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