unless somebody wants to offer something.

01:54:02.338 --> 01:54:10.703
- I don't have any proposed changes to the language. Okay. I will have legal review this. We didn't put

01:54:10.703 --> 01:54:18.904
- in, I don't believe on the agenda that we request a waiver of final hearing. So it is likely to get

01:54:18.904 --> 01:54:27.269
- two hearings. So we don't have a waiver of final hearing on all these changes. So that gives us ample

01:54:27.269 --> 01:54:32.190
- time to look at it. Okay. Any other questions on that part?

01:54:34.434 --> 01:54:46.221
- Okay, I did want to bring up just for your edification that we receive a call from somebody who has

01:54:46.221 --> 01:54:59.422
- property on the west side. And they were incorrectly zoned PUD so similar to what we had on South Roger Street.

01:55:05.090 --> 01:55:13.753
- Okay, so this was again an area that was formerly under the jurisdiction of the city Bloomington Planning

01:55:13.753 --> 01:55:22.090
- Authority. We have these two lots and we have had for several several years. These two lots are zoned

01:55:22.090 --> 01:55:24.542
- PUD and they're now for sale.

01:55:24.706 --> 01:55:32.174
- Someone came in and asked why this density is drastically less than some of the density of these other

01:55:32.174 --> 01:55:39.497
- lots in the PUD. And when we redrew the legal description of what was truly rezoned PUD, it actually

01:55:39.497 --> 01:55:46.747
- excluded these two lots. So we have talked with the sellers and some other potential buyers. And we

01:55:46.747 --> 01:55:49.502
- stated that we will be taking this to

01:55:49.826 --> 01:55:57.754
- ordinance review committee to start the process of an authored reason, similar to what we did on South

01:55:57.754 --> 01:56:05.528
- Brother Street. So I just wanted to bring that to your functions since we'll see that. When you were

01:56:05.528 --> 01:56:13.456
- asking about the proposed amendments, I thought you were talking about that one discussion with, there

01:56:13.456 --> 01:56:16.766
- was nothing else that was driven more from

01:56:17.634 --> 01:56:27.787
- County discussion outside of state changes. OK, so going back to the zoning ordinance amendment, your

01:56:27.787 --> 01:56:38.438
- question is, is there anything else that does not state law? Yeah, that you would want to discuss because.

01:56:38.438 --> 01:56:46.302
- I was looking at it to that section. One general that question in itself like.

01:56:46.402 --> 01:56:55.486
- You mentioned a lot of these were more driven based off of state changes. Was there anything else? And

01:56:55.486 --> 01:57:04.570
- then I have a particular blog. Just from that running list, there's a lot. There's a lot of subsequent

01:57:04.570 --> 01:57:13.918
- change being proposed. And so my question just from that list, what else is not necessarily state-driven?

01:57:14.978 --> 01:57:28.239
- And he's been saying to us. The staff. The temporary or seasonal activity with staff. And then I believe

01:57:28.239 --> 01:57:40.869
- there were maybe two scrimmage errors that were staff. So I want to address what I find is somewhat

01:57:40.869 --> 01:57:43.774
- of counterintuitive or

01:57:43.906 --> 01:58:00.081
- I mean, maybe some clarity, but the removal of chapter 846. Sure. The removal number? Yes, 8. Right.

01:58:00.081 --> 01:58:13.214
- And this is in a full, I just want to understand it a bit more. And I'm just had,

01:58:29.090 --> 01:58:41.525
- So that same language, several channels. I did it twice. Under the Planning Commission serves the pleasure

01:58:41.525 --> 01:58:52.798
- of appointing authority. This is verbatim from the state law. Yeah, that's what we talked about.

01:58:54.690 --> 01:59:01.186
- can be removed so long as the officer holder who appointed the individual continues to hold the office

01:59:01.186 --> 01:59:07.745
- or the board committee or body that appointed the individual retains all of the same members who served

01:59:07.745 --> 01:59:14.241
- on the board committee or body. So is that saying like if someone's appointed and there's a new group,

01:59:14.241 --> 01:59:16.638
- they can't remove them without cause?

01:59:20.898 --> 01:59:30.989
- Well, I'm just trying to follow along. Yeah. Can't be removed without cause of sentinel. So like, let's

01:59:30.989 --> 01:59:41.178
- say we get a new extension of representative as a reasonable decision that would change the body, right?

01:59:41.178 --> 01:59:50.590
- Or let's say the representative from the county council that we have a new representative there.

01:59:50.786 --> 01:59:58.786
- which seems like a possibility. They can't remove that person or reappoint a new person without cause.

01:59:58.786 --> 02:00:06.707
- Well, those two examples are difficult. Those require seats on the planning commission, but let's say

02:00:06.707 --> 02:00:14.474
- the citizen numbers, if you want to address this question. So if the board of commissioners changes

02:00:14.474 --> 02:00:19.134
- hands and the new board of commissioners appoints somebody,

02:00:19.298 --> 02:00:29.111
- Can they take out a citizen member on the plan for mission without balls? As there is. It's the same.

02:00:29.111 --> 02:00:39.020
- That's what that's saying, right? But if someone changes. They can't. Which I I I favor that honestly.

02:00:39.020 --> 02:00:47.198
- I'm just trying to get some so I'm appointed for four years. Yes, and I'm a citizen.

02:00:47.746 --> 02:00:53.242
- Okay. And now the county commissioners, they have a, they've had an election and you got new people

02:00:53.242 --> 02:00:58.849
- on there. Right. And somebody decides that they don't want me on the planning commission, even though

02:00:58.849 --> 02:01:04.400
- I've been appointed for a four year period. Without cost. Okay. Can, can based on the consensus, the

02:01:04.400 --> 02:01:09.897
- new consensus of those county commissioners, can they remove me even though I'm in there for a four

02:01:09.897 --> 02:01:15.998
- year period? Without cost. Without cost. And that's what that would be under. There's other things with costs.

02:01:16.130 --> 02:01:23.363
- If they have an appointment, they can revoke that appointment. That's the way I read it. You said you

02:01:23.363 --> 02:01:30.454
- served pleasure. Yeah. That's right. As long as the commissioner's board has the same three members

02:01:30.454 --> 02:01:37.616
- as who originally made the appointment, you could be asked to step down. But I think it's a terrible

02:01:37.616 --> 02:01:43.998
- law. I think it's a terrible law. I'm not talking about cause. I'm talking without cause.

02:01:44.354 --> 02:01:52.080
- I'm not, it's not even talking about costs. It's a terrible, it's terrible. Yeah, I don't love the without

02:01:52.080 --> 02:01:59.445
- pause. I think if you should be appointed, you should be able to serve your term. So my question goes

02:01:59.445 --> 02:02:06.665
- back up to the section up here, keep going up. And then it's just funny. Where was it? I'm thinking

02:02:06.665 --> 02:02:13.886
- of the number three, the term of the office of the appointed county surveyor shall be for one year,

02:02:14.242 --> 02:02:21.488
- but may not see the county surveyor's term. So if I appointed someone like the very last day I could

02:02:21.488 --> 02:02:28.663
- decide to serve office and then don't run and someone else becomes a county surveyor, that person's

02:02:28.663 --> 02:02:36.124
- going to be able to stay as that appointee and can't be removed without costs. Well, it says that you'd

02:02:36.124 --> 02:02:42.366
- be- Yeah, they'll just conflict with me. And that's what I'm trying to reconcile with.

02:02:44.194 --> 02:02:53.601
- It says that if you appoint somebody. The day before you're to leave office. I that person that appointees.

02:02:53.601 --> 02:03:02.573
- Term ends with your term. That's what it says. Yeah, that's what that part says, and is that the state

02:03:02.573 --> 02:03:11.806
- part or I would assume it is, but changed, but it kind of conflicts with the new part is what I'm saying.

02:03:12.290 --> 02:03:18.925
- Never mind, that's just where my curiosity of wanting to exploit this discussion was. It just seems

02:03:18.925 --> 02:03:25.692
- tricky. I agree with what Commissioner Thomas said. If someone's appointed for a four-year term, they

02:03:25.692 --> 02:03:32.526
- should be able to serve that term and not be removed without cost. Cost should be a huge consideration

02:03:32.526 --> 02:03:39.559
- for removing any type of person that serves on a public board or committee. But that's it. Thanks. Sorry,

02:03:39.559 --> 02:03:42.014
- I was just wanting a little clarity.

02:03:42.146 --> 02:03:48.622
- Reconciling with me and I don't know if it's so Jackie. Are there any other comments in this ordinance

02:03:48.622 --> 02:03:55.097
- that you want to talk about? Are there other areas you want to talk about? I assume everybody has read

02:03:55.097 --> 02:04:01.447
- that multi page document that we all have in front of us and I've studied these things in a dead and

02:04:01.447 --> 02:04:08.049
- in depth level. 615 pages. OK, because I know I know I did. I spent mostly afternoon going through this.

02:04:08.049 --> 02:04:10.878
- Anyway, so if there's no other questions on.

02:04:11.458 --> 02:04:22.712
- On ZOA 26.3, realizing, of course, this will go to the plan commission and then to the county commissioners.

02:04:22.712 --> 02:04:33.760
- There's no other topics. Let's move on to the last item. And that is any other business not on the agenda.

02:04:33.760 --> 02:04:40.574
- And if they're seeing none, let's go ahead and adjourn. So moved.