- Geez, let me go ahead and start over. We were on mute. So I'll go ahead and we've followed the meeting
- to order and I'll go ahead and call the roll. David Bush. Here. Margaret Clemmons. Here. Brown Henry
- Randolph. Here. Scott Farris. Here. Rudy Field. Here. David Henry. Here. I see David online. Here.
- Can you unmute, David? I am unmuted. Can you hear me? OK. Are we muted? Yeah, right there.
- We're so muted. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Can you hear us? I think he can, because I
- called the roll. Jeff Morris? Here. Julie Thomas? Here. Joe Van Deventer? And Stephen Bishop?
- here. OK, so we have 8 members, one online, 7 in person and a quorum and one non-voting City of Wilmington
- representative. OK, very good. I didn't get a chance to run this by you beforehand, so do it now. Are
- there any changes or amendments to the agenda?
- No changes. We did have one additional document that I handed out and I can pull up under item number
- two, which is administrative business that I do want to discuss, but no changes. We do have the highway
- department likely joining us for some of the later petitions under new business. So I want to make sure
- that we get there in a timely fashion if we can. Okay, so we will move right along.
- first order of business is the administrative business. And it looks like first on the agenda is SIA-23-10
- and 11 Amber Ridge Phase 2 and 3 status updates. Yes, so this is really just a report back on
- One of the subdivision improvement agreements for which we had money in our cash budget line that was
- already accepted into the inventory with some deficiencies. So the highway department went ahead and
- hired out a contractor to complete some of the sidewalk improvements. And so we just wanted to share
- that with you. This was one of the projects that was identified as kind of a higher priority, easier
- project to complete with the funds that we had left.
- So the red dotted line is the area where sidewalks were put in place. I did include a link to our earlier
- Planning Commission administrative meeting on February 3rd, where we talked about, you know, there are
- projects that essentially have been accepted into the inventory, but there were still items left to
- be done, but the developer had walked away. This was one of them. So we went ahead and used the money where
- It doesn't make it as far as we always wish. So there was a sidewalk requirement also to be on East
- Samantha, but there were some constraints there, funding being one and a retaining wall needing to be
- put in that was not going to be within budget. So just want to report back that we appreciate the highway
- department for prioritizing completion of these types of projects, understanding that there's still
- you know, work to be done on this topic, but I think this is the best solution we can do, which is spend
- out the money we have on projects that are pretty much, you know, the best way to use the funds in a
- timely fashion before we're, before inflation kind of cuts away at what we can do with the money. So
- any questions for planning or Lisa on that one? I have a question. Okay. Page eight.
- Okay. Uh, the end of paragraph two. Yeah. Where we say we do not have the typical staffing levels to
- do this type of work because we usually rely on developers to complete these projects. Check. Uh, our
- first preference, if you look at the end of the second paragraph, our preference is to not
- accept subdivisions inventory and require the developer to complete their own projects. Check. Okay.
- So when we do
- We actually have projects which we have taken into the inventory and I read down here and we know it
- hadn't happened since, what work had not been completed since 2016. So it's been 10 years. Correct.
- Okay. We actually have projects that were taken inventory but not completed where there's money left
- in the checkbook. Right. What is our position? Is it the positioning of the plan department that they're
- going to take and go through the process of putting contracts in place to complete the work?
- knowing that that's not something you're staffed for, or is this something that's passed to
- the responsibility back to the Highway Department, or is there some other force of action that needs
- to be discussed?
- When something has been accepted into the inventory and we have that budget line, we've separated out
- that that's under the highway department's management of those funds as opposed to the planning department.
- So we can, we wanted to report back to the planning commission to let you all know that this type of
- work can occur if we forward to say there's a item under new business where we're recommending item
- number four,
- North Shore Amendment. We're recommending that we cash that letter of credit. We no longer extend it.
- This is the type of thing that would have to happen if we do not have to cash out the line of credit
- and we decide to proceed with the work. Is it going to be the responsibility of the Planning Department
- or is it defer back to the Highway Department to manage that contract? We work collaboratively, but
- the Highway Department took the lead on this one in the future.
- In the future, I still think it would be best under the highway department with coordination of the
- planning department. Okay, so my question is, does that need to be, is that just an understanding between
- the two departments or does it need to be codified somehow? So under our county development ordinance,
- chapter 833, which is dealing with what we could do with subdivisions, the developer can either complete
- all improvements and then flat the lots
- or they can post with us a performance guarantee. The second or the end of that ending of posting the
- financial guarantee is acceptance into the inventory and posting a maintenance bond. So to the extent
- that we're cleaning up a little bit of how things were done over a decade ago,
- I think that the Highway Department has practiced good judgment and ways of being able to spend money
- most efficiently. I would trust their judgment and being able to get the projects done and their expertise
- because they have crews on. My question is, do we need to codify that or is this just an understanding?
- I would say if it was codified, I don't know that it would be in our code. That's what I was going to
- say if you're talking about
- two different departments. There would have to be something from a commissioner directive or a local
- type agreement. So I think you're asking a very pertinent question. Maybe I may ask it differently.
- Do you think since we're kind of looking at kind of what has occurred over the last 10 years as that
- starts to kind of tease out and we're kind of moving forward with kind of
- planning, looking at the improvements and, you know, falling more in highways realm when it's already
- accepted into the inventory that this is a good way or do we need to make changes as far as suggest
- recommendations to have more of a collaborative effort with highway versus them just kind of
- having a volunteer, you know, or good agreement or good understanding of planning right now, because
- in 10 years from now, we might have different folks. And if this is the way we build our workflow, do
- we need to preserve that continuity by, you know, suggesting some type of understanding that is within
- county's operations and job descriptions and so on and so forth?
- The point here is that if this is gonna fall in your level of responsibility, that's a new requirement.
- Managing a contract and a contractor and making sure they get a deliverable done, whatever the deliverable
- is, is anybody who's done program or project management, this is not a simple task. It's very time consuming
- and that's probably not within your area of responsibility.
- That's not in a job description. It's probably not. It's not. That's where I'm going with that. If this
- is something that we think you're going to do more of, we're just cashing it out and cashing out what
- remains in a performance bond, etc., or something like that. So please, the Highway Director, I'm sorry
- to put you on this, but Lisa, we were just talking about that.
- Amber Ridge project and the sidewalk completion and some of the discussion that's come up is for some
- of the subdivisions for which it's already been accepted into the county inventory, understanding that
- hasn't happened since 2016 and prior.
- Would it be best for those funds to continue to be controlled by highway? And I'm saying yes, because
- that area is in the right of way. And then you guys are kind of in control of what's in your inventory,
- what needs to be done. And so if there are projects where they haven't been accepted into the inventory,
- we're still helping highway and the developer if they're involved with maps, with
- You know, where you need to do the improvements, things like that. But the actual on the ground construction,
- we do rely on highway if it comes down to that. So your chart are you reverting back the way it was?
- No. Scott's question was basically, is planning going to take a more active role in projects like this
- to be out there and do the bidding for this type of sidewalk work, or is that better managed under highway?
- The question is, if you've got remaining work, you've already funded the... And we're talking about
- the existing bond list. The existing bond list, but only for the projects that are already accepted
- into the inventory. Probably about once. The question is, if you're at that point, when they're named
- for, you've got remaining funds,
- They can cash out the funds or you can take this contract out and manage it through contracts about
- who manages that project. So it's going to be the funding department. Those are going to be left. That's
- where we step back. So I ask.
- Do we need to look at job descriptions to iron out maybe how this is supposed to move forward in the
- future? And this could be something down the road, but I just piggyback on Scott's question, because
- I understand preserving that common sense. Yeah, you can't just obligate all of this without understanding
- the impact.
- It was very time consuming. There was just never enough money to finish the work. Luckily, we had an
- HOA stand up and find what they put together to a completion. What happens when you bid this out and
- you, but there's not enough money to finish it? Who's going to cover that end for drop school? Who's
- going to determine that?
- Because I can probably guarantee you none of these bonds have enough money to do the project. So if
- we're going to contract it out and we're going to take control of it, by the way, it's not going to
- work. It's tough. Yeah. Because previous management took those roads out. But the assumption that the
- developer was going to work with an invention. That didn't happen.
- So does that step finally into an issue because we accepted that they're not finished. And I offer that
- we asked planning to chat with highway to kind of have some type of continuity plan and they've gone
- back to us and I know and we're talking about where'd you get I was just trying to figure out a way
- where we could be
- forward, but although I think Scott's question is very pertinent and also I think it goes into what
- does planning need to take on some of these responsibilities and does that change a job description
- from a current employee adds another one if we're actually going to cash these and they have to somewhat
- serve as a project manager to make sure that these improvements aren't placed. I see Commissioner Thomas
- has her hand raised.
- Yeah. So if there's not money, then it becomes a council issue because the question is who paid for
- it. If there is sufficient funding or close to it, in this case, it was like $3,000 off, right? Then
- we do lean on FIDRA because they, they had contracted it to all sidewalks and streets and everything
- else. That's their expertise. They know the best contractors. They will monitor the job.
- Yeah, we don't need an extra agreement. We all work together in departments here in county government.
- And I certainly would not ask planning to bid out an instruction job on streets and sidewalks and trees
- or whatever. That's not their job. But certainly they're managing that process of looking at that list
- and seeing if there's a close proximity of getting something done.
- on those. These are not happening anymore. So thank goodness for that. I'm going to say that. Thank
- goodness these are not occurring again. Thank you. Still not 20 to 30 out there. Oh, 188. That's very
- hard. Yeah, it's huge. It's a huge problem. I don't know how you can ever
- Fix those problems, right? And it's an expensive problem. It's and I'm waiting for them on to work.
- However, we all want to work together. We would love to get this off. Everybody's playing, but then
- set back for 20 or 30 years, right? I just don't know how you commit to it when you pretty well look
- at it. You know. 70 amount of money and you're within $3000. But you're not to me. I think you do figure
- it out when you're
- $50,000 away, that's a huge problem. If you're over $10,000 away, that's a huge problem. And philosophically,
- should all family tax payers pay for what the developer can do, right? I agree with that, but I also,
- I also blame County Five Bay for taking those more than 10 years ago beyond my control.
- without having them finished. That's our fault. I agree. The only point that I was trying to make is
- it's not the planning department's responsibility to contract that work and manage that contract. Once
- we've decided that we can contract out the work, we're within realm of finishing a project, yes, that
- would be the highway department.
- So it sounds like we've had good discussions. It sounds like we've got some ongoing collaboration between
- planning and highway, thank goodness. And we have a limited amount of these outliers right now to deal
- with. So we'll continue working on it. We will endeavor to persevere and knock them out one at a time.
- And I know we have a very full agenda here. So with that, I'd like to move to the next item.
- And thank you a lot of it for getting that one out there. Let's get the one down. Okay. House Enrolled
- Act 1001 report. So I'd like to first go through the report. This is a draft of what we would be doing
- on October 22nd, 2026. And this is the
- basically the basis for what we would be sending to the legislative body that's required us to submit
- this by January 1 of 2027. So we went through and answered the questions. So first question, providing
- for higher density development of duplexes, triplex and fourplexes. The first thing we wanted to explain
- to the public and to the state is that we do have uses that
- meet those criteria. So we would consider a duplex to be a two-family dwelling. So then they can use
- our chart under the CDO and see that we do allow it. And the whole basis for this question is to allow
- it where there's allowance of single-family homes. So single-family detached dwellings are allowed permitted
- in these zones. And then you would look and see where duplexes or two-family dwellings are permitted
- or conditionally permitted in the code.
- And then we do the same for Triplex, Fourplex. And that's it. So we're not similar responses to all
- the questions. We're not proposing a text amendment. We're just explaining the code. So if you've had
- a chance to kind of go through, we can look at constructing other housing types, including accessory
- dwelling units. We explain that we allow accessory dwelling units and that we allow
- Modular and manufactured homes as single-family dwellings. So accessory dwellings are right here. The
- new definitions for these are the new. Yes, which have not quite been correct. Okay. Right. Yes.
- And then there was some questions about adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for residential uses.
- So we went into detail of our two reuse options. And then increasing allowable floor area ratio. We
- do not have floor area ratio requirements anymore under the CDO and instead we rely on pervious covered
- maximums and height maximums.
- And then waiving or eliminating garage size and placement, we explain that we don't have a limitation
- unless it's the only feature on the property. Deeper roof pitch, we do not have the regulation for that.
- Minimum lot size, we do have minimum lot sizes, but we do not have... We said that when we passed the
- CDO, we tried to appropriately zone
- lots so that they wouldn't need a minimum lot size. And my question for the planning commission on this
- one is, would you like me to add more data such as the number of minimum lot size variances that have
- gone to the BTA pre and post CDO passage, or do you want me to just leave it as that? I would suggest
- you just leave it. Okay. Myself. You've answered the question as we talked about that last
- couple meetings just to answer the question. Too much data is going to open yourself to more questions.
- And then this question about off-street parking. And I think that they probably are most concerned with
- residential. So I had included our minimum parking requirements for all uses, but I can tone this down
- to just residential. I think that would be more pertinent to that question.
- waiting or eliminating regulations. So just a presidential. And then I can refer to the table. Okay.
- And then the question about
- For property height limitations, we really don't have a lot of height variances that come out. I added
- the definition because we actually take two measurements, one from the average ground slope to the start
- of the roof and then the average of the roof height. So that gives people a little bit more than just
- measuring from the ground to the absolute pitch of the roof. And so just for your context, we've only had
- one residential variance in 10 years for height. We can keep that in there. I could take that out if
- helpful or not. I go back to what I said previously. I could get more data, just open yourself to more
- questions. You've answered your question. If they come back, then you provide that.
- Okay. And then streamlining or shortening the permitting processes timelines, including thorough one
- stop parallel processing process permitting by 15 days or more. And I think this is a little bit of
- a legal patch that they're trying to catch us in because there's already a requirement that we have
- to review certain things in 12 business days or less. And then now seven business
- days to issue a permit. So this could really even say three business days. So I have a note that I'm
- going to make sure I check with you. Get it right. And then using property tax abatements to enable
- higher density and mixed income communities. And I state that we do not have a provision in the CDO
- that relates to tax abatements and higher density bonuses. And that's
- I just answered the question because we don't have any. Okay. And then donating land for vacant affordable
- housing. Our planning department has historic has not historically led any development projects. The
- board of commissioners did attempt to pursue affordable housing project. I sounds like people may just
- answer the question and I would get rid of the second part. Yeah. I don't know.
- Do you feel like this is more a land bank led question? Because I don't think the expectation is you
- would leave the development. It's more, do you have a pool of available land that can be given at low
- cost for the purchase of affordable housing? The answer may be that missionaries regularly remove tax
- rolls or failed tax sale sales. Land that was not sold at tax sale.
- And, um, yeah, that's just part of what we do. So, you know, defer to, um, yeah, I defer to what stops
- them saying it, you know, any expanding on it has just been asked multiple other questions. Like how
- much plan does the commissioners have? What was the project that they were pursuing? You know, just
- the planning commission doesn't have anything to do with it. I mean,
- That's kind of what we're addressing, right? Mr. Schilling is the UDO, even though they say that the
- unit can reply to this, which means the entire county, but we're still focused on the UDO, right?
- Or CDO, sorry. Is the CDO. But I mean, it's asking the county what you're doing with your zoning orders
- and any other land development ordinances and so forth. So it's a
- The other question to have a commissioner say, hey, yeah, we've turned over properties that have been
- forfeited in tax sale to a not-for-profit for housing. If they had a tenant project, then there would
- be something to say that when the opportunity arises, we have stepped up. That's exactly how I would
- answer it, that the commissioners have an historic record of donating land
- for affordable housing development. That's even better. On a case-by-case basis or something. Just so
- they have an historic record. I agree. That's good. Do you have performance you can put behind that
- if you get asked for it? Yeah, I mean, look at the conveggies.
- We can think about it. Yeah, that convention center, then Osage Plays, Osage Plays, and the land on
- South Rogers or of Budding, South Rogers, et cetera. So Jackie, tell us the language you're going to
- put in there. Wait a minute. I want to hear from Mr. Henry. I think the question was asked. So I mean,
- if we're going to make a pronouncement about historic, then you need to have examples of historic things
- that you have proposed. So if there is a,
- But it goes back to Colonel Ferris's comment, which is less is more. So if you're opening the door to
- a pronouncement of historic past practice, you're going to need some examples of historic past practice
- ready to share. That's it. I'll be there and answer the question if anybody asks. Yeah. So Jackie, what
- are you going to say? OK, so I would like to keep the first sentence. The Planning Department has not
- historically led any development projects.
- And then I will say that the Board of Commissioners regularly looks at land not sold at a tax sale and
- can donate that land towards affordable housing development projects. Historically, they have turned
- over land for affordable housing projects. And then I can say, including in parentheses, if you would
- like, if you want to give three examples, I have Osage Place, South Rogers, and Convention Center.
- Who's making the final okay on this statement? Because I think it's just figuring out a better term
- than historic would be more appropriate. And I'd be more comfortable getting behind that because I,
- they have shown good faith efforts to achieve these, but like where, like in the historic, in my opinion
- is like 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, you know, so like,
- ongoing, you know, measures or something to that. Just I, I personally, without the data and all the
- examples listed and what we just said, it's not historic in my opinion. I love it. This is actually
- doing it and they're showing an attempt. I would say the commissioners have a record. Yes. There we go.
- I like that. And I would that answer that you've put down Jackie was longer than I think that needs
- to be needs to be OK. The last piece is enough. Yeah, but yeah, there's just having record of donating
- land for affordable housing. Yes, yeah. There we go. There. OK, OK. Yeah. Right.
- So do not include the the example projects are you done now? But then. So personally those in your pocket.
- And then my question under this section four of what we have to submit to the state. It says if the
- unit had a housing study performed by a region's local economic development organization. I was planning on.
- including or referencing ROI and city of Bloomington housing studies. Are there other studies or do
- those meet that definition under the planning commission? I sent one to Tammy that I used at the end
- of point 25. Okay. I think I got it like 10 minutes before this you walked in. Yeah, we were under that
- ladder. I think I saw it blip there was like focus later.
- Can you ask that question again? Because none of these were things that we requested. Could you send
- that study to us that was done by you? Sure, yeah. No, the question is, I'm trying to interpret what
- the state's asking for. Has there been a housing study performed by regions, local economic development
- organizations,
- Would that include the ROI study? Would that technically include the city of Bloomington housing study?
- Would that technically include an IU housing study under the definition of a region's local economic
- development organization? Or should we say specifically the Bloomington economic development corporation
- is our local regional economic development organization? They have not done a housing study. It's like,
- you know, may answer it in that way.
- Is there a definition to interpret what the economic development organization is? I mean, like, IU's
- pretty huge. They put in huge investments all the time on campus that drives economic development here.
- And I also think the EEDC
- What was the third one that you missed? So RYIU in the city of Bloomington have done a housing study,
- but we in Monroe County just take note that if you list those documents, they're going to want to see
- those documents, what those documents say. So if we are concerned about anything that might be in some
- of those documents, we would agree with, like ROI,
- than if you're walking into a trap. Yeah, but we can't admit things. I can argue with the local. I don't
- know what local means. I don't know what a region means. I mean, so it's the word a, not the. So I mean,
- a region's local economic development organization can mean a few things under law. So I would be careful
- to exclude something, because it's not the region's local economic development organization.
- It's a region. So I would defer
- to Mr. Schilling's interpretation of the word A under Black's Law Dictionary for us to understand what
- a region's local economic development organization means. Because it could include ROI because we're
- in that organization's region. Yeah, I guess my feeling is they asked for these things to be attached.
- And somebody's gonna attach it to the city of Bloomington or some other entity to attach it. You might
- as well attach it to say, hey, we haven't done any in the county,
- but we are aware of other studies and have reviewed and discussed with them as we were putting together
- our CDO. Yeah. I mean, and this is the fact is that you guys are aware of what's going on as you develop
- your ordinance. And that's what they're at with the ones you're thinking about housing and building.
- So that's yourself on the back and I'm not a great jar. Our CDO came from,
- informed understanding from these other drivers and, you know. Well, then can we say we have reviewed
- the products that were produced by others? We have reviewed them. We didn't say that we agreed with
- them. We have reviewed them and it was part of our CDO discussion that we approved it. Reviewed, discussed,
- and are aware. Whatever. Yeah, just don't say we agreed. Right. Okay.
- So you would say ROI study? David's got a comment. Well, I mean, respectfully, that's gold plating the
- requirement under law. I mean, it says shall submit a report to the executive director by electronic
- means containing. It doesn't ask for a qualification. It doesn't ask for a disclaimer. It says attach
- them. So I'm a little concerned about if we're going to start just claiming
- our response and we got to go back through all this and start disclaiming a lot of things or making
- contrary. That's not what it asks here is it has attached the regional report. I'm fine with saying
- they're included there. They are. Yeah, and I can't speak for everyone that they reviewed them all,
- but I know I read it so. And then move on. I think in a day's plan, this this
- reflects, you know, our due diligence more than anything by, you know, passing out, supporting those
- reports, just saying that they're regional reports that are out there. As long as we say that we reviewed
- them in our discussions, when we developed the ordinance, we didn't say we reviewed and incorporated
- and excluded,
- We just said review them as part of our review of the CDO before it was approved. So back to David Henry's
- comment. So we do have to attach the minutes of the public hearing. So if we don't have a disclaimer
- here and we just attach those studies, it doesn't prevent you from during the hearing talking about,
- and there will be an attachment of three studies that we have reviewed, discussed, and we're aware of
- when the CDO passed. These include
- Da-da-da-da-da, and then in the minutes. Are we concerned at the hearing that somebody might want to
- open those documents up and talk about those documents in front of the hearing? I assume that's going
- to be up our hearing. I don't know. That's a good question. Each of those questions should be addressed
- during your hearing, and I think that they're talking about it, so somebody must say, hey, I think this
- study's great. I didn't think you followed it.
- And so the very response is fine. We have to balance all kinds of interests and the good investment.
- Right. The housing study is not one of the questions. It's something that you have to attach. So along
- with the minutes. And then it says any newly developed or amended CDO as a result of the review section
- under section three.
- We must describe written ways in which the ordinance was changed to support increased housing development
- by some or all the factors set forth in section three. So if there arises a discussion from the minutes
- and we might have a text amendment, we can include that, but it would be early to tell because we're
- going to have the hearing on October 22nd. We could do work.
- work session on the administrative meeting or degree from that and then get a directive as to whether
- there's any changes that need to happen. But this is the draft. So if you have edits or comments that
- you want us to put in, October 22nd is coming up. So we would like to get your feedback. And then I
- shared and I will include here as well for those online.
- We have a resolution that I would like to get your vote on potentially or discuss that Mr. Shelling
- put together. It's a resolution that essentially delegates the requirement to hold the hearing under
- HTA 1001 to the Planning Commission instead of having the final authority be the
- County commissioners. So it says the board of commissioners if they approve this resolution, they are
- stating that the Planning Commission shall conduct the required hearing on November 4, the 22nd, day
- of October, 2026, and that the Planning Commission shall prepare written minutes, review hearing, shall
- prepare and gather any housing studies proposed to ordinance amendments, submit the foregoing materials
- to the commissioners prior to
- the third day of December. So we would just take that to the commissioners, the package that we're going
- to submit to the state. And this resolution itself, we're proposing to take on September 17th to see
- that if they approve of delegating this to the planning commission. Now note that for the planning commission
- hearing on October 22nd, staff plans on noticing this or potential quorum of county council members,
- Um, commissioners and anyone else, any other board that you would like me to invite. So they will be
- in attendance at the planning commission hearing, but just not repeating the hearing at the commissioners.
- That sounds good. Yep. Yeah, it sounds good. And I like this resolution. It's, uh, very well done. Should
- we put a motion on the table? Let's see that just to be clear.
- If that would be in mind, do you want to make a motion to? Doesn't have a number on it yet, but it would
- be the resolution delegating the hearing requirement, HEA 1001, to the Planning Commission. So I vote.
- I motion with Jackie Sepp. I second that. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to essentially approve
- the draft resolution that would delegate the hearing
- to the plan commission for the House Enrolled Act 1001 requirement. A vote yes is a vote to approve
- the resolution draft that then goes to the commissioners for a final vote. Mayor Plummons. Yes. Don
- Enright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes.
- Julie Thomas. Yes.
- Yes. Okay. Motion is approved. Thank you. All right. All right. Next on our agenda is unfinished business.
- bit of unfinished business, ZOA-26-3 CDO text amendments to comply with state statute changes. Yes.
- I want to give an update that we did add a few more text amendments that's led by staff just because
- we found things to be being cleaned up. So those include 811-4F5,
- There was a requirement that said essentially that an accessory structure had to be only, you could
- only use half of the size of an accessory structure for a home-based business. And what we'd like to
- change it to be, and is in the code, is that the accessory structure itself can be half the size of
- the primary residence. And that way we don't have to enforce whether they're using half of an enclosed
- structure.
- it makes it easier for us to be able to say they comply. And then I do want to go into depth about the
- wireless communication facilities, which is the next item on the agenda, but related to this. And then
- under 818, we are requesting to remove item D, which says the proposed subdivision has frontage on a
- street that provides direct access to destinations such as schools, grocery stores,
- or recreational facilities and instead edit item A that says the proposed subdivision is within 0.25
- miles of another existing or proposed subdivision or business development that has sidewalks. And then
- we also want to edit item E, which is another listing item, which says, et cetera, because we were getting
- into situations where we had to determine whether a recreational facility and then et cetera,
- meant are we looking at other facilities which were undefined? Then under 832-14 here, we changed adjacent
- to adjoining just to again, be a little bit clearer in the code. If they're actually touching or adjoining
- a greenway, that would be when we would be asking for certain sidewalks or other
- requirements to be put in place. 832-7 and 809, we have in the code currently that administrative
- subdivisions must comply with buildable area, such as we're creating one acre buildable area lots. When
- we're doing administrators, which is just moving lot lines typically for two or three lots, and you're
- dealing with existing lots,
- you're usually not even starting out with compliant lots. They're moving because there's encroachments,
- there's limited buildable area shared already. So to require a one acre when they don't already start
- with one acre is becoming an issue. So that's something that we are recommending to remove, but we're
- open to that discussion as well. If people feel like that requires a variance to,
- amend nonconforming lots, even though they won't become more nonconforming, just amending them, triggers
- or variants, then we're happy to keep it in there, but it would be cleaner if it was not in there, in
- staff's opinion. Is there questions on this, or do we want to go to the cell tower follow-up? Okay,
- let's go to the cell tower follow-up. Okay, follow-up from the last meeting.
- And I will say that some of these sources, but it's when you Google and search some of the stuff, say
- you're with a grain of salt, I didn't know I actually have to verify for sure the cost comparison and
- some of these other questions, but I felt like the answers were at least reasonable sounding.
- The camouflage component can add $100,000. That was one of the first questions as whether it costs more.
- Then the other question, do other jurisdictions require concealed towers and in what zone? We did reach
- out to the APA listserv and only one response by Harrison County, Indiana. And they just don't allow
- cell towers in residential districts. So they don't deal with concealed versus non-concealed. They just
- don't allow it.
- I looked at the city of Wilmington's ordinance and they also do not require concealed towers, but they
- similarly just do not allow communication facilities and residential zones. So we could consider instead
- of concealed versus not concealed, just say it's not permitted in residential zones and get away from
- the concealed requirement. So how many cell towers do we have in residential zones today?
- Rural residential zones, we do have quite a few, which I think I went down and stated. New cell towers
- have primarily located in the rural residential. In the residential, small lots, I would say none to
- maybe one. They're relying more on the utility pole, small cells in the right of way, not dealing with
- planning. Correct.
- So you're saying if they wanted to put one in a rural residential area and we didn't permit
- it in residential, then they would have to go through a rezone process? Well, and this is where I think
- we've made the changes in 2016 to say it's either administratively reviewed or conditional. So we could
- just make it
- conditional and say there is no administrative review process if you're going to be located in a residential
- area. Other jurisdictions, I will tell you, just say it's not permitted at all. There is no relief.
- I know I heard Dave maybe having a comment back there about that. I don't know if we're allowed to outright
- deny them in certain areas.
- They say that cell tower providers are still subject to local zoning, but you can't do anything that
- keeps them from establishing a solid network and connection. I thought about that. If you say, hey,
- you can't go into a residential area,
- an option would be to come in and get a variance, but they can't meet the variance criteria because
- there's other uses for that property. So it's, I guess I don't know the answer to it other than be careful.
- Yeah. So if we make a conditional or they set up the VZA and it would be then allowed in those on a
- case by case? Yeah. You think that's a little tie guard? There are cases where
- um, wireless communications facilities have been rejected under, under a special exception and upheld
- affirming by who feels there are a couple of cases out there on that. We had one that I think they ended
- up withdrawing, but it was a close to a historic structure and it was going to impede the view of kind
- of the historic character of the area. Yeah. I had one that was going to need variances for getting
- to it with the steep slopes and the eco.
- That's true. I think they have a lot of lobby influence and if we make it extremely difficult, they're
- going to just probably use some of that leverage and influence to just change the law from the legislative
- standpoint and then kind of just do what they want when it comes to a county by county situation. So
- if we give them a path that they could
- then go through that might keep our local government's authority more tight, in my opinion. If you're
- allowing it, excuse me, if you give a pathway where they can get conditional approval,
- they do have to go, they would have to go before the BZA. It was conditional. It was administrative
- which was no public hearing. Right. I kind of like that. I mean, you know, that at least gives
- the prospective cell phone provider an opportunity to state their case and create an ability to work
- to a solution rather than just saying yes or no.
- What you're saying though is... In some situations, you may not have a choice. That's right.
- That's right. But I agree. I agree that as long as you provide a process, I mean, that's a way to take
- and solve the problem. You may not get the outcome you want, but just do it like a process. Well, you
- can get the neighbors notified.
- What's that? Yeah. Neighbors are notified. You get a public hearing portion everywhere that the public
- can take and say we don't want our neighborhood. Well, you might have the neighbors who said, yeah,
- we love them. Yeah. We've been wanting cell phone coverage out here forever. Right. Right. But also
- you may have the opportunity to attach it to an existing structure so that it's not a second. So it
- gives us say or input into the process. Yeah.
- It's really what Dave was saying is we have no way to impede there from establishing a solid network,
- and they're probably the ones that determine what's a solid network or not. So if it is in a rural situation
- that they want to create connectivity, regardless of they're going to do people for or against, that
- little provision right there gives them probably the authority to put something in to create that signal
- strength or solid network. But we can't, according to the state statute,
- go in and judge coverage and all of that. That's not our job. No, that's what I'm saying. They have
- the means to get stuff done, but they'll probably go through the process if there isn't. But the PCA
- will allow the public comic to come in and make those changes. Well, if I have a play, we'll probably
- have a better outcome by having that as a public change, and we want to make sure the public is aware
- of it. So right now, the way it's drafted,
- New concealed wireless support structures shall be permitted in the dining district. After administrative
- review, so that's saying new concealer, so we could change this to say. New wireless support structures
- shall be permitted in any rural or rural residential districts subject to conditional use approval or
- something.
- Is that what we're looking to do and get rid of concealed? Or do you still want concealed as an option?
- I think we need to talk about concealed. It's a separate topic. I think that's a good term. According
- to what I see in the packet, it doesn't require camouflage. It just can request, I guess, that the service
- provider that it be attached to an existing structure.
- church steeple, sled bowl, yes, yes, buildings, something like that. So there's no real additional cost
- to the provider, but we have an opportunity to direct the placement of that wireless facility onto another
- existing structure so that we don't have just, you know, existing, you know, new structure after new
- structure after new structure. So I think that keep, you know, I, I'm sorry,
- Ruby, because I heard what you said, but then, you know, because concealed doesn't necessarily have
- to mean an extra expenditure like, like the bikini on an elephant, you know, it doesn't have to require
- that. But at the same time, it might enable the staff to direct it somewhere. We can keep both. I mean,
- we can say concealed and then another line I would say,
- non-concealed in rural or rural residential conditions. Kate, but you're going to have to help me here.
- It's concealed and defined anywhere. There's examples. Well, because she's talking about five poles.
- She's talking about the... This is page 148, I think. On the page 148, we have a diagram. A diagram.
- Definition. Definition.
- I guess I have a question. It might be Dave, or maybe Dave could help me with it, why Jack was saying
- that. Could the discussion of it being concealed or not concealed go through the BZA process of just
- making conditional? And that's where that discussion could be had. Do we have to make that the part
- of the ordinance to make that eventually like approval through the BZA? It's contingent to it being
- concealed.
- Oh, okay. I'm not sure I followed the concealment. You're saying that the BCA can require concealment?
- Yeah, could that be part of their pairing process? And they determine at the BCA level if it needs to
- be concealed or not. It's certainly said it could be. A service provider for concealment. Yeah,
- I got it. It needs to be spelled out here.
- Well, it would have to, I mean, the VCA has been having to make a decision based on the criteria, so
- they would have to be able to set a record to say if the ceiling is going to meet the criteria that's
- not considered. So for example, if it's a,
- high density area, we would say concealed, but they could go to the ECA and ask that they be waived
- from that department, for example. Yeah, that would be a design statement, sorry. I'm fine with leaving
- the unconcealed in the business, because we have industrial, like high industrial.
- Um, I'm still a little concerned about the institutional public. Um, personally, because I, you know,
- those are schools and parks. Um, we will have them get it. Cause right now, according to this, they
- wouldn't need to be concealed. And I don't know what people think about that. Next to the school park,
- you know, that could turn into kids wanting to have fun.
- and try to scale up, you know, utility power. I don't know. I think you bring up a good point. That's
- kind of an area that, you know, might see more trespassing on those. Is that what your concern is, or?
- Yeah, I don't know if aesthetically we want them concealed or not concealed in institutional public
- settings. So I think parks and schools
- How much revenue does one of those, if you lease out that land, does it generate? Just a thought. And
- I was just at a Boy Scout camp all weekend on Lake Monroe that had a big tower right there. And I think
- everyone was thankful that it was there and we had service. Yep. I know. I mean, we want the service.
- I'm just saying concealed or not. I'm not saying. I don't know if that would have even helped to just
- tower it over the trees. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
- It was between, oh, here it is, range from between $200,000 to $5,000 a month, with $1,500 being a commonly
- mentioned figure. We usually see them for a 25-year lease. There are companies out there that help people
- with this, because I think that's a lot of money. Dave? Yeah, no, thanks. Sorry, because I heard
- It posed two ways. One was an aesthetic question and one was a safety question. Sean, to your comment,
- does the plan department have any like data on trespass on existing towers from like the sheriff's department
- or I mean, is that something that happens? Is there a data point behind the concern? I mean,
- it's speculative, I don't know. I mean, if it's a frequent activity for folks or not.
- Is that really a thing? Do we know that? I don't know that fact, but I do know that for all these towers,
- they have like a fenced in compound area. So it's typically like barbed wire fence that only they have
- a key to get into because they do have like generators and other equipment that they don't want touched.
- But yeah, I think coming back to the question of concealed yes or no,
- and then whether we want to require conditional use in the rural and residential districts is the big
- question that I still see out there. So we could say, still conceal in these different zones. Dave's
- point is they could get a variance to that. We could also just specify, you can do this concealed and
- get it administratively approved, or you can do it non-concealed and try your hand at the VCA.
- That would be for conditional use. Is that how you want to do it? So say our preferences conceal, but
- if you don't want to conceal, there's a process, which is. Okay. And that would be under residential
- rural residential and institutional. Are those the zones that we want to have it? Okay.
- I think that's it. I did have a map of where they've been locating. Okay, go ahead. I asked a question
- about the generator backup and the noise. I was wondering if you had a chance to look into that. Yes.
- When I re-looked at the code, it does seem like we can require a setback for generators. There was a
- question to have
- Under the current code is a little bit confusing for our viewer who was doing these like whether the
- setback was just from the tower to the property line. So I made it a little more specific and said it
- was from the fence of the compound area is like where the step back plus fall down needed to be so that
- would include the generator. I didn't know if we wanted to have
- A larger setback for the generator, like a standard, like all generators have to be 25 feet. And then
- they would have to push it like the furthest of that fenced in area. So, so I, the question is noise.
- Um, and so can we do something like we tried to do, but couldn't can no longer do with gun ranges and
- put it up. The next property, what is the noise level at the next property line? Okay.
- So if it's on a big church property and the church sells off this little square and that square becomes
- a cell tower, it's not, you know, where's the next property? How loud can it be? I mean, they could
- be using batteries and solar to do their backup when it has zero noise, or they could have this huge
- natural gas burner that's really loud, right? So I think it's the question of the neighbor, right? The
- nearest neighbor.
- Would you be OK if I did a little searching and said, we're facing an area of generator on diesel. How
- far does that noise travel? And if it gets to 30 decibels by 50 feet, we could just say all generators
- have to be 50 feet. OK. Any fuel driven? Yeah. Yeah, fossil fuel driven generator. Because again, it
- could be batteries and solar.
- Sorry. Is there an accommodation for any sound deafening provisions such as walling it off or anything
- else because those are practical applications for everyday noise? And this is a unique emergency situation,
- so it's not going to be an ongoing persistent noise. So I mean, it really is. I think we'd want to see
- what they are proposing. I think that's right. See what they're proposing. Because if that's on for
- 48 hours straight, that's terrible. Right.
- So. OK, or I could just say. In our neighborhood, we hear the generators. So I guess we're all talking,
- so I'll just try to chime in. So to Steve's point, I mean, it is an emergency situation, right? We have
- county residential neighborhoods that have Honda generators running for two, three, five days, depending
- on how long the power is out.
- What is the current ordinance for noise during an emergency, right? If a tower is being powered during
- an emergency, is the noise prohibition onerous for coverage during a crisis position? I guess I wanna
- balance aesthetic issues against rural access to cell phones and also ostensibly internet access through
- cell phone towers to their phones acting as hotspots in their homes. So I hear it.
- but I kind of want to know some other stuff about the coverage map of the county and making sure this
- is a balanced discussion here. I mean, emergency use, emergency powering of a tower is a temporary situation.
- Likely the power is out around that tower for that neighborhood as well. And if people are running their
- gas generators for a few days, how's that any different than a tower doing it? Except if there's a decibel
- question here. Just want to make sure it's balanced out. I appreciate Steve's comment.
- Thank you. So it sounds like I'll do, let me do this. I will look at what other communities do in terms
- of setbacks, assuming generators. I do think that they do house some of their equipment. I don't know
- if that includes generators at their fossil fuel power, just because it seems like that might be a fire.
- safety issue, but I will look at what other communities do and see if we can come up with like an easy
- standard to administer that also meets the goals of noise. Let me do that. Perfect. Okay. Any other
- discussion points on the WCS? Okay. All right. All right. Now to new business. Take a breath.
- All right, new business, SPP-26-1, the Gardner Major Subdivision, partial plaque vacation with a road
- width waiver request. And just to note that the plaque committee was to have heard this last week, but
- there was not a quorum. So it has been elevated to this body too for consideration. So. OK.
- Sorry. Is the, is the admin meeting, the deciding body commission. That was just a recommendation.
- I got it. I got it. May I ask to that point, I think Tammy, you were women apply committee. We mentioned
- reaching out to some of the petitioners to see if they had any comments or anything that they wanted
- to share since it wasn't discussed.
- the petitioner, the representative. Would they have an opportunity to speak and answer questions regarding
- their petition? I didn't reach out to any of them. They will be there at the hearing. So on their acceptance
- letter, it goes to the plaintiff. I just want to make sure if there was any additional comments that
- you had a chance to hear. So when you see deciding body and it says plaque committee recommendations,
- no public hearing. There was no public hearing at the plan committee, which didn't meet because you
- didn't have a quorum. But at the plan commission meeting, you will have a public hearing on this. I
- just want to make sure. Yes. Make sure the report reflects that. Thank you. So this one and the next
- one are both major subdivisions because they're technically
- either vacating or doing something that would have created more than four lots under the original
- subdivision. So this is a partial plot vacation, and then they're asking to create four lots out of
- one of the lots being vacated. So it's currently under a minor subdivision, which included two lots.
- So technically it would be at the end of the day,
- This one is fairly straightforward. They are marking one of the lots in the rear as non-buildable. So
- I'll get to that because of its drainage easements. It's really not buildable and not super accessible.
- They are, we are recommending approval of the road width. So they have less than the 18 feet required.
- And then they do not have two points of ingress egress in and out of the subdivision all connected.
- They just have individual driveway permits which are being, some of them being shared. And then we are
- recommending a denial of the street tree waiver because they do have some street trees available and
- that they could preserve trees if they were able to commit to that.
- And then we are recommending you to go on a partial cloud vacation. So let me go ahead and go down to
- the plot. And they have provided the daily trips and things like that. So this technically has all one
- lot under the cleaner liner. And so they're vacating it out.
- and they're recommending to make one lot here, one lot here, one lot here, and then this is the non-buildable
- lot in the back. And if you follow the cursor here, there's a drain adhesion that really cuts through
- right here. So what they have to work with is here, here, and this one's pretty open, so here.
- So each of the lots are over the 10 acres. They are service biseptic. So they are meeting the higher
- requirements under the code for either two ways in and out, which they're not proposing. They're sharing
- a driveway. Two ways in and out would be like access here. And then there would be a road over here
- where they could access through here. That's not feasible in a rural context most times. So they need
- a waiver to that. And we wouldn't want to see that.
- in a more impervious and more cross-sector inducements, things like that. And then the road itself is,
- I believe it's 16 feet, South Lee Phillips Road. So they're not meeting the 18 feet, but they are proposing
- a shared drive for access to lots two and three that's been reviewed by the highway department and approved.
- So only one new driveway.
- Is there any questions on this request? Have you talked to them about the trees? That's good. We have.
- So they came in and asked for a street tree waiver after this already went to the black committee showing
- that they could preserve street trees. And their concern is that the trees that are there, and I'll
- show you on an aerial, there's not 18 of them.
- along the road. So they said that they believe that they're going to have to come down to meet site
- distance, which we want to fully support and agree that these trees here, they may not meet our code
- requirements for being native. They might need to come down to meet site distance or be cut back. They
- do have trees along this north line though that could potentially be preserved as a commitment
- Because they are required to do street trees. It's a major. But if they committed to preserving, then
- I think that would tip us to the edge of the scale to say that we would recommend it for both if they
- submitted it. And that second line of trees is really lovely. So I think that would be a fair compliment
- to that. Yeah. So can you have that discussion with them and have that commitment for the planning
- commission? OK. So we have that commitment together.
- Could they do any type of tree preservation? As an alternate to the. Yes, OK, then. But this is what
- I guess. Some have a favor. That's fine. There's just such a wooded area with a lot of other restrictions
- that. I'd be interested to see what else they might want to have as a tree.
- Preserve area on the property, especially maybe around some of the drainage. He's been started this,
- but. I'll just leave it with the other plant missions, desiring that. Location, but I hope that do explain
- that they could choose any areas so they come with the alternative to the trees on the street scape.
- Yes, we want to make sure that that's
- likely not included in the tree preservation. If there's any possibility in peak site distance for the
- driveway, we don't want to come back and say, oh, we made them preserve these trees, but we need them
- to come out because of the highway code. So what we were recommending was probably something further
- back on the line. I just wanted to ask you a question. If we're going to allow you to take control of
- the preservation, tell us what the preservation is. Yes. And as long as it meets the requirement, we'd
- honor it and say, OK.
- This is the first, the time that I've served here, the first well water proposal I've seen. So they
- are not near any rural small water corporation that could serve them. Or was, did I see something about
- Van Buren or not? So typically when they are proposing a well, there's already a whole lot on a well. Yes.
- But we do require that if they're near or could be served by public, they have to be served by public.
- That's a good question. I don't know if you already looked into seeing whether they could be served
- by the adherent. Well, they're so expensive. I don't know if you can do it optionally. But they have
- to have the power to operate them.
- Yeah, I mean, and to the market point, there's also a big portion of the county where each of the wells
- are not even permitted. So frankly, there's a contamination. Thank you. So I just was interested in
- that. And I'm, of course, interested in their public health. That's all. Yeah. The health department
- gets a good inventory of most of the wells operational that have been capped.
- actually found. The Division of Water has a full site. Join in and talk with them at some of the conferences
- about how well water works in this area. And they have an active viewer map where you can see all of
- them and their inventory. And you don't have to necessarily get a permit to do it, but the person who
- does dig the well has to have permits from the state.
- Right. There's some map data on the S drive. I've helped work with the health department about 15, 16
- years ago of other locations. So I'm not sure how inclusive DNR's data set is, but I thought that was
- kind of interesting. And I can point that in your direction. They have good attributes and good information
- of what they found and observed and if they've been capped.
- like according to the rules. So these are just capped wells? No, they have a whole interesting inventory.
- I think DNRs also has, you can hit the data point and it pulls up. Well, we will check to see if they
- could be serviced. It does sound like under their letter, they're saying that they researched existing
- water wells in the area based on the existing database, no issues acquiring water. However, we cannot
- guarantee water quality and quantity.
- We do require on the flat and on the deed that they state that it's serviced by a well. That's part
- of the CDO requirement. So the fire beware is my choice. I think it's more that the note says it just
- doesn't have access to municipal water because there are people in our community that do cisterns and
- they collect rainwater and then they have water delivered to their cisterns when it's dry. There's just
- ways around.
- not even having a well or having a connection to municipalities. And a lot of families on baby creek
- are like that. Is this on baby creek? No, they don't fill up. But there's wells. I just wondered if,
- you know, we have like five or six small water corporations. I just wondered if there any one of those
- things that we're in. Yeah. And finding Montano is running several of those. So they might,
- I know they're running Van Buren, so we could try to call them. OK. OK, any other questions on this
- one? I don't have any. That was just interesting. I get to see that. OK, do you want me to go on instead
- when I'm going to reach three? Yes, please do.
- And then Shiloh. Oh, interesting. This is the Garner flat. This is another major subdivision, technically,
- creating three lots. Again, partially vacating out of one subdivision and putting it into another total.
- This would make it a major. So the reason being that we created under the CDO
- But if you're going to vacate out of an existing minor or an existing sliding scale, your next option
- is a major. So just a reminder, that's why these are coming through the way they are instead of just
- a vacation and a redo of a minor flat, for instance. So they're asking for street tree waiver, bearing
- utility waiver, two points of interest egress, as well as the partial plot vacation where everyone is in
- in agreement or we are requiring and want to be in agreement on that. So we are recommending a positive
- recommendation for each of these. And then this is the lot sizes. They're all feeding or exceeding the
- 10 acres in the buildable area. And then I'll go ahead and go down to the lot under the flat. It's a
- corner lot and it has plenty of road frontage, pretty flat.
- And it's a fairly large lot. So here we go. So here you are on May road and Leonard Springs, and this
- is lot 4C, 4B, and 4A. So technically they were in a four lot minor subdivision, so they're adding five,
- six, two new lots to that. There was an existing home and barn here,
- and then they'd be adding two new driveways for two new lots, so. On the street tree waiver, I think
- that they just are requesting not to plant those. I do think that on this one, they may have committed
- to a preservation area. So they've already kind of committed to that here.
- Yeah, better defined area. And then they don't have the two ways in and out, which would again be something
- like this, the May road, the Leonard Springs, which we don't want to see crossing during use months
- unnecessarily or added impervious. So we are recommending approval on that. Any questions on this one?
- No. Go back to the last comment on page 612.
- Is there an action there for the bottom page? Staff support store recommendation, et cetera. Oh, I see.
- Is there an action there? I think we should go ahead and just say positive recommendation on the flat
- vacation if we don't have anything to the effect of negative. So we'll fix that. OK. That was my phone.
- Good point.
- Any other questions on that? I have a question. Okay. Next. And I will say that Tammy and just now myself,
- the first submission is Paul Gardner, major submission, and then the second request is by someone named
- Gardner, but it's Paul Trinity, so.
- I had a bad phone call. But I got answers out of both of them that I needed because of it. I just have
- one question. Okay, Van Buren says they can supply water to three homes on the garden.
- Okay. Okay. Then you have to know what the cost benefit analysis would be to dig the well and chance
- that versus extending those services. Like I'd be interested to know like how much easements. Yeah.
- I think that's, I think that we would have a preference on invisible water and not well. I think so.
- We'll check that. Yeah. Okay. I am here and so they can say this.
- Thank you. That was under SB 26-1. Next up we have REZ-26-2. This one has a report back from the ordinance
- review committee. So tonight what I am requesting is that although this goes to the
- commissioners, the plan commission is authorizing this or offering this reason because there's a error
- in the map. So right now these properties are zoned PV. And when we did the research, when they had
- it on the market, we realized that they should not be zoned PV based on the legal description of the
- ordinance that was put in place at the time by the city of Bloomington, but in our now planning jurisdiction.
- So the request before the planning commission is this better fit as a community development zone or
- residential zone or even high development zone? So what's the zoning that we're going to be recommending
- here? The ordinance review committee met and discussed this on August 10th and posed questions in black
- and then the red is the
- the representative's cancers. So question number one was they purchased both parcels in 1989. And just
- to give you some context for these parcels, where they are on the zoning map, zone PUD. They are near
- all different housing types, which the ordinance review committee did discuss. There's a lot of mixed
- residential, either single-family attached or multi-family apartments.
- a lot of density in this area, but also constrained on the west side by the floodplain. These are the
- two partials. They are built out currently. They have some potential buyers. They want clarity on what
- can be done here, and we need to fix the zoning cap to give them that clarity. The questions that we
- posed to the representatives were here in black. The first question was, was there any
- When they were purchased in 1989, did they rely on information that it was PUD? So they state that when
- these parcels were bought, there wasn't a mobile home park. To the west, duplexes and apartments all
- around, it was more of a rural setting. And then number two, what is your plan for the apartment over
- the garage at 1540 South Curry Pike? She says accessory dwelling, second separate rental from the house.
- may involve planning processes, and so the owner is not going to be living on the property going forward.
- Therefore, the adder is not a factor going forward. So just as a note, the 1530, which is closer to
- Currie Pike, there's just a single family residence in the swimming pool, 1540, which is set off the
- road a little bit, single family residence, and a detached garage with apartment above. So that's the
- only development that's there.
- And then, did you have any changes to the staff report conveyed to ORC? So we conveyed that we thought
- there were two options in front of the owners. One, rent the property and remodel the structures as
- they are, no owner living on site. Or two, knock down structures, rebuild multifamily, potentially paired
- patio homes with garages or fourplexes with garages, no owner living on site.
- And they state that we've had two separate potential buyers state the two options below. We now have
- lost these buyers in the meantime due to this situation. They both wanted multifamily. Buyer number
- one was going to have to put a lot of money down in order to get it to where he wants it. No one knows
- what the use determination correctly is for the site in order for a real estate agent to market correctly.
- And honestly, we need the appropriate county zoning.
- We hired Rich Fig to do an appraisal and this is where we're at currently. He was not able to finish
- the report and it's been six months. Have you talked to anyone at CBU in relation to getting sewer approval
- for the property to redevelop at a higher density? Do you intend to reach out to CBU or will you be
- letting the new potential buyer do this work? And they state that they know there's a substation very close and
- They're asking why wouldn't the county allow PD to maintain or establish to begin with? And then at
- the end of the day, the current owner would not be living on the property as a as to a new buyer. We
- do not know. It depends on their intention. Simply need to know what the highest and best use for the
- property is and that they understand this.
- Surrounding parcels arms with that higher density allowance under for instance a PD Now just to clarify
- for everyone, you know, we're not recommending this be zoned a PD Because it wasn't part of the original
- PD for Western Estates To amend it would actually be a different process. What we're recommending is
- a by right zoning district Whether that's
- Community development, high development, or residential one. We've indicated those two pagers in there
- and now it's up to the plan commission to decide how they would like to see these properties be authored
- to be rezoned. We had a situation like this last year on South Rwander Street where the plan commission
- differed from what the owner wanted and
- Basically, we fix the zoning map to what the commissioners voted it to be, and then let the owner know
- that they could petition again to rezone the property to what they wanted. That is a possibility here,
- but we do try to get the most information we can in order to answer the question. I think last time
- there were some questions about
- the basically like how many lots they could get if they combined or if they didn't combine. I did include
- some of the information here, but we can do that math. I don't know that I completed that. So I guess
- this would be it. Then I'll go where I needed 10,000 and connect with the store. If the property were
- to obtain approval from CBU, increase sewer connection, avoid all floodplain,
- Leaving 1.63 acres, they could get seven lots. Under HD, they could get up to 11 lots. But the question
- is, if they were to go for multi-family, five plus units. I think that was the question is, what would
- that be? Okay, so I still need to get back to you on that.
- And that's including the floodplain, right? They can still get 11 lots. Under HB because the roads are
- already there and they would just be doing driveways. What was the CD on page? CD was seven. So can
- we go back up to the page that shows all the various zones for that area? Sure. And just point out to
- everybody here, you've got a little bit of everything though.
- And the industrial white industrial high development conservation residential PV Western estates, which
- just as a manufacturing home park. These are multifamily developments here.
- This is community development with single family attached, very small, skinny lot sizes with lot lines
- down the middle of structures. And then it's right next to a railroad track and there are apartment
- complexes across different road groups. And then in time at home. In the Lincoln Creek watershed. Lincoln
- Creek watershed. It needs to be part of our consideration. I see. So I'd be interested if each of
- You know, with the density that's being possibly looked at for subdivisions and for multifamily, like
- there might be a restriction for impervious. Yeah. That's what I was wondering. Like, but that's, yeah,
- I don't know how we look back to it. I mean, we're already excluding the floodplain. But with 11 lots,
- like at that size, 1.4, what's your impervious match? So like we're talking about very small structures, right?
- but then there's that whole floodplain that you can't build on. So you count, right? Well, they've already
- accounted for that. So you could get seven to 11 lots, but depending on the size of the lot, if it's
- a surface match, they're pretty small. But that's per the estimates that you could count. So I'm calculating
- for multifamily.
- then total would be 15 units is what they could get based on the acreage and this requirement change.
- Just doing the simple math, they can do a multi-family 15-unit apartment across the 1.63 acres. I think
- that measurement was total right here. By comparison, these across the street, I think,
- I want to say they each have eight, but I want to verify that with the addressing and data that we have
- for these. And that's what the HD that's with the HD. There's multifamily five plus is not permitted
- in the CD or the rest district. And if you look at it, I mean, it's surrounded by CD mostly.
- I mean, it's not contiguous and they even have those two little HDs right in the middle is the CD bump
- to the door. Yeah, right there. I had a couple of those questions and I don't know if the question is,
- what did the property owners want? And it seems like they kind of just kept alluding to the highest
- best use, which maybe they're
- pandering to us a bit that, you know, just, you know, what do you think is best versus trying to ask
- for something? I don't want to speculate too much, but I guess what I'm getting at is I think CDE is
- appropriate. I think it limits the numbers. I think if they really want to build to a larger scale,
- that makes them have to come through another process in that particular area. I think,
- It makes sense. Also, there's the Karspar Greenway connector that also pretty much almost a contiguous
- connection all the way down to the B line. So like, there's also a lot of opportunity for other means
- of travel on a built out travel system. So again, you know, that kind of just goes into my support of the CD.
- OK. Does anyone want to move? Probably need to take like a raise of hands or a vote since we'll have
- to notice it to a certain zone. Right now we still have it open. I think we should put it. Go ahead.
- We'll see where I get in trouble. I look at, that's why I asked you to put the chart up. You got everything going on.
- The two buyers that they had on the book have dropped out. So they're no longer in the picture. So if
- I'm the person and I've got the property, I'm going to want as much flexibility as I can. Okay, so if
- I've got everything going on in that area and I can justify just about anything in terms of how we're
- going to sell it, flexibility I think is the key.
- So that would be my argument. Now, if there's a compromise there, because you don't want to go with
- HD and you want to go with CD. I mean, I don't really have a... I'm fine with HD. That was my compromise.
- That was my proposal. Well, going in position would be, you said, give them as much flexibility as possible,
- because you've got so many other things going on in the area. Unless you have a limiting factor that
- we haven't brought up. I mean, everybody's kind of going, eh, okay.
- I mean, should be a little bit, right? Shouldn't be adjacent, so I want to inform that a little bit,
- continuity of the tone. So I mean, to pass it to the north, then you've got a CD. To the south, you've
- got more CD. And then you have HD. Yeah, the point is, it seems to be CD bounding. I'm looking at the
- read. I've got to take a little shortcut. Sure.
- The impervious cover for HD and CD are the same, so no matter what they develop it as, if they had a
- single family with a huge tennis court or they had a multi-family, they still would be held to 50%.
- Oh, sorry, CD, 50% or 5,500 square feet, whichever is less, with an impervious cover within a critical
- watershed, which this is.
- And then this would be 50% of the lot size to sleeping and building. So actually the per base cover
- or CD would be more stringent. I'm sorry. I think the setbacks. You say CD is much more stringent. And
- then the setbacks 10 feet or further side and 10 feet from here. And then high development would be
- five feet side, 10 feet rear. So.
- Yes. Waiting for the ocean. Yeah, so I prefer to see heat is because of the watershed and it doesn't
- match neighboring blocks. But the other. Question is if there isn't. A sewer connection. It's pointless
- to talk about this anyway,
- It's strange, but that's where we're at. I think those folks need to know that. They're appraising.
- I mean, it's in the packet, but yeah. Thank you. So Mr. Harris, where are you? Because my thought was
- throwing out the CD as kind of part of a compromise based off of the discussion and my observation of
- the discussion.
- As I mentioned privately, it's really makes sense. It's in six and one half dozen or whatever. There's
- one where we think of some groupings to best compromise. If CDs to best compromise, I would support
- that. I know this is the admin, so is the motion appropriate or just signaling planning? Well, we have
- to get it. We have it online.
- But this is to indicate which zone is going to be proposed. And that's why we have to pull it up because.
- Is this not going to our regular? It does. Oh, no, it does. But we have to indicate on the regular packet.
- I totally agree. We don't need to have this discussion. Legal notice. I would prefer that we have a
- discussion here and come to come to come to spit it out.
- to come to a resolution here, instead of debating it in the planning commission meeting and having the
- same discussion. If the property owners straight up came and said HD, that would make a lot more persuasion
- for me to suggest that. But since they did, does anybody else have any thoughts about, I mean,
- is this just a, I think we're good. Do you want to do a raise a hand? We can call the vote on, let's
- start with the vote on CB.
- I'll go ahead and call the vote. Yes, I'll vote to support a rezone of REZ-26-2 to CD. Scott Harris?
- Yes. Drew Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes.
- Yes. Okay. So CD unanimous. This is presented at the regular session. I think it needs to be noted that
- there is a sanitary sewer service currently servicing the area.
- Is sanitary, are you talking about the map where it doesn't show the sewer service? I will verify that
- information because I know they might have like a stub across the road, it may not just show it green
- as sewer, blue as water.
- But the question for them that they didn't answer was whether they had the conversation with CBU because
- they would require an increase of capacity in that. I guess that's what I was asking for, a capacity
- letter, something of that nature. Okay. All right. I don't want to send a mixed message to the petitioner
- that, yeah, CBU is ready to go and we're all behind it. Oh, by the way,
- You can't get sewer service. Right, right. The highest and the best use is almost contingent upon something
- out of this body's control. Right. Moving right along. SIA-22-25 North Shore Amendment, one final plat.
- Yes. So this is a
- water credit that we've held since 2008. It is for sidewalks on East North Shore Drive. And the project
- has been before the Plan Commission just in terms of a requirement for sharing a driveway. We've been
- working pretty closely or communicating with the developer that we really would like to see progress
- on the sidewalks in this area.
- So we actually saw this almost a little over a year ago, and we recommended that they get one one-time
- extension till September 19th of this year. And they posted an amount of $40,099.08. At the time, we
- stated that if they do not make progress, then we would be asking to cash that amount.
- And that's what we're recommending tonight is that it's been more than 10 years. We have not seen the
- progress that we've been asking for. And so we are recommending at the hearing that we go ahead and
- cash this amount. We do have a letter of credit on file until December 8th of this year, but the performance
- period would expire before
- the next plan commission meeting. So essentially, if we don't extend the performance period tonight,
- they will automatically be expiring. And then we'd be looking to cast us and contract out the sidewalk
- work along North Shore as required. You said tonight, you mean that regular meeting? Tonight we have
- to discuss. It's a new business. Yes. At the regular meeting.
- because they've already asked for one performance period extension. This is the self-split one. It's
- the ZECOM. And I need to fix that. The proving body is planned commissioning regular. It'll be the regular.
- So, okay. So you're not wanting to mistake that for that. Right. But I do want to hear any thoughts
- as to whether there, if anyone wants to see this be extended. I just have one question, I guess. I guess,
- I remember this coming through and there was a new owner. How long have they been managing this?
- And like, I guess if you want to give us kind of your thoughts on like, them actually addressing this
- and kind of how those communications have gone so far. Sure. I don't know the exact date that they purchased
- the property. 2022.
- That sounds correct. When we've been working with them for the past at least three years talking about
- this requirement. So they are aware of the requirement. I think that when the subdivision was approved,
- there was a request to waive the sidewalk and it was denied. So I think that from the very beginning,
- there was a hesitancy to do the sidewalk in this area. Do you have the kind of
- belief that if we call the letter of credit, they will get to work and do it. If we call the letter
- of credit, they're not going to do it. So worst case or best case, depending on your perspective, you
- cash it out. You've got 40K. The work still needs to be done. Who's going to do the work? It goes back
- to our earlier discussion. Is this something the planning department is going to take and
- do whatever they have to do to take a project in place and manage the contract or project management
- standpoint, or is Highway Department going to do that on your behalf? And North Shore is a public road,
- so we would be working with the Highway Department on any kind of contract bid. We try to get all the
- materials together for them, but as far as actually going out and making sure that the work is done
- correctly,
- we do rely a little bit more on the highway department than the planning department on that. So this
- is a big ask when we're asking to cash these, it's not a simple task. On the other hand, the kids are
- an outstanding 30 down to 28 tonight. We're making progress, right? There isn't an HLA in the area or
- anything that could be
- Yeah. I mean, so, I mean, just to make sure everybody's clear, if we cash in this surety, we can't just
- use the money for anything. It has to be used specifically for the building. And it may be that, um,
- we can create card of one or, I mean, I don't know what that answer is, but either way, I don't think
- it's right to leave that money on the table, even if we don't have an answer today. But it does leave
- us with responsibility to try to figure out, do we just need, is a short path helpful? Where would it
- be? Can we use this money and cover that cost?
- You know, and that's, yeah. So I'm willing to consider cashing this in because I don't see any change
- coming. I just don't know how we're going to use it. And I don't think we, and obviously we have to
- use it for a sidewalk, but I don't think we're obligated to have an answer as soon as we cash it in.
- I think that answer can come.
- you know, maybe in a year or something happens with that roadway, we're going to be doing something
- where it will be easy to build that. Yes, we've got that money sitting in that fund. So it's something
- that Tim and I didn't notice while going out there on multiple site visits is that there are a lot of
- people coming from across the street. And so if there was an ability or an interest, we could explore
- the path of saying, okay, we, is there a way to amend this plot?
- but led by staff to, instead of the sidewalk going this room, would we be able to use that money for
- like a hawk light or something, even crossing of some sort? Yeah. It's busy out there. It's busy with
- golf carts. Yeah. They provided a video. Yeah. That's pretty. I like that. No, they did do the video.
- It was pretty interesting. And like, if you look at it, we're not creating much connectivity. I don't
- even know, like,
- maybe a safety area for people to jump off the road if some cars are barreling down. But also, I almost
- think it almost creates almost a bigger hazard to try to direct all the people on the golf carts and
- stuff to jump on a little tight sidewalk to get down there. And that's only gonna be kind of more on
- your eastern side because I don't think anyone's gonna use it from the access point straight across.
- I would be way more in favor to explore a different amendment to this to create better access and safety
- versus this sidewalk approach that goes to nowhere. I don't know what the highway's goals are coming
- out there and improving the highway, but I also remember digging into some accident reporting data
- And there's not too many accidents in that immediate area because there was a driveway cut, I think,
- up there where you kind of see the new paving and stuff. I think there was an issue. I think we didn't
- end up making them move their driveway, but no, we didn't. OK. We need to. We need to. They still need
- to do it. I was personally fine with waiving that. I think they were supposed to connect that new driveway
- over to the neighbor. Yeah.
- Right. So just all cards out, you know, I I'm not in favor of cashing this because I don't see where
- that huge benefit of building these sidewalks really come into play in the first and extending it to
- see if they want to amend the whole thing to create a better situation out there. That's where I'm at.
- I don't know who raised their hand first, I'm Julie. To Jackie's point though, if we could do a pedestrian island
- for a hop signal with that money by changing the flat, then I would be great with having that money
- to pay for that. There's no other way we're going to pay for that. So I don't, you know. Not taking
- the money means we can't ever do it.
- obligated to do to what we asked them. If that's cost savings, I think the petitioner would be more
- generous with that approach. Scott? I support drawing the financial guarantee with a statement. And
- you could use the word, if you guys help me here, pursue how you're going to spend that $40,000 in inner
- workings between highway and planning.
- whatever terminology you want to put in there. I just want some sort of a commitment. Well, let me ask
- Sean, since he's here, if we cash the bond or take the guarantee, that means we can only use that money
- for those sidewalks. So for instance, if we don't extend this for them to come and discuss a different
- way to use the money that
- we have there for them to build out the sidewalks and we go ahead and cash it as recommended by staff,
- our only approach is to build a sidewalk. We can't be like, oh, well, they come and amend it after the
- fact. Now we didn't give you your money and do this other approach of a project signal. So if we don't
- extend it, this is all we have.
- And that's what I'm saying. I don't think this creates the best use for this particular area to just
- build these sidewalks if the petitioner is amendable. So if we extend it, we could extend it, Scott,
- to a short period of time. And if the petitioner doesn't show any progress on wanting to amend the plan,
- even if we initiate it, which is weird to me, we can initiate an amendment. Does the petitioner have
- to agree to it? If we cashed it.
- I don't know if then we would be. No, but if we didn't catch it, we would not. The petitioner would
- have to agree to what we're supposed to amend. What's before us is extending the performance guarantee
- timeline for cashing. Right. So we could extend it to a short period, six months. And if the petitioner
- comes to us to amend it. We'd be favorable. Then we could move down that.
- That's kind of how I'm thinking. I just go back to Margaret. You had your hand raised. Yeah, but he
- was responding directly to Tron. You can go back to 665 and just go up to paragraph C and look at the
- last sentence. And I'm sorry. I mean, I fixated on the incomplete improvements reported more than 10
- years ago. I mean, come on now. I mean, I understand what you're saying, Tron, but we've got history here.
- I mean, I wouldn't have supported that. I mean, we're talking about commission 20 years ago, but it's
- different. We're talking about a new owner, but that's less than, you know, four years ago. Hasn't done
- anything. Okay. That's true. Okay. So I get, I, I completely understand those signs of this and I understand
- what Scott's saying. So, you know, like the other stuff, I totally agree with what Ron is saying.
- that if we cash it in, then our hands are tied. You're billing sidewalks in there where you can't amend
- the plot, you can't amend the plan. But if you have a little window to work with the petitioners to
- where highway or connector is not tied in to billing that sidewalk to nowhere, then you can look at
- other improvements in that area for pedestrians. That's the better access.
- Right. Absolutely. It's just over. But if there's maybe a workable solution to where we don't pass this
- in, that money's sitting there for another 10 years because we aren't going to do anything with it.
- OK, that links perfectly to what I want to say. I am really opposed to the concrete islands in the middle
- of where folks will be turning in and coming out and hitting
- the concrete islands on what seems to be a well-designed driveway. I do think that some safe traffic
- crosswalks would be useful, but I would not support any kind of pork chop, lamb chop, any kind of chop
- in the middle of the road that would make it hard on our maintenance staff. I just would not like that.
- But they have a parking signal, you don't need to have a pedestrian island in the correct place. Just
- saying that. Yeah, and I don't know that term, but, you know, I'm not- It's that flashing sign, like
- you press a button. I'm not opposed to anything like that, a crosswalk, a strip, a painted strip on
- the highway to say this is where the pedestrian should cross. There could be two of them, you know,
- one before the big turn and one after the big turn. But anything in the middle of that big turn would
- be an obstruction.
- So I feel like we're all taking a very narrow approach to improvements to asphalt surface. It seems
- like there's a more novel way we can look at this for any of these things, whether it's the divides
- or the lines or anything else to the asphalt surface. And so I believe approaching from that direction,
- maybe this leads to property transportation with a way to use that $42,000 in a way that can make sense
- for everybody.
- And I think you can use that nearly 2000 more economically and more improvements to pedestrians than
- you can ever build that sign. So you're not getting any, you're not getting any benefits from that sidewalk.
- There's a pedestrian crossing road. There's flashing beacon signs when I say road turn around,
- maybe 25 turns. You can still crosswalks, you can do pavement margins.
- There's options out there that's more affordable than building that site. But you're not going to sit
- on that money forever. So I agree that if you can find a way to spend that. So what's the heritage
- performance they're sending to you right now? September 19th of this month. How is the LOC stuff? It's OK.
- They are good until the center. So we have the money. It's just that the contract that they signed said
- we get a done guy is this thing. Can we do a short turnaround on that? I mean, can we say, you know,
- two years and then we come back and see if they've done anything? I mean, if not, then we have to consider
- an internal flat change. Right. You know, okay.
- two years essentially. Well, I'm going to communicate back to the owner to say the discussion here,
- listen to the reporting. They filed for a flat amendment two years ago, maybe three years ago now, and
- we told them, this is what you need to do. But with the rezone not getting their shared driveway or
- removal condition, they stopped in that process. They stopped in that process.
- Remind them that the sidewalk is separate and that they still need to go through with that process or
- we will be looking to cash it if not extending it. But we do want to work with them. We've been, we
- will continue to try to work with them and give them these other ideas that come out tonight. Yeah.
- So are we, are we extending the period of forms? This is a regular meeting discussion because it's the
- second time they're asking for an extension.
- So we just agreed to. Or is this still about the schools? When you ask the regular session and the legal
- advertise my point has been all along that we should hammer all the stuff out there that made it before
- we take it to a plan commission. Yeah, the beginning of these long blown out discussions and should
- be better.
- That's all. That's all. So like staff rewrite this portion of the recommendation to say extend
- the performance guarantee as opposed to recommend cashing it. We could do that for the regular meeting.
- It would depend on how your conversation goes with these. Okay, I don't think. I'm suggesting you have
- that discussion as soon as possible. That's where I'm going with that to see whether or not this is
- even more of our time than your time.
- to continue this dialogue will continue. I do appreciate what you said, because that's the radical change.
- I mean, it really is the radical change, but we're dealing with something that's been going on for a
- very good time, and we all know that, and the outcome has changed. And so that's my guess.
- just a quick note, there's a good chance I won't be here for the regular session on the 21st, so it'll
- probably be the 10th of May. I see you can tell. I mean, thanks for having me. 23rd? 23rd, yes, because
- of council. But anyways. But is that a problem with the average? It's higher. The letter credit's so
- good. Oh. But the contract that they said, well, hey, we'll have this done by his here. So it's two days.
- Their original letter of credit did expire this date, but they had a new bank and extended it to the
- state. You in fact are giving them an opportunity to a successful outcome. That's right. We need to
- know whether we have a successful outcome before the plan is approved. That's the point. Otherwise we're
- good. This plaque thing that they tried to do that failed,
- Is there any way we can kind of poke that in this and make it sweetened for everybody? They get what
- they want. It seems to me that based on what I've heard, if we're not building sidewalk, they get their
- money back. Or we just hold it. We don't give it back unless they were to succeed with the waiver. So
- we just hold it. I'm going back to the Bell Vista thing. Yeah. You know, this is something altogether.
- Yes. Different, but a lot the same.
- Yes. And we let those guys walk. Steve? Seems reasonable to extend that performance period to marry
- up with the letter of credit expiration, right? Because then it's a shorter period of time. It gives
- you some time to figure this out. I mean, you're going to have to extend the letter of credit anyway.
- So why not address it all together instead of these separate truncated pieces? Right.
- I think that we still have to do it at the hearing to extend it, but I don't know that. Yeah, I don't
- know if December 8th is enough, but I will talk to them based on our finally deadline that they got.
- We'll try. We'll see. Okay. Any other discussion points? In the meantime, when you're meeting with the
- petitioner, you might ask them if they would be amenable to
- some sort of traffic crossing option, you know, as a community service for their funds rather than just
- building a sidewalk and over. You know, that would be good, you know, good for the community. I don't
- know if you can even give them some PR as to how they help fund it or whatever, but nevertheless, I
- think word of mouth gets out. It didn't hurt.
- anything else on this topic. Oh boy. And I think the last two, I understand you want to take these together.
- Yeah, they're bad. 678. And I do know that the petitioner and the representative are online putting
- in your questions if you have any at this point. But you know, phase one and phase two
- their performance period ended, and I think we heard it earlier this year, and the thought was to push
- it to this meeting and discuss a performance period extension. We were really trying to see if they
- could work with the developer at Holland 3-Lot Miner to come up with a solution for the intersection
- at South Walnut Street Pike and East Holland Drive. From what I've heard,
- Recently that they are kind of in the middle of a mediation process to determine which developer is
- going to be taking on certain responsibilities. I don't know. We would have to ask them if they have
- any updates on that or not. But we are kind of staff is recommending that we do ask that because we
- are recommending an extension
- Other performance period, we would like to ask that they submit an additional amount for the inflation
- cost for another year. Yes. Holland three lot minor just did that same thing. And so this seems to make
- sense that they would supplied 10,000 for the phase one and then based to the total that we had for them.
- I'm just going to find your table because I think that was going to be about an additional $5,000. So
- they could either amend their letter of credit or they could submit a cashier's check, whichever is
- easier for them. And so I think they're very similar recommendations and update their performance bond
- documents and subdivision improvement agreements after they have submitted that
- you know, those funds, and then we would be able to have an accurate document to like submit to them.
- And then we're giving them a tight turnaround with April 17th for phase two of this next coming spring.
- It needs to have an application for acceptance into the right way. And the other one, I think, just
- a little bit longer, they would have until May 14th.
- Uh-huh. Have you discussed all these items with the petition? They have read this staff report. They're
- here listening to this meeting. I may or may not hear from them before, but they were sent the staff
- report and this was happening, so they're paying attention. Well, if they're listening, what I would
- ask is that they respond to whether or not they've read this and they don't have a problem with it. Okay.
- I agree with that. I mean, an email would suffice if they wanted to respond via email, but I can include
- that in the staff packet. Right. They reviewed and they concur. Or if they don't concur, they can also
- say they don't concur. And then slowing it back and forth between them. So I just want documentation
- with what's been discussed.
- Another point of discussion is that we were going to additionally have the planning commission state
- if the petitioner fails to complete all remaining work and apply for acceptance based on the May 14th
- and then the April date that we would be directed to cash loan and credit. But I want to be sensitive
- to the idea that another option is to continue to extend this and keep hitting the 10% inflation part
- in hopes that that's more motivating than us
- trying to do this work. So that's something that we can strike under this and complete allowing for
- the extension to what we are asking for the first part. And it will say that their representative, Angela
- Parker, has it hand raised. Correct. If you had a question and wanted to ask, you could. But this is
- not a hearing, and so it's not really public record difficult for us. You have to take a vote to see
- if we're going to do that as well.
- I'm trying to mute. I know it's getting late. Do you want to go for public comment? No. Okay. Sounds
- like the- I'll just try and talk to them tomorrow. Please, and then- Did they foresee any issues with
- the timelines and then like this? It's okay. All right, very good. Last item. Is it all the information
- together? Motion to adjourn.
- Good job. Thank you for your patience.