WEBVTT 00:00:00.418 --> 00:00:09.162 - Geez, let me go ahead and start over. We were on mute. So I'll go ahead and we've followed the meeting 00:00:09.162 --> 00:00:17.737 - to order and I'll go ahead and call the roll. David Bush. Here. Margaret Clemmons. Here. Brown Henry 00:00:17.737 --> 00:00:26.142 - Randolph. Here. Scott Farris. Here. Rudy Field. Here. David Henry. Here. I see David online. Here. 00:00:26.530 --> 00:00:35.908 - Can you unmute, David? I am unmuted. Can you hear me? OK. Are we muted? Yeah, right there. 00:00:35.908 --> 00:00:46.214 - We're so muted. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Can you hear us? I think he can, because I 00:00:46.214 --> 00:00:55.902 - called the roll. Jeff Morris? Here. Julie Thomas? Here. Joe Van Deventer? And Stephen Bishop? 00:00:56.130 --> 00:01:06.066 - here. OK, so we have 8 members, one online, 7 in person and a quorum and one non-voting City of Wilmington 00:01:06.066 --> 00:01:15.538 - representative. OK, very good. I didn't get a chance to run this by you beforehand, so do it now. Are 00:01:15.538 --> 00:01:19.902 - there any changes or amendments to the agenda? 00:01:20.802 --> 00:01:28.315 - No changes. We did have one additional document that I handed out and I can pull up under item number 00:01:28.315 --> 00:01:35.975 - two, which is administrative business that I do want to discuss, but no changes. We do have the highway 00:01:35.975 --> 00:01:43.635 - department likely joining us for some of the later petitions under new business. So I want to make sure 00:01:43.635 --> 00:01:49.822 - that we get there in a timely fashion if we can. Okay, so we will move right along. 00:01:50.402 --> 00:02:00.025 - first order of business is the administrative business. And it looks like first on the agenda is SIA-23-10 00:02:00.025 --> 00:02:08.478 - and 11 Amber Ridge Phase 2 and 3 status updates. Yes, so this is really just a report back on 00:02:08.610 --> 00:02:15.237 - One of the subdivision improvement agreements for which we had money in our cash budget line that was 00:02:15.237 --> 00:02:21.799 - already accepted into the inventory with some deficiencies. So the highway department went ahead and 00:02:21.799 --> 00:02:28.361 - hired out a contractor to complete some of the sidewalk improvements. And so we just wanted to share 00:02:28.361 --> 00:02:34.923 - that with you. This was one of the projects that was identified as kind of a higher priority, easier 00:02:34.923 --> 00:02:38.366 - project to complete with the funds that we had left. 00:02:38.658 --> 00:02:45.514 - So the red dotted line is the area where sidewalks were put in place. I did include a link to our earlier 00:02:45.514 --> 00:02:52.176 - Planning Commission administrative meeting on February 3rd, where we talked about, you know, there are 00:02:52.176 --> 00:02:58.644 - projects that essentially have been accepted into the inventory, but there were still items left to 00:02:58.644 --> 00:03:05.630 - be done, but the developer had walked away. This was one of them. So we went ahead and used the money where 00:03:06.498 --> 00:03:13.281 - It doesn't make it as far as we always wish. So there was a sidewalk requirement also to be on East 00:03:13.281 --> 00:03:20.200 - Samantha, but there were some constraints there, funding being one and a retaining wall needing to be 00:03:20.200 --> 00:03:27.391 - put in that was not going to be within budget. So just want to report back that we appreciate the highway 00:03:27.391 --> 00:03:34.174 - department for prioritizing completion of these types of projects, understanding that there's still 00:03:34.306 --> 00:03:42.165 - you know, work to be done on this topic, but I think this is the best solution we can do, which is spend 00:03:42.165 --> 00:03:49.724 - out the money we have on projects that are pretty much, you know, the best way to use the funds in a 00:03:49.724 --> 00:03:57.284 - timely fashion before we're, before inflation kind of cuts away at what we can do with the money. So 00:03:57.284 --> 00:04:03.646 - any questions for planning or Lisa on that one? I have a question. Okay. Page eight. 00:04:04.354 --> 00:04:11.670 - Okay. Uh, the end of paragraph two. Yeah. Where we say we do not have the typical staffing levels to 00:04:11.670 --> 00:04:19.059 - do this type of work because we usually rely on developers to complete these projects. Check. Uh, our 00:04:19.059 --> 00:04:25.651 - first preference, if you look at the end of the second paragraph, our preference is to not 00:04:25.651 --> 00:04:32.968 - accept subdivisions inventory and require the developer to complete their own projects. Check. Okay. 00:04:32.968 --> 00:04:33.982 - So when we do 00:04:34.274 --> 00:04:40.175 - We actually have projects which we have taken into the inventory and I read down here and we know it 00:04:40.175 --> 00:04:46.017 - hadn't happened since, what work had not been completed since 2016. So it's been 10 years. Correct. 00:04:46.017 --> 00:04:51.918 - Okay. We actually have projects that were taken inventory but not completed where there's money left 00:04:51.918 --> 00:04:58.053 - in the checkbook. Right. What is our position? Is it the positioning of the plan department that they're 00:04:58.053 --> 00:05:03.486 - going to take and go through the process of putting contracts in place to complete the work? 00:05:03.842 --> 00:05:09.111 - knowing that that's not something you're staffed for, or is this something that's passed to 00:05:09.111 --> 00:05:14.896 - the responsibility back to the Highway Department, or is there some other force of action that needs 00:05:14.896 --> 00:05:15.870 - to be discussed? 00:05:15.970 --> 00:05:22.905 - When something has been accepted into the inventory and we have that budget line, we've separated out 00:05:22.905 --> 00:05:30.248 - that that's under the highway department's management of those funds as opposed to the planning department. 00:05:30.248 --> 00:05:37.115 - So we can, we wanted to report back to the planning commission to let you all know that this type of 00:05:37.115 --> 00:05:43.914 - work can occur if we forward to say there's a item under new business where we're recommending item 00:05:43.914 --> 00:05:44.798 - number four, 00:05:44.930 --> 00:05:50.688 - North Shore Amendment. We're recommending that we cash that letter of credit. We no longer extend it. 00:05:50.688 --> 00:05:56.389 - This is the type of thing that would have to happen if we do not have to cash out the line of credit 00:05:56.389 --> 00:06:02.260 - and we decide to proceed with the work. Is it going to be the responsibility of the Planning Department 00:06:02.260 --> 00:06:07.905 - or is it defer back to the Highway Department to manage that contract? We work collaboratively, but 00:06:07.905 --> 00:06:11.518 - the Highway Department took the lead on this one in the future. 00:06:11.618 --> 00:06:17.834 - In the future, I still think it would be best under the highway department with coordination of the 00:06:17.834 --> 00:06:24.423 - planning department. Okay, so my question is, does that need to be, is that just an understanding between 00:06:24.423 --> 00:06:30.825 - the two departments or does it need to be codified somehow? So under our county development ordinance, 00:06:30.825 --> 00:06:37.352 - chapter 833, which is dealing with what we could do with subdivisions, the developer can either complete 00:06:37.352 --> 00:06:39.838 - all improvements and then flat the lots 00:06:40.034 --> 00:06:47.610 - or they can post with us a performance guarantee. The second or the end of that ending of posting the 00:06:47.610 --> 00:06:55.186 - financial guarantee is acceptance into the inventory and posting a maintenance bond. So to the extent 00:06:55.186 --> 00:07:01.054 - that we're cleaning up a little bit of how things were done over a decade ago, 00:07:01.218 --> 00:07:07.561 - I think that the Highway Department has practiced good judgment and ways of being able to spend money 00:07:07.561 --> 00:07:14.215 - most efficiently. I would trust their judgment and being able to get the projects done and their expertise 00:07:14.215 --> 00:07:20.682 - because they have crews on. My question is, do we need to codify that or is this just an understanding? 00:07:20.682 --> 00:07:27.025 - 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 00:07:27.025 --> 00:07:28.766 - say if you're talking about 00:07:29.890 --> 00:07:37.341 - two different departments. There would have to be something from a commissioner directive or a local 00:07:37.341 --> 00:07:44.719 - type agreement. So I think you're asking a very pertinent question. Maybe I may ask it differently. 00:07:44.719 --> 00:07:52.171 - Do you think since we're kind of looking at kind of what has occurred over the last 10 years as that 00:07:52.171 --> 00:07:57.630 - starts to kind of tease out and we're kind of moving forward with kind of 00:07:57.762 --> 00:08:06.844 - planning, looking at the improvements and, you know, falling more in highways realm when it's already 00:08:06.844 --> 00:08:15.749 - accepted into the inventory that this is a good way or do we need to make changes as far as suggest 00:08:15.749 --> 00:08:24.030 - recommendations to have more of a collaborative effort with highway versus them just kind of 00:08:24.194 --> 00:08:31.188 - having a volunteer, you know, or good agreement or good understanding of planning right now, because 00:08:31.188 --> 00:08:38.252 - in 10 years from now, we might have different folks. And if this is the way we build our workflow, do 00:08:38.252 --> 00:08:45.385 - we need to preserve that continuity by, you know, suggesting some type of understanding that is within 00:08:45.385 --> 00:08:49.886 - county's operations and job descriptions and so on and so forth? 00:08:54.434 --> 00:09:01.474 - The point here is that if this is gonna fall in your level of responsibility, that's a new requirement. 00:09:01.474 --> 00:09:08.718 - Managing a contract and a contractor and making sure they get a deliverable done, whatever the deliverable 00:09:08.718 --> 00:09:16.096 - is, is anybody who's done program or project management, this is not a simple task. It's very time consuming 00:09:16.096 --> 00:09:20.158 - and that's probably not within your area of responsibility. 00:09:20.258 --> 00:09:27.475 - That's not in a job description. It's probably not. It's not. That's where I'm going with that. If this 00:09:27.475 --> 00:09:34.553 - is something that we think you're going to do more of, we're just cashing it out and cashing out what 00:09:34.553 --> 00:09:41.770 - remains in a performance bond, etc., or something like that. So please, the Highway Director, I'm sorry 00:09:41.770 --> 00:09:46.142 - to put you on this, but Lisa, we were just talking about that. 00:09:47.042 --> 00:09:58.216 - Amber Ridge project and the sidewalk completion and some of the discussion that's come up is for some 00:09:58.216 --> 00:10:09.499 - of the subdivisions for which it's already been accepted into the county inventory, understanding that 00:10:09.499 --> 00:10:13.662 - hasn't happened since 2016 and prior. 00:10:14.274 --> 00:10:20.892 - Would it be best for those funds to continue to be controlled by highway? And I'm saying yes, because 00:10:20.892 --> 00:10:27.640 - that area is in the right of way. And then you guys are kind of in control of what's in your inventory, 00:10:27.640 --> 00:10:34.453 - what needs to be done. And so if there are projects where they haven't been accepted into the inventory, 00:10:34.453 --> 00:10:39.774 - we're still helping highway and the developer if they're involved with maps, with 00:10:40.034 --> 00:10:47.048 - You know, where you need to do the improvements, things like that. But the actual on the ground construction, 00:10:47.048 --> 00:10:53.488 - we do rely on highway if it comes down to that. So your chart are you reverting back the way it was? 00:10:53.488 --> 00:11:00.056 - No. Scott's question was basically, is planning going to take a more active role in projects like this 00:11:00.056 --> 00:11:06.942 - to be out there and do the bidding for this type of sidewalk work, or is that better managed under highway? 00:11:08.194 --> 00:11:16.226 - The question is, if you've got remaining work, you've already funded the... And we're talking about 00:11:16.226 --> 00:11:24.258 - the existing bond list. The existing bond list, but only for the projects that are already accepted 00:11:24.258 --> 00:11:32.451 - into the inventory. Probably about once. The question is, if you're at that point, when they're named 00:11:32.451 --> 00:11:35.102 - for, you've got remaining funds, 00:11:35.330 --> 00:11:45.963 - They can cash out the funds or you can take this contract out and manage it through contracts about 00:11:45.963 --> 00:11:57.128 - who manages that project. So it's going to be the funding department. Those are going to be left. That's 00:11:57.128 --> 00:12:00.318 - where we step back. So I ask. 00:12:00.514 --> 00:12:08.346 - Do we need to look at job descriptions to iron out maybe how this is supposed to move forward in the 00:12:08.346 --> 00:12:16.178 - future? And this could be something down the road, but I just piggyback on Scott's question, because 00:12:16.178 --> 00:12:24.475 - I understand preserving that common sense. Yeah, you can't just obligate all of this without understanding 00:12:24.475 --> 00:12:25.406 - the impact. 00:12:26.850 --> 00:12:33.805 - It was very time consuming. There was just never enough money to finish the work. Luckily, we had an 00:12:33.805 --> 00:12:40.761 - HOA stand up and find what they put together to a completion. What happens when you bid this out and 00:12:40.761 --> 00:12:47.716 - you, but there's not enough money to finish it? Who's going to cover that end for drop school? Who's 00:12:47.716 --> 00:12:49.438 - going to determine that? 00:12:49.762 --> 00:12:57.713 - Because I can probably guarantee you none of these bonds have enough money to do the project. So if 00:12:57.713 --> 00:13:05.664 - we're going to contract it out and we're going to take control of it, by the way, it's not going to 00:13:05.664 --> 00:13:13.775 - work. It's tough. Yeah. Because previous management took those roads out. But the assumption that the 00:13:13.775 --> 00:13:19.102 - developer was going to work with an invention. That didn't happen. 00:13:19.618 --> 00:13:27.839 - So does that step finally into an issue because we accepted that they're not finished. And I offer that 00:13:27.839 --> 00:13:35.823 - we asked planning to chat with highway to kind of have some type of continuity plan and they've gone 00:13:35.823 --> 00:13:43.727 - back to us and I know and we're talking about where'd you get I was just trying to figure out a way 00:13:43.727 --> 00:13:45.150 - where we could be 00:13:45.666 --> 00:13:51.850 - forward, but although I think Scott's question is very pertinent and also I think it goes into what 00:13:51.850 --> 00:13:58.034 - does planning need to take on some of these responsibilities and does that change a job description 00:13:58.034 --> 00:14:04.526 - from a current employee adds another one if we're actually going to cash these and they have to somewhat 00:14:04.526 --> 00:14:11.019 - serve as a project manager to make sure that these improvements aren't placed. I see Commissioner Thomas 00:14:11.019 --> 00:14:12.318 - has her hand raised. 00:14:12.450 --> 00:14:19.798 - Yeah. So if there's not money, then it becomes a council issue because the question is who paid for 00:14:19.798 --> 00:14:27.220 - it. If there is sufficient funding or close to it, in this case, it was like $3,000 off, right? Then 00:14:27.220 --> 00:14:34.642 - we do lean on FIDRA because they, they had contracted it to all sidewalks and streets and everything 00:14:34.642 --> 00:14:41.182 - else. That's their expertise. They know the best contractors. They will monitor the job. 00:14:42.114 --> 00:14:50.244 - Yeah, we don't need an extra agreement. We all work together in departments here in county government. 00:14:50.244 --> 00:14:58.452 - And I certainly would not ask planning to bid out an instruction job on streets and sidewalks and trees 00:14:58.452 --> 00:15:06.582 - or whatever. That's not their job. But certainly they're managing that process of looking at that list 00:15:06.582 --> 00:15:11.870 - and seeing if there's a close proximity of getting something done. 00:15:12.290 --> 00:15:22.236 - on those. These are not happening anymore. So thank goodness for that. I'm going to say that. Thank 00:15:22.236 --> 00:15:32.382 - goodness these are not occurring again. Thank you. Still not 20 to 30 out there. Oh, 188. That's very 00:15:32.382 --> 00:15:39.742 - hard. Yeah, it's huge. It's a huge problem. I don't know how you can ever 00:15:41.186 --> 00:15:47.818 - Fix those problems, right? And it's an expensive problem. It's and I'm waiting for them on to work. 00:15:47.818 --> 00:15:54.451 - However, we all want to work together. We would love to get this off. Everybody's playing, but then 00:15:54.451 --> 00:16:01.150 - set back for 20 or 30 years, right? I just don't know how you commit to it when you pretty well look 00:16:01.150 --> 00:16:08.114 - at it. You know. 70 amount of money and you're within $3000. But you're not to me. I think you do figure 00:16:08.114 --> 00:16:09.374 - it out when you're 00:16:09.922 --> 00:16:20.610 - $50,000 away, that's a huge problem. If you're over $10,000 away, that's a huge problem. And philosophically, 00:16:20.610 --> 00:16:30.520 - should all family tax payers pay for what the developer can do, right? I agree with that, but I also, 00:16:30.520 --> 00:16:39.070 - I also blame County Five Bay for taking those more than 10 years ago beyond my control. 00:16:39.586 --> 00:16:48.118 - without having them finished. That's our fault. I agree. The only point that I was trying to make is 00:16:48.118 --> 00:16:56.818 - it's not the planning department's responsibility to contract that work and manage that contract. Once 00:16:56.818 --> 00:17:05.434 - we've decided that we can contract out the work, we're within realm of finishing a project, yes, that 00:17:05.434 --> 00:17:08.222 - would be the highway department. 00:17:10.082 --> 00:17:17.351 - So it sounds like we've had good discussions. It sounds like we've got some ongoing collaboration between 00:17:17.351 --> 00:17:24.414 - planning and highway, thank goodness. And we have a limited amount of these outliers right now to deal 00:17:24.414 --> 00:17:31.477 - with. So we'll continue working on it. We will endeavor to persevere and knock them out one at a time. 00:17:31.477 --> 00:17:37.854 - And I know we have a very full agenda here. So with that, I'd like to move to the next item. 00:17:38.562 --> 00:17:47.466 - And thank you a lot of it for getting that one out there. Let's get the one down. Okay. House Enrolled 00:17:47.466 --> 00:17:56.370 - Act 1001 report. So I'd like to first go through the report. This is a draft of what we would be doing 00:17:56.370 --> 00:17:59.742 - on October 22nd, 2026. And this is the 00:18:00.130 --> 00:18:07.742 - basically the basis for what we would be sending to the legislative body that's required us to submit 00:18:07.742 --> 00:18:15.429 - this by January 1 of 2027. So we went through and answered the questions. So first question, providing 00:18:15.429 --> 00:18:23.264 - for higher density development of duplexes, triplex and fourplexes. The first thing we wanted to explain 00:18:23.264 --> 00:18:27.742 - to the public and to the state is that we do have uses that 00:18:27.938 --> 00:18:34.494 - meet those criteria. So we would consider a duplex to be a two-family dwelling. So then they can use 00:18:34.494 --> 00:18:41.179 - our chart under the CDO and see that we do allow it. And the whole basis for this question is to allow 00:18:41.179 --> 00:18:48.254 - it where there's allowance of single-family homes. So single-family detached dwellings are allowed permitted 00:18:48.254 --> 00:18:54.810 - in these zones. And then you would look and see where duplexes or two-family dwellings are permitted 00:18:54.810 --> 00:18:57.406 - or conditionally permitted in the code. 00:18:57.826 --> 00:19:05.126 - And then we do the same for Triplex, Fourplex. And that's it. So we're not similar responses to all 00:19:05.126 --> 00:19:12.573 - the questions. We're not proposing a text amendment. We're just explaining the code. So if you've had 00:19:12.573 --> 00:19:19.946 - a chance to kind of go through, we can look at constructing other housing types, including accessory 00:19:19.946 --> 00:19:26.078 - dwelling units. We explain that we allow accessory dwelling units and that we allow 00:19:26.210 --> 00:19:37.033 - Modular and manufactured homes as single-family dwellings. So accessory dwellings are right here. The 00:19:37.033 --> 00:19:47.326 - new definitions for these are the new. Yes, which have not quite been correct. Okay. Right. Yes. 00:19:48.386 --> 00:19:57.367 - And then there was some questions about adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for residential uses. 00:19:57.367 --> 00:20:06.259 - So we went into detail of our two reuse options. And then increasing allowable floor area ratio. We 00:20:06.259 --> 00:20:15.506 - do not have floor area ratio requirements anymore under the CDO and instead we rely on pervious covered 00:20:15.506 --> 00:20:18.174 - maximums and height maximums. 00:20:19.010 --> 00:20:26.984 - And then waiving or eliminating garage size and placement, we explain that we don't have a limitation 00:20:26.984 --> 00:20:35.193 - unless it's the only feature on the property. Deeper roof pitch, we do not have the regulation for that. 00:20:35.193 --> 00:20:43.168 - Minimum lot size, we do have minimum lot sizes, but we do not have... We said that when we passed the 00:20:43.168 --> 00:20:45.982 - CDO, we tried to appropriately zone 00:20:46.402 --> 00:20:53.841 - lots so that they wouldn't need a minimum lot size. And my question for the planning commission on this 00:20:53.841 --> 00:21:01.137 - one is, would you like me to add more data such as the number of minimum lot size variances that have 00:21:01.137 --> 00:21:08.433 - gone to the BTA pre and post CDO passage, or do you want me to just leave it as that? I would suggest 00:21:08.433 --> 00:21:14.942 - you just leave it. Okay. Myself. You've answered the question as we talked about that last 00:21:15.490 --> 00:21:23.297 - couple meetings just to answer the question. Too much data is going to open yourself to more questions. 00:21:23.297 --> 00:21:31.105 - And then this question about off-street parking. And I think that they probably are most concerned with 00:21:31.105 --> 00:21:38.837 - residential. So I had included our minimum parking requirements for all uses, but I can tone this down 00:21:38.837 --> 00:21:44.542 - to just residential. I think that would be more pertinent to that question. 00:21:44.770 --> 00:22:06.840 - waiting or eliminating regulations. So just a presidential. And then I can refer to the table. Okay. 00:22:06.840 --> 00:22:12.958 - And then the question about 00:22:13.058 --> 00:22:20.204 - For property height limitations, we really don't have a lot of height variances that come out. I added 00:22:20.204 --> 00:22:27.488 - the definition because we actually take two measurements, one from the average ground slope to the start 00:22:27.488 --> 00:22:34.564 - of the roof and then the average of the roof height. So that gives people a little bit more than just 00:22:34.564 --> 00:22:41.918 - measuring from the ground to the absolute pitch of the roof. And so just for your context, we've only had 00:22:42.050 --> 00:22:52.081 - one residential variance in 10 years for height. We can keep that in there. I could take that out if 00:22:52.081 --> 00:23:02.311 - helpful or not. I go back to what I said previously. I could get more data, just open yourself to more 00:23:02.311 --> 00:23:10.654 - questions. You've answered your question. If they come back, then you provide that. 00:23:11.554 --> 00:23:18.346 - Okay. And then streamlining or shortening the permitting processes timelines, including thorough one 00:23:18.346 --> 00:23:25.071 - stop parallel processing process permitting by 15 days or more. And I think this is a little bit of 00:23:25.071 --> 00:23:31.796 - a legal patch that they're trying to catch us in because there's already a requirement that we have 00:23:31.796 --> 00:23:37.310 - to review certain things in 12 business days or less. And then now seven business 00:23:37.666 --> 00:23:45.505 - days to issue a permit. So this could really even say three business days. So I have a note that I'm 00:23:45.505 --> 00:23:53.267 - going to make sure I check with you. Get it right. And then using property tax abatements to enable 00:23:53.267 --> 00:24:01.029 - higher density and mixed income communities. And I state that we do not have a provision in the CDO 00:24:01.029 --> 00:24:06.462 - that relates to tax abatements and higher density bonuses. And that's 00:24:06.626 --> 00:24:13.596 - I just answered the question because we don't have any. Okay. And then donating land for vacant affordable 00:24:13.596 --> 00:24:20.174 - housing. Our planning department has historic has not historically led any development projects. The 00:24:20.174 --> 00:24:26.883 - board of commissioners did attempt to pursue affordable housing project. I sounds like people may just 00:24:26.883 --> 00:24:32.094 - answer the question and I would get rid of the second part. Yeah. I don't know. 00:24:32.194 --> 00:24:40.061 - Do you feel like this is more a land bank led question? Because I don't think the expectation is you 00:24:40.061 --> 00:24:48.005 - would leave the development. It's more, do you have a pool of available land that can be given at low 00:24:48.005 --> 00:24:55.950 - cost for the purchase of affordable housing? The answer may be that missionaries regularly remove tax 00:24:55.950 --> 00:25:01.246 - rolls or failed tax sale sales. Land that was not sold at tax sale. 00:25:01.730 --> 00:25:08.869 - And, um, yeah, that's just part of what we do. So, you know, defer to, um, yeah, I defer to what stops 00:25:08.869 --> 00:25:15.869 - them saying it, you know, any expanding on it has just been asked multiple other questions. Like how 00:25:15.869 --> 00:25:22.800 - much plan does the commissioners have? What was the project that they were pursuing? You know, just 00:25:22.800 --> 00:25:27.582 - the planning commission doesn't have anything to do with it. I mean, 00:25:27.874 --> 00:25:35.405 - That's kind of what we're addressing, right? Mr. Schilling is the UDO, even though they say that the 00:25:35.405 --> 00:25:42.713 - unit can reply to this, which means the entire county, but we're still focused on the UDO, right? 00:25:42.713 --> 00:25:50.468 - Or CDO, sorry. Is the CDO. But I mean, it's asking the county what you're doing with your zoning orders 00:25:50.468 --> 00:25:55.390 - and any other land development ordinances and so forth. So it's a 00:25:55.810 --> 00:26:03.694 - The other question to have a commissioner say, hey, yeah, we've turned over properties that have been 00:26:03.694 --> 00:26:11.578 - forfeited in tax sale to a not-for-profit for housing. If they had a tenant project, then there would 00:26:11.578 --> 00:26:19.385 - be something to say that when the opportunity arises, we have stepped up. That's exactly how I would 00:26:19.385 --> 00:26:25.182 - answer it, that the commissioners have an historic record of donating land 00:26:25.378 --> 00:26:33.690 - for affordable housing development. That's even better. On a case-by-case basis or something. Just so 00:26:33.690 --> 00:26:41.840 - they have an historic record. I agree. That's good. Do you have performance you can put behind that 00:26:41.840 --> 00:26:46.974 - if you get asked for it? Yeah, I mean, look at the conveggies. 00:26:47.202 --> 00:26:53.743 - We can think about it. Yeah, that convention center, then Osage Plays, Osage Plays, and the land on 00:26:53.743 --> 00:27:00.349 - South Rogers or of Budding, South Rogers, et cetera. So Jackie, tell us the language you're going to 00:27:00.349 --> 00:27:07.087 - put in there. Wait a minute. I want to hear from Mr. Henry. I think the question was asked. So I mean, 00:27:07.087 --> 00:27:13.955 - if we're going to make a pronouncement about historic, then you need to have examples of historic things 00:27:13.955 --> 00:27:16.702 - that you have proposed. So if there is a, 00:27:16.802 --> 00:27:23.343 - But it goes back to Colonel Ferris's comment, which is less is more. So if you're opening the door to 00:27:23.343 --> 00:27:30.013 - a pronouncement of historic past practice, you're going to need some examples of historic past practice 00:27:30.013 --> 00:27:36.683 - ready to share. That's it. I'll be there and answer the question if anybody asks. Yeah. So Jackie, what 00:27:36.683 --> 00:27:43.224 - are you going to say? OK, so I would like to keep the first sentence. The Planning Department has not 00:27:43.224 --> 00:27:45.982 - historically led any development projects. 00:27:46.466 --> 00:27:54.034 - And then I will say that the Board of Commissioners regularly looks at land not sold at a tax sale and 00:27:54.034 --> 00:28:01.454 - can donate that land towards affordable housing development projects. Historically, they have turned 00:28:01.454 --> 00:28:08.948 - over land for affordable housing projects. And then I can say, including in parentheses, if you would 00:28:08.948 --> 00:28:16.222 - like, if you want to give three examples, I have Osage Place, South Rogers, and Convention Center. 00:28:16.386 --> 00:28:24.564 - Who's making the final okay on this statement? Because I think it's just figuring out a better term 00:28:24.564 --> 00:28:32.741 - than historic would be more appropriate. And I'd be more comfortable getting behind that because I, 00:28:32.741 --> 00:28:41.328 - they have shown good faith efforts to achieve these, but like where, like in the historic, in my opinion 00:28:41.328 --> 00:28:45.662 - is like 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, you know, so like, 00:28:46.562 --> 00:28:56.363 - ongoing, you know, measures or something to that. Just I, I personally, without the data and all the 00:28:56.363 --> 00:29:06.066 - examples listed and what we just said, it's not historic in my opinion. I love it. This is actually 00:29:06.066 --> 00:29:16.158 - doing it and they're showing an attempt. I would say the commissioners have a record. Yes. There we go. 00:29:16.290 --> 00:29:26.531 - I like that. And I would that answer that you've put down Jackie was longer than I think that needs 00:29:26.531 --> 00:29:37.079 - to be needs to be OK. The last piece is enough. Yeah, but yeah, there's just having record of donating 00:29:37.079 --> 00:29:45.374 - land for affordable housing. Yes, yeah. There we go. There. OK, OK. Yeah. Right. 00:29:46.306 --> 00:29:55.905 - So do not include the the example projects are you done now? But then. So personally those in your pocket. 00:29:55.905 --> 00:30:04.876 - And then my question under this section four of what we have to submit to the state. It says if the 00:30:04.876 --> 00:30:14.654 - unit had a housing study performed by a region's local economic development organization. I was planning on. 00:30:14.850 --> 00:30:21.540 - including or referencing ROI and city of Bloomington housing studies. Are there other studies or do 00:30:21.540 --> 00:30:28.297 - those meet that definition under the planning commission? I sent one to Tammy that I used at the end 00:30:28.297 --> 00:30:35.254 - of point 25. Okay. I think I got it like 10 minutes before this you walked in. Yeah, we were under that 00:30:35.254 --> 00:30:39.134 - ladder. I think I saw it blip there was like focus later. 00:30:39.426 --> 00:30:47.288 - Can you ask that question again? Because none of these were things that we requested. Could you send 00:30:47.288 --> 00:30:55.151 - that study to us that was done by you? Sure, yeah. No, the question is, I'm trying to interpret what 00:30:55.151 --> 00:31:03.246 - the state's asking for. Has there been a housing study performed by regions, local economic development 00:31:03.246 --> 00:31:04.414 - organizations, 00:31:05.026 --> 00:31:11.777 - Would that include the ROI study? Would that technically include the city of Bloomington housing study? 00:31:11.777 --> 00:31:18.333 - Would that technically include an IU housing study under the definition of a region's local economic 00:31:18.333 --> 00:31:25.149 - development organization? Or should we say specifically the Bloomington economic development corporation 00:31:25.149 --> 00:31:31.900 - is our local regional economic development organization? They have not done a housing study. It's like, 00:31:31.900 --> 00:31:34.302 - you know, may answer it in that way. 00:31:35.074 --> 00:31:47.217 - Is there a definition to interpret what the economic development organization is? I mean, like, IU's 00:31:47.217 --> 00:31:59.720 - pretty huge. They put in huge investments all the time on campus that drives economic development here. 00:31:59.720 --> 00:32:02.846 - And I also think the EEDC 00:32:03.010 --> 00:32:11.178 - What was the third one that you missed? So RYIU in the city of Bloomington have done a housing study, 00:32:11.178 --> 00:32:19.346 - but we in Monroe County just take note that if you list those documents, they're going to want to see 00:32:19.346 --> 00:32:27.594 - those documents, what those documents say. So if we are concerned about anything that might be in some 00:32:27.594 --> 00:32:31.678 - of those documents, we would agree with, like ROI, 00:32:31.810 --> 00:32:38.598 - than if you're walking into a trap. Yeah, but we can't admit things. I can argue with the local. I don't 00:32:38.598 --> 00:32:45.385 - 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, 00:32:45.385 --> 00:32:52.238 - a region's local economic development organization can mean a few things under law. So I would be careful 00:32:52.238 --> 00:32:58.249 - to exclude something, because it's not the region's local economic development organization. 00:32:58.249 --> 00:33:00.318 - It's a region. So I would defer 00:33:00.482 --> 00:33:06.831 - to Mr. Schilling's interpretation of the word A under Black's Law Dictionary for us to understand what 00:33:06.831 --> 00:33:13.056 - a region's local economic development organization means. Because it could include ROI because we're 00:33:13.056 --> 00:33:19.405 - in that organization's region. Yeah, I guess my feeling is they asked for these things to be attached. 00:33:19.405 --> 00:33:25.754 - And somebody's gonna attach it to the city of Bloomington or some other entity to attach it. You might 00:33:25.754 --> 00:33:29.822 - as well attach it to say, hey, we haven't done any in the county, 00:33:30.146 --> 00:33:38.141 - but we are aware of other studies and have reviewed and discussed with them as we were putting together 00:33:38.141 --> 00:33:46.212 - our CDO. Yeah. I mean, and this is the fact is that you guys are aware of what's going on as you develop 00:33:46.212 --> 00:33:53.977 - your ordinance. And that's what they're at with the ones you're thinking about housing and building. 00:33:53.977 --> 00:33:59.742 - So that's yourself on the back and I'm not a great jar. Our CDO came from, 00:33:59.906 --> 00:34:07.550 - informed understanding from these other drivers and, you know. Well, then can we say we have reviewed 00:34:07.550 --> 00:34:15.043 - the products that were produced by others? We have reviewed them. We didn't say that we agreed with 00:34:15.043 --> 00:34:23.136 - them. We have reviewed them and it was part of our CDO discussion that we approved it. Reviewed, discussed, 00:34:23.136 --> 00:34:28.382 - and are aware. Whatever. Yeah, just don't say we agreed. Right. Okay. 00:34:28.546 --> 00:34:36.060 - So you would say ROI study? David's got a comment. Well, I mean, respectfully, that's gold plating the 00:34:36.060 --> 00:34:43.428 - requirement under law. I mean, it says shall submit a report to the executive director by electronic 00:34:43.428 --> 00:34:50.870 - means containing. It doesn't ask for a qualification. It doesn't ask for a disclaimer. It says attach 00:34:50.870 --> 00:34:56.414 - them. So I'm a little concerned about if we're going to start just claiming 00:34:56.674 --> 00:35:04.317 - our response and we got to go back through all this and start disclaiming a lot of things or making 00:35:04.317 --> 00:35:11.961 - contrary. That's not what it asks here is it has attached the regional report. I'm fine with saying 00:35:11.961 --> 00:35:19.604 - they're included there. They are. Yeah, and I can't speak for everyone that they reviewed them all, 00:35:19.604 --> 00:35:25.566 - but I know I read it so. And then move on. I think in a day's plan, this this 00:35:26.050 --> 00:35:34.470 - reflects, you know, our due diligence more than anything by, you know, passing out, supporting those 00:35:34.470 --> 00:35:43.307 - reports, just saying that they're regional reports that are out there. As long as we say that we reviewed 00:35:43.307 --> 00:35:51.727 - them in our discussions, when we developed the ordinance, we didn't say we reviewed and incorporated 00:35:51.727 --> 00:35:52.894 - and excluded, 00:35:53.346 --> 00:36:00.070 - We just said review them as part of our review of the CDO before it was approved. So back to David Henry's 00:36:00.070 --> 00:36:06.417 - comment. So we do have to attach the minutes of the public hearing. So if we don't have a disclaimer 00:36:06.417 --> 00:36:12.765 - here and we just attach those studies, it doesn't prevent you from during the hearing talking about, 00:36:12.765 --> 00:36:19.174 - and there will be an attachment of three studies that we have reviewed, discussed, and we're aware of 00:36:19.174 --> 00:36:21.374 - when the CDO passed. These include 00:36:21.698 --> 00:36:27.964 - Da-da-da-da-da, and then in the minutes. Are we concerned at the hearing that somebody might want to 00:36:27.964 --> 00:36:34.291 - open those documents up and talk about those documents in front of the hearing? I assume that's going 00:36:34.291 --> 00:36:40.743 - to be up our hearing. I don't know. That's a good question. Each of those questions should be addressed 00:36:40.743 --> 00:36:47.194 - during your hearing, and I think that they're talking about it, so somebody must say, hey, I think this 00:36:47.194 --> 00:36:50.110 - study's great. I didn't think you followed it. 00:36:50.434 --> 00:36:59.029 - And so the very response is fine. We have to balance all kinds of interests and the good investment. 00:36:59.029 --> 00:37:07.793 - Right. The housing study is not one of the questions. It's something that you have to attach. So along 00:37:07.793 --> 00:37:16.643 - with the minutes. And then it says any newly developed or amended CDO as a result of the review section 00:37:16.643 --> 00:37:18.430 - under section three. 00:37:19.010 --> 00:37:26.212 - We must describe written ways in which the ordinance was changed to support increased housing development 00:37:26.212 --> 00:37:33.279 - by some or all the factors set forth in section three. So if there arises a discussion from the minutes 00:37:33.279 --> 00:37:40.141 - and we might have a text amendment, we can include that, but it would be early to tell because we're 00:37:40.141 --> 00:37:44.286 - going to have the hearing on October 22nd. We could do work. 00:37:44.514 --> 00:37:51.927 - work session on the administrative meeting or degree from that and then get a directive as to whether 00:37:51.927 --> 00:37:59.340 - there's any changes that need to happen. But this is the draft. So if you have edits or comments that 00:37:59.340 --> 00:38:06.607 - you want us to put in, October 22nd is coming up. So we would like to get your feedback. And then I 00:38:06.607 --> 00:38:10.750 - shared and I will include here as well for those online. 00:38:12.002 --> 00:38:21.998 - We have a resolution that I would like to get your vote on potentially or discuss that Mr. Shelling 00:38:21.998 --> 00:38:32.093 - put together. It's a resolution that essentially delegates the requirement to hold the hearing under 00:38:32.093 --> 00:38:40.190 - HTA 1001 to the Planning Commission instead of having the final authority be the 00:38:41.090 --> 00:38:47.417 - County commissioners. So it says the board of commissioners if they approve this resolution, they are 00:38:47.417 --> 00:38:53.682 - stating that the Planning Commission shall conduct the required hearing on November 4, the 22nd, day 00:38:53.682 --> 00:39:00.134 - of October, 2026, and that the Planning Commission shall prepare written minutes, review hearing, shall 00:39:00.134 --> 00:39:06.585 - prepare and gather any housing studies proposed to ordinance amendments, submit the foregoing materials 00:39:06.585 --> 00:39:08.446 - to the commissioners prior to 00:39:08.706 --> 00:39:16.174 - the third day of December. So we would just take that to the commissioners, the package that we're going 00:39:16.174 --> 00:39:23.358 - to submit to the state. And this resolution itself, we're proposing to take on September 17th to see 00:39:23.358 --> 00:39:31.182 - that if they approve of delegating this to the planning commission. Now note that for the planning commission 00:39:31.182 --> 00:39:38.366 - hearing on October 22nd, staff plans on noticing this or potential quorum of county council members, 00:39:38.850 --> 00:39:46.873 - Um, commissioners and anyone else, any other board that you would like me to invite. So they will be 00:39:46.873 --> 00:39:55.373 - in attendance at the planning commission hearing, but just not repeating the hearing at the commissioners. 00:39:55.373 --> 00:40:03.793 - That sounds good. Yep. Yeah, it sounds good. And I like this resolution. It's, uh, very well done. Should 00:40:03.793 --> 00:40:08.798 - we put a motion on the table? Let's see that just to be clear. 00:40:09.026 --> 00:40:17.597 - 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 00:40:17.597 --> 00:40:26.005 - be the resolution delegating the hearing requirement, HEA 1001, to the Planning Commission. So I vote. 00:40:26.005 --> 00:40:34.168 - I motion with Jackie Sepp. I second that. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to essentially approve 00:40:34.168 --> 00:40:38.494 - the draft resolution that would delegate the hearing 00:40:38.594 --> 00:40:47.786 - to the plan commission for the House Enrolled Act 1001 requirement. A vote yes is a vote to approve 00:40:47.786 --> 00:40:56.979 - the resolution draft that then goes to the commissioners for a final vote. Mayor Plummons. Yes. Don 00:40:56.979 --> 00:41:05.803 - Enright-Randolph. Yes. Scott Farris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. David Henry. Yes. Jeff Morris. Yes. 00:41:05.803 --> 00:41:07.550 - Julie Thomas. Yes. 00:41:09.826 --> 00:41:29.662 - Yes. Okay. Motion is approved. Thank you. All right. All right. Next on our agenda is unfinished business. 00:41:33.346 --> 00:41:43.304 - bit of unfinished business, ZOA-26-3 CDO text amendments to comply with state statute changes. Yes. 00:41:43.304 --> 00:41:53.362 - I want to give an update that we did add a few more text amendments that's led by staff just because 00:41:53.362 --> 00:41:59.934 - we found things to be being cleaned up. So those include 811-4F5, 00:42:00.674 --> 00:42:07.698 - There was a requirement that said essentially that an accessory structure had to be only, you could 00:42:07.698 --> 00:42:14.791 - only use half of the size of an accessory structure for a home-based business. And what we'd like to 00:42:14.791 --> 00:42:21.815 - change it to be, and is in the code, is that the accessory structure itself can be half the size of 00:42:21.815 --> 00:42:29.049 - the primary residence. And that way we don't have to enforce whether they're using half of an enclosed 00:42:29.049 --> 00:42:29.822 - structure. 00:42:30.338 --> 00:42:37.645 - it makes it easier for us to be able to say they comply. And then I do want to go into depth about the 00:42:37.645 --> 00:42:44.953 - wireless communication facilities, which is the next item on the agenda, but related to this. And then 00:42:44.953 --> 00:42:52.119 - under 818, we are requesting to remove item D, which says the proposed subdivision has frontage on a 00:42:52.119 --> 00:42:58.078 - street that provides direct access to destinations such as schools, grocery stores, 00:42:58.594 --> 00:43:05.727 - or recreational facilities and instead edit item A that says the proposed subdivision is within 0.25 00:43:05.727 --> 00:43:13.002 - miles of another existing or proposed subdivision or business development that has sidewalks. And then 00:43:13.002 --> 00:43:20.559 - we also want to edit item E, which is another listing item, which says, et cetera, because we were getting 00:43:20.559 --> 00:43:27.198 - into situations where we had to determine whether a recreational facility and then et cetera, 00:43:27.362 --> 00:43:37.656 - meant are we looking at other facilities which were undefined? Then under 832-14 here, we changed adjacent 00:43:37.656 --> 00:43:47.950 - to adjoining just to again, be a little bit clearer in the code. If they're actually touching or adjoining 00:43:47.950 --> 00:43:55.742 - a greenway, that would be when we would be asking for certain sidewalks or other 00:43:56.642 --> 00:44:04.825 - requirements to be put in place. 832-7 and 809, we have in the code currently that administrative 00:44:04.825 --> 00:44:13.508 - subdivisions must comply with buildable area, such as we're creating one acre buildable area lots. When 00:44:13.508 --> 00:44:22.108 - we're doing administrators, which is just moving lot lines typically for two or three lots, and you're 00:44:22.108 --> 00:44:24.446 - dealing with existing lots, 00:44:24.866 --> 00:44:32.460 - you're usually not even starting out with compliant lots. They're moving because there's encroachments, 00:44:32.460 --> 00:44:39.907 - there's limited buildable area shared already. So to require a one acre when they don't already start 00:44:39.907 --> 00:44:47.355 - with one acre is becoming an issue. So that's something that we are recommending to remove, but we're 00:44:47.355 --> 00:44:53.342 - open to that discussion as well. If people feel like that requires a variance to, 00:44:53.826 --> 00:45:01.787 - amend nonconforming lots, even though they won't become more nonconforming, just amending them, triggers 00:45:01.787 --> 00:45:09.521 - or variants, then we're happy to keep it in there, but it would be cleaner if it was not in there, in 00:45:09.521 --> 00:45:17.104 - staff's opinion. Is there questions on this, or do we want to go to the cell tower follow-up? Okay, 00:45:17.104 --> 00:45:22.942 - let's go to the cell tower follow-up. Okay, follow-up from the last meeting. 00:45:23.874 --> 00:45:32.657 - And I will say that some of these sources, but it's when you Google and search some of the stuff, say 00:45:32.657 --> 00:45:41.440 - you're with a grain of salt, I didn't know I actually have to verify for sure the cost comparison and 00:45:41.440 --> 00:45:49.534 - some of these other questions, but I felt like the answers were at least reasonable sounding. 00:45:49.730 --> 00:45:57.043 - The camouflage component can add $100,000. That was one of the first questions as whether it costs more. 00:45:57.043 --> 00:46:04.286 - Then the other question, do other jurisdictions require concealed towers and in what zone? We did reach 00:46:04.286 --> 00:46:11.320 - out to the APA listserv and only one response by Harrison County, Indiana. And they just don't allow 00:46:11.320 --> 00:46:18.564 - cell towers in residential districts. So they don't deal with concealed versus non-concealed. They just 00:46:18.564 --> 00:46:19.678 - don't allow it. 00:46:20.354 --> 00:46:27.505 - I looked at the city of Wilmington's ordinance and they also do not require concealed towers, but they 00:46:27.505 --> 00:46:34.795 - similarly just do not allow communication facilities and residential zones. So we could consider instead 00:46:34.795 --> 00:46:41.877 - of concealed versus not concealed, just say it's not permitted in residential zones and get away from 00:46:41.877 --> 00:46:48.126 - the concealed requirement. So how many cell towers do we have in residential zones today? 00:46:51.618 --> 00:47:00.787 - Rural residential zones, we do have quite a few, which I think I went down and stated. New cell towers 00:47:00.787 --> 00:47:09.778 - have primarily located in the rural residential. In the residential, small lots, I would say none to 00:47:09.778 --> 00:47:18.947 - maybe one. They're relying more on the utility pole, small cells in the right of way, not dealing with 00:47:18.947 --> 00:47:20.638 - planning. Correct. 00:47:24.546 --> 00:47:31.947 - So you're saying if they wanted to put one in a rural residential area and we didn't permit 00:47:31.947 --> 00:47:40.314 - it in residential, then they would have to go through a rezone process? Well, and this is where I think 00:47:40.314 --> 00:47:48.680 - we've made the changes in 2016 to say it's either administratively reviewed or conditional. So we could 00:47:48.680 --> 00:47:49.726 - just make it 00:47:50.530 --> 00:47:59.082 - conditional and say there is no administrative review process if you're going to be located in a residential 00:47:59.082 --> 00:48:06.928 - area. Other jurisdictions, I will tell you, just say it's not permitted at all. There is no relief. 00:48:06.928 --> 00:48:15.401 - I know I heard Dave maybe having a comment back there about that. I don't know if we're allowed to outright 00:48:15.401 --> 00:48:17.598 - deny them in certain areas. 00:48:17.794 --> 00:48:26.636 - They say that cell tower providers are still subject to local zoning, but you can't do anything that 00:48:26.636 --> 00:48:35.391 - keeps them from establishing a solid network and connection. I thought about that. If you say, hey, 00:48:35.391 --> 00:48:38.718 - you can't go into a residential area, 00:48:38.978 --> 00:48:46.543 - an option would be to come in and get a variance, but they can't meet the variance criteria because 00:48:46.543 --> 00:48:54.713 - there's other uses for that property. So it's, I guess I don't know the answer to it other than be careful. 00:48:54.713 --> 00:49:02.278 - Yeah. So if we make a conditional or they set up the VZA and it would be then allowed in those on a 00:49:02.278 --> 00:49:08.254 - case by case? Yeah. You think that's a little tie guard? There are cases where 00:49:08.546 --> 00:49:15.182 - um, wireless communications facilities have been rejected under, under a special exception and upheld 00:49:15.182 --> 00:49:22.012 - affirming by who feels there are a couple of cases out there on that. We had one that I think they ended 00:49:22.012 --> 00:49:28.713 - up withdrawing, but it was a close to a historic structure and it was going to impede the view of kind 00:49:28.713 --> 00:49:35.219 - of the historic character of the area. Yeah. I had one that was going to need variances for getting 00:49:35.219 --> 00:49:37.886 - to it with the steep slopes and the eco. 00:49:38.146 --> 00:49:46.969 - That's true. I think they have a lot of lobby influence and if we make it extremely difficult, they're 00:49:46.969 --> 00:49:56.134 - going to just probably use some of that leverage and influence to just change the law from the legislative 00:49:56.134 --> 00:50:04.785 - standpoint and then kind of just do what they want when it comes to a county by county situation. So 00:50:04.785 --> 00:50:08.126 - if we give them a path that they could 00:50:08.290 --> 00:50:21.396 - then go through that might keep our local government's authority more tight, in my opinion. If you're 00:50:21.396 --> 00:50:32.574 - allowing it, excuse me, if you give a pathway where they can get conditional approval, 00:50:33.698 --> 00:50:42.351 - they do have to go, they would have to go before the BZA. It was conditional. It was administrative 00:50:42.351 --> 00:50:50.571 - which was no public hearing. Right. I kind of like that. I mean, you know, that at least gives 00:50:50.571 --> 00:50:59.310 - the prospective cell phone provider an opportunity to state their case and create an ability to work 00:50:59.310 --> 00:51:03.550 - to a solution rather than just saying yes or no. 00:51:03.714 --> 00:51:10.612 - What you're saying though is... In some situations, you may not have a choice. That's right. 00:51:10.612 --> 00:51:18.251 - That's right. But I agree. I agree that as long as you provide a process, I mean, that's a way to take 00:51:18.251 --> 00:51:25.817 - and solve the problem. You may not get the outcome you want, but just do it like a process. Well, you 00:51:25.817 --> 00:51:28.190 - can get the neighbors notified. 00:51:28.578 --> 00:51:34.655 - What's that? Yeah. Neighbors are notified. You get a public hearing portion everywhere that the public 00:51:34.655 --> 00:51:40.555 - can take and say we don't want our neighborhood. Well, you might have the neighbors who said, yeah, 00:51:40.555 --> 00:51:46.456 - we love them. Yeah. We've been wanting cell phone coverage out here forever. Right. Right. But also 00:51:46.456 --> 00:51:52.356 - you may have the opportunity to attach it to an existing structure so that it's not a second. So it 00:51:52.356 --> 00:51:55.070 - gives us say or input into the process. Yeah. 00:51:55.618 --> 00:52:01.845 - It's really what Dave was saying is we have no way to impede there from establishing a solid network, 00:52:01.845 --> 00:52:08.500 - and they're probably the ones that determine what's a solid network or not. So if it is in a rural situation 00:52:08.500 --> 00:52:14.667 - that they want to create connectivity, regardless of they're going to do people for or against, that 00:52:14.667 --> 00:52:21.077 - little provision right there gives them probably the authority to put something in to create that signal 00:52:21.077 --> 00:52:25.534 - strength or solid network. But we can't, according to the state statute, 00:52:26.722 --> 00:52:32.928 - go in and judge coverage and all of that. That's not our job. No, that's what I'm saying. They have 00:52:32.928 --> 00:52:39.197 - the means to get stuff done, but they'll probably go through the process if there isn't. But the PCA 00:52:39.197 --> 00:52:45.527 - will allow the public comic to come in and make those changes. Well, if I have a play, we'll probably 00:52:45.527 --> 00:52:51.857 - have a better outcome by having that as a public change, and we want to make sure the public is aware 00:52:51.857 --> 00:52:54.526 - of it. So right now, the way it's drafted, 00:52:54.850 --> 00:53:02.767 - New concealed wireless support structures shall be permitted in the dining district. After administrative 00:53:02.767 --> 00:53:10.534 - review, so that's saying new concealer, so we could change this to say. New wireless support structures 00:53:10.534 --> 00:53:18.152 - shall be permitted in any rural or rural residential districts subject to conditional use approval or 00:53:18.152 --> 00:53:18.974 - something. 00:53:19.138 --> 00:53:27.484 - Is that what we're looking to do and get rid of concealed? Or do you still want concealed as an option? 00:53:27.484 --> 00:53:35.669 - I think we need to talk about concealed. It's a separate topic. I think that's a good term. According 00:53:35.669 --> 00:53:44.256 - to what I see in the packet, it doesn't require camouflage. It just can request, I guess, that the service 00:53:44.256 --> 00:53:48.670 - provider that it be attached to an existing structure. 00:53:48.834 --> 00:53:56.421 - church steeple, sled bowl, yes, yes, buildings, something like that. So there's no real additional cost 00:53:56.421 --> 00:54:04.228 - to the provider, but we have an opportunity to direct the placement of that wireless facility onto another 00:54:04.228 --> 00:54:11.596 - existing structure so that we don't have just, you know, existing, you know, new structure after new 00:54:11.596 --> 00:54:17.214 - structure after new structure. So I think that keep, you know, I, I'm sorry, 00:54:17.602 --> 00:54:25.399 - Ruby, because I heard what you said, but then, you know, because concealed doesn't necessarily have 00:54:25.399 --> 00:54:33.507 - to mean an extra expenditure like, like the bikini on an elephant, you know, it doesn't have to require 00:54:33.507 --> 00:54:41.616 - that. But at the same time, it might enable the staff to direct it somewhere. We can keep both. I mean, 00:54:41.616 --> 00:54:45.982 - we can say concealed and then another line I would say, 00:54:46.594 --> 00:54:55.346 - non-concealed in rural or rural residential conditions. Kate, but you're going to have to help me here. 00:54:55.346 --> 00:55:03.846 - It's concealed and defined anywhere. There's examples. Well, because she's talking about five poles. 00:55:03.846 --> 00:55:12.346 - She's talking about the... This is page 148, I think. On the page 148, we have a diagram. A diagram. 00:55:12.346 --> 00:55:14.366 - Definition. Definition. 00:55:19.778 --> 00:55:26.762 - I guess I have a question. It might be Dave, or maybe Dave could help me with it, why Jack was saying 00:55:26.762 --> 00:55:33.678 - that. Could the discussion of it being concealed or not concealed go through the BZA process of just 00:55:33.678 --> 00:55:40.525 - making conditional? And that's where that discussion could be had. Do we have to make that the part 00:55:40.525 --> 00:55:47.373 - of the ordinance to make that eventually like approval through the BZA? It's contingent to it being 00:55:47.373 --> 00:55:48.126 - concealed. 00:55:50.594 --> 00:55:59.206 - Oh, okay. I'm not sure I followed the concealment. You're saying that the BCA can require concealment? 00:55:59.206 --> 00:56:07.735 - Yeah, could that be part of their pairing process? And they determine at the BCA level if it needs to 00:56:07.735 --> 00:56:15.763 - be concealed or not. It's certainly said it could be. A service provider for concealment. Yeah, 00:56:15.763 --> 00:56:19.358 - I got it. It needs to be spelled out here. 00:56:19.938 --> 00:56:31.590 - Well, it would have to, I mean, the VCA has been having to make a decision based on the criteria, so 00:56:31.590 --> 00:56:43.357 - they would have to be able to set a record to say if the ceiling is going to meet the criteria that's 00:56:43.357 --> 00:56:48.318 - not considered. So for example, if it's a, 00:56:48.674 --> 00:56:58.953 - high density area, we would say concealed, but they could go to the ECA and ask that they be waived 00:56:58.953 --> 00:57:09.643 - from that department, for example. Yeah, that would be a design statement, sorry. I'm fine with leaving 00:57:09.643 --> 00:57:18.174 - the unconcealed in the business, because we have industrial, like high industrial. 00:57:18.274 --> 00:57:26.352 - Um, I'm still a little concerned about the institutional public. Um, personally, because I, you know, 00:57:26.352 --> 00:57:34.271 - those are schools and parks. Um, we will have them get it. Cause right now, according to this, they 00:57:34.271 --> 00:57:42.428 - wouldn't need to be concealed. And I don't know what people think about that. Next to the school park, 00:57:42.428 --> 00:57:46.942 - you know, that could turn into kids wanting to have fun. 00:57:47.554 --> 00:57:56.197 - and try to scale up, you know, utility power. I don't know. I think you bring up a good point. That's 00:57:56.197 --> 00:58:04.924 - kind of an area that, you know, might see more trespassing on those. Is that what your concern is, or? 00:58:04.924 --> 00:58:13.397 - Yeah, I don't know if aesthetically we want them concealed or not concealed in institutional public 00:58:13.397 --> 00:58:16.702 - settings. So I think parks and schools 00:58:18.050 --> 00:58:24.750 - How much revenue does one of those, if you lease out that land, does it generate? Just a thought. And 00:58:24.750 --> 00:58:31.581 - I was just at a Boy Scout camp all weekend on Lake Monroe that had a big tower right there. And I think 00:58:31.581 --> 00:58:38.281 - everyone was thankful that it was there and we had service. Yep. I know. I mean, we want the service. 00:58:38.281 --> 00:58:44.981 - I'm just saying concealed or not. I'm not saying. I don't know if that would have even helped to just 00:58:44.981 --> 00:58:47.806 - tower it over the trees. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. 00:58:49.730 --> 00:58:58.996 - It was between, oh, here it is, range from between $200,000 to $5,000 a month, with $1,500 being a commonly 00:58:58.996 --> 00:59:08.091 - mentioned figure. We usually see them for a 25-year lease. There are companies out there that help people 00:59:08.091 --> 00:59:16.414 - with this, because I think that's a lot of money. Dave? Yeah, no, thanks. Sorry, because I heard 00:59:16.578 --> 00:59:24.371 - It posed two ways. One was an aesthetic question and one was a safety question. Sean, to your comment, 00:59:24.371 --> 00:59:32.694 - does the plan department have any like data on trespass on existing towers from like the sheriff's department 00:59:32.694 --> 00:59:39.731 - or I mean, is that something that happens? Is there a data point behind the concern? I mean, 00:59:39.731 --> 00:59:46.238 - it's speculative, I don't know. I mean, if it's a frequent activity for folks or not. 00:59:47.394 --> 00:59:55.387 - Is that really a thing? Do we know that? I don't know that fact, but I do know that for all these towers, 00:59:55.387 --> 01:00:03.154 - they have like a fenced in compound area. So it's typically like barbed wire fence that only they have 01:00:03.154 --> 01:00:11.072 - a key to get into because they do have like generators and other equipment that they don't want touched. 01:00:11.072 --> 01:00:16.350 - But yeah, I think coming back to the question of concealed yes or no, 01:00:16.610 --> 01:00:24.010 - and then whether we want to require conditional use in the rural and residential districts is the big 01:00:24.010 --> 01:00:31.338 - question that I still see out there. So we could say, still conceal in these different zones. Dave's 01:00:31.338 --> 01:00:38.738 - point is they could get a variance to that. We could also just specify, you can do this concealed and 01:00:38.738 --> 01:00:45.630 - get it administratively approved, or you can do it non-concealed and try your hand at the VCA. 01:00:46.114 --> 01:00:53.022 - That would be for conditional use. Is that how you want to do it? So say our preferences conceal, but 01:00:53.022 --> 01:00:59.862 - if you don't want to conceal, there's a process, which is. Okay. And that would be under residential 01:00:59.862 --> 01:01:05.822 - rural residential and institutional. Are those the zones that we want to have it? Okay. 01:01:16.706 --> 01:01:26.011 - I think that's it. I did have a map of where they've been locating. Okay, go ahead. I asked a question 01:01:26.011 --> 01:01:35.226 - about the generator backup and the noise. I was wondering if you had a chance to look into that. Yes. 01:01:35.226 --> 01:01:44.350 - When I re-looked at the code, it does seem like we can require a setback for generators. There was a 01:01:44.350 --> 01:01:45.886 - question to have 01:01:46.562 --> 01:01:53.373 - Under the current code is a little bit confusing for our viewer who was doing these like whether the 01:01:53.373 --> 01:02:00.252 - setback was just from the tower to the property line. So I made it a little more specific and said it 01:02:00.252 --> 01:02:07.266 - was from the fence of the compound area is like where the step back plus fall down needed to be so that 01:02:07.266 --> 01:02:11.582 - would include the generator. I didn't know if we wanted to have 01:02:12.866 --> 01:02:19.850 - A larger setback for the generator, like a standard, like all generators have to be 25 feet. And then 01:02:19.850 --> 01:02:26.834 - they would have to push it like the furthest of that fenced in area. So, so I, the question is noise. 01:02:26.834 --> 01:02:33.817 - Um, and so can we do something like we tried to do, but couldn't can no longer do with gun ranges and 01:02:33.817 --> 01:02:39.774 - put it up. The next property, what is the noise level at the next property line? Okay. 01:02:40.354 --> 01:02:47.095 - So if it's on a big church property and the church sells off this little square and that square becomes 01:02:47.095 --> 01:02:53.577 - a cell tower, it's not, you know, where's the next property? How loud can it be? I mean, they could 01:02:53.577 --> 01:03:00.123 - be using batteries and solar to do their backup when it has zero noise, or they could have this huge 01:03:00.123 --> 01:03:06.799 - natural gas burner that's really loud, right? So I think it's the question of the neighbor, right? The 01:03:06.799 --> 01:03:07.966 - nearest neighbor. 01:03:09.122 --> 01:03:17.904 - Would you be OK if I did a little searching and said, we're facing an area of generator on diesel. How 01:03:17.904 --> 01:03:26.685 - far does that noise travel? And if it gets to 30 decibels by 50 feet, we could just say all generators 01:03:26.685 --> 01:03:35.296 - have to be 50 feet. OK. Any fuel driven? Yeah. Yeah, fossil fuel driven generator. Because again, it 01:03:35.296 --> 01:03:37.854 - could be batteries and solar. 01:03:38.210 --> 01:03:44.873 - Sorry. Is there an accommodation for any sound deafening provisions such as walling it off or anything 01:03:44.873 --> 01:03:51.860 - else because those are practical applications for everyday noise? And this is a unique emergency situation, 01:03:51.860 --> 01:03:58.523 - so it's not going to be an ongoing persistent noise. So I mean, it really is. I think we'd want to see 01:03:58.523 --> 01:04:04.992 - what they are proposing. I think that's right. See what they're proposing. Because if that's on for 01:04:04.992 --> 01:04:07.774 - 48 hours straight, that's terrible. Right. 01:04:08.130 --> 01:04:16.260 - So. OK, or I could just say. In our neighborhood, we hear the generators. So I guess we're all talking, 01:04:16.260 --> 01:04:24.389 - so I'll just try to chime in. So to Steve's point, I mean, it is an emergency situation, right? We have 01:04:24.389 --> 01:04:32.597 - county residential neighborhoods that have Honda generators running for two, three, five days, depending 01:04:32.597 --> 01:04:34.942 - on how long the power is out. 01:04:35.106 --> 01:04:42.947 - What is the current ordinance for noise during an emergency, right? If a tower is being powered during 01:04:42.947 --> 01:04:50.711 - an emergency, is the noise prohibition onerous for coverage during a crisis position? I guess I wanna 01:04:50.711 --> 01:04:58.704 - balance aesthetic issues against rural access to cell phones and also ostensibly internet access through 01:04:58.704 --> 01:05:05.022 - cell phone towers to their phones acting as hotspots in their homes. So I hear it. 01:05:05.218 --> 01:05:11.164 - but I kind of want to know some other stuff about the coverage map of the county and making sure this 01:05:11.164 --> 01:05:17.576 - is a balanced discussion here. I mean, emergency use, emergency powering of a tower is a temporary situation. 01:05:17.576 --> 01:05:23.697 - Likely the power is out around that tower for that neighborhood as well. And if people are running their 01:05:23.697 --> 01:05:29.934 - gas generators for a few days, how's that any different than a tower doing it? Except if there's a decibel 01:05:29.934 --> 01:05:35.006 - question here. Just want to make sure it's balanced out. I appreciate Steve's comment. 01:05:37.058 --> 01:05:45.885 - Thank you. So it sounds like I'll do, let me do this. I will look at what other communities do in terms 01:05:45.885 --> 01:05:54.542 - of setbacks, assuming generators. I do think that they do house some of their equipment. I don't know 01:05:54.542 --> 01:06:03.454 - if that includes generators at their fossil fuel power, just because it seems like that might be a fire. 01:06:04.450 --> 01:06:13.771 - safety issue, but I will look at what other communities do and see if we can come up with like an easy 01:06:13.771 --> 01:06:22.820 - standard to administer that also meets the goals of noise. Let me do that. Perfect. Okay. Any other 01:06:22.820 --> 01:06:31.326 - discussion points on the WCS? Okay. All right. All right. Now to new business. Take a breath. 01:06:32.162 --> 01:06:42.381 - All right, new business, SPP-26-1, the Gardner Major Subdivision, partial plaque vacation with a road 01:06:42.381 --> 01:06:52.701 - width waiver request. And just to note that the plaque committee was to have heard this last week, but 01:06:52.701 --> 01:07:01.918 - there was not a quorum. So it has been elevated to this body too for consideration. So. OK. 01:07:02.498 --> 01:07:09.938 - Sorry. Is the, is the admin meeting, the deciding body commission. That was just a recommendation. 01:07:09.938 --> 01:07:17.830 - I got it. I got it. May I ask to that point, I think Tammy, you were women apply committee. We mentioned 01:07:17.830 --> 01:07:25.420 - reaching out to some of the petitioners to see if they had any comments or anything that they wanted 01:07:25.420 --> 01:07:28.126 - to share since it wasn't discussed. 01:07:29.314 --> 01:07:36.341 - the petitioner, the representative. Would they have an opportunity to speak and answer questions regarding 01:07:36.341 --> 01:07:43.499 - their petition? I didn't reach out to any of them. They will be there at the hearing. So on their acceptance 01:07:43.499 --> 01:07:50.132 - letter, it goes to the plaintiff. I just want to make sure if there was any additional comments that 01:07:50.132 --> 01:07:56.830 - you had a chance to hear. So when you see deciding body and it says plaque committee recommendations, 01:07:57.122 --> 01:08:04.797 - no public hearing. There was no public hearing at the plan committee, which didn't meet because you 01:08:04.797 --> 01:08:12.473 - didn't have a quorum. But at the plan commission meeting, you will have a public hearing on this. I 01:08:12.473 --> 01:08:20.225 - just want to make sure. Yes. Make sure the report reflects that. Thank you. So this one and the next 01:08:20.225 --> 01:08:24.830 - one are both major subdivisions because they're technically 01:08:25.058 --> 01:08:33.054 - either vacating or doing something that would have created more than four lots under the original 01:08:33.054 --> 01:08:41.213 - subdivision. So this is a partial plot vacation, and then they're asking to create four lots out of 01:08:41.213 --> 01:08:49.454 - one of the lots being vacated. So it's currently under a minor subdivision, which included two lots. 01:08:49.454 --> 01:08:53.534 - So technically it would be at the end of the day, 01:08:55.746 --> 01:09:03.667 - This one is fairly straightforward. They are marking one of the lots in the rear as non-buildable. So 01:09:03.667 --> 01:09:11.743 - I'll get to that because of its drainage easements. It's really not buildable and not super accessible. 01:09:11.743 --> 01:09:19.742 - They are, we are recommending approval of the road width. So they have less than the 18 feet required. 01:09:20.322 --> 01:09:27.693 - And then they do not have two points of ingress egress in and out of the subdivision all connected. 01:09:27.693 --> 01:09:35.285 - They just have individual driveway permits which are being, some of them being shared. And then we are 01:09:35.285 --> 01:09:42.730 - recommending a denial of the street tree waiver because they do have some street trees available and 01:09:42.730 --> 01:09:47.742 - that they could preserve trees if they were able to commit to that. 01:09:48.354 --> 01:09:59.249 - And then we are recommending you to go on a partial cloud vacation. So let me go ahead and go down to 01:09:59.249 --> 01:10:10.250 - the plot. And they have provided the daily trips and things like that. So this technically has all one 01:10:10.250 --> 01:10:16.766 - lot under the cleaner liner. And so they're vacating it out. 01:10:17.122 --> 01:10:26.649 - and they're recommending to make one lot here, one lot here, one lot here, and then this is the non-buildable 01:10:26.649 --> 01:10:35.482 - lot in the back. And if you follow the cursor here, there's a drain adhesion that really cuts through 01:10:35.482 --> 01:10:43.710 - right here. So what they have to work with is here, here, and this one's pretty open, so here. 01:10:44.066 --> 01:10:50.522 - So each of the lots are over the 10 acres. They are service biseptic. So they are meeting the higher 01:10:50.522 --> 01:10:57.234 - requirements under the code for either two ways in and out, which they're not proposing. They're sharing 01:10:57.234 --> 01:11:03.626 - a driveway. Two ways in and out would be like access here. And then there would be a road over here 01:11:03.626 --> 01:11:10.146 - where they could access through here. That's not feasible in a rural context most times. So they need 01:11:10.146 --> 01:11:13.470 - a waiver to that. And we wouldn't want to see that. 01:11:13.826 --> 01:11:22.608 - in a more impervious and more cross-sector inducements, things like that. And then the road itself is, 01:11:22.608 --> 01:11:31.816 - I believe it's 16 feet, South Lee Phillips Road. So they're not meeting the 18 feet, but they are proposing 01:11:31.816 --> 01:11:41.109 - a shared drive for access to lots two and three that's been reviewed by the highway department and approved. 01:11:41.109 --> 01:11:43.326 - So only one new driveway. 01:11:46.978 --> 01:11:55.254 - Is there any questions on this request? Have you talked to them about the trees? That's good. We have. 01:11:55.254 --> 01:12:03.771 - So they came in and asked for a street tree waiver after this already went to the black committee showing 01:12:03.771 --> 01:12:11.806 - that they could preserve street trees. And their concern is that the trees that are there, and I'll 01:12:11.806 --> 01:12:15.582 - show you on an aerial, there's not 18 of them. 01:12:16.354 --> 01:12:23.114 - along the road. So they said that they believe that they're going to have to come down to meet site 01:12:23.114 --> 01:12:29.941 - distance, which we want to fully support and agree that these trees here, they may not meet our code 01:12:29.941 --> 01:12:36.904 - requirements for being native. They might need to come down to meet site distance or be cut back. They 01:12:36.904 --> 01:12:43.326 - do have trees along this north line though that could potentially be preserved as a commitment 01:12:43.778 --> 01:12:50.114 - Because they are required to do street trees. It's a major. But if they committed to preserving, then 01:12:50.114 --> 01:12:56.450 - I think that would tip us to the edge of the scale to say that we would recommend it for both if they 01:12:56.450 --> 01:13:02.972 - submitted it. And that second line of trees is really lovely. So I think that would be a fair compliment 01:13:02.972 --> 01:13:09.122 - to that. Yeah. So can you have that discussion with them and have that commitment for the planning 01:13:09.122 --> 01:13:12.414 - commission? OK. So we have that commitment together. 01:13:12.546 --> 01:13:22.172 - Could they do any type of tree preservation? As an alternate to the. Yes, OK, then. But this is what 01:13:22.172 --> 01:13:32.275 - I guess. Some have a favor. That's fine. There's just such a wooded area with a lot of other restrictions 01:13:32.275 --> 01:13:39.518 - that. I'd be interested to see what else they might want to have as a tree. 01:13:39.842 --> 01:13:48.196 - Preserve area on the property, especially maybe around some of the drainage. He's been started this, 01:13:48.196 --> 01:13:57.045 - but. I'll just leave it with the other plant missions, desiring that. Location, but I hope that do explain 01:13:57.045 --> 01:14:05.399 - that they could choose any areas so they come with the alternative to the trees on the street scape. 01:14:05.399 --> 01:14:08.542 - Yes, we want to make sure that that's 01:14:09.186 --> 01:14:14.670 - likely not included in the tree preservation. If there's any possibility in peak site distance for the 01:14:14.670 --> 01:14:20.101 - driveway, we don't want to come back and say, oh, we made them preserve these trees, but we need them 01:14:20.101 --> 01:14:25.479 - to come out because of the highway code. So what we were recommending was probably something further 01:14:25.479 --> 01:14:30.910 - back on the line. I just wanted to ask you a question. If we're going to allow you to take control of 01:14:30.910 --> 01:14:36.395 - the preservation, tell us what the preservation is. Yes. And as long as it meets the requirement, we'd 01:14:36.395 --> 01:14:37.566 - honor it and say, OK. 01:14:40.194 --> 01:14:48.465 - This is the first, the time that I've served here, the first well water proposal I've seen. So they 01:14:48.465 --> 01:14:57.068 - are not near any rural small water corporation that could serve them. Or was, did I see something about 01:14:57.068 --> 01:15:05.918 - Van Buren or not? So typically when they are proposing a well, there's already a whole lot on a well. Yes. 01:15:06.306 --> 01:15:14.161 - But we do require that if they're near or could be served by public, they have to be served by public. 01:15:14.161 --> 01:15:21.787 - That's a good question. I don't know if you already looked into seeing whether they could be served 01:15:21.787 --> 01:15:29.489 - by the adherent. Well, they're so expensive. I don't know if you can do it optionally. But they have 01:15:29.489 --> 01:15:32.158 - to have the power to operate them. 01:15:32.834 --> 01:15:40.705 - Yeah, I mean, and to the market point, there's also a big portion of the county where each of the wells 01:15:40.705 --> 01:15:48.274 - are not even permitted. So frankly, there's a contamination. Thank you. So I just was interested in 01:15:48.274 --> 01:15:55.918 - that. And I'm, of course, interested in their public health. That's all. Yeah. The health department 01:15:55.918 --> 01:16:01.822 - gets a good inventory of most of the wells operational that have been capped. 01:16:01.922 --> 01:16:09.678 - actually found. The Division of Water has a full site. Join in and talk with them at some of the conferences 01:16:09.678 --> 01:16:16.865 - about how well water works in this area. And they have an active viewer map where you can see all of 01:16:16.865 --> 01:16:24.123 - them and their inventory. And you don't have to necessarily get a permit to do it, but the person who 01:16:24.123 --> 01:16:27.966 - does dig the well has to have permits from the state. 01:16:28.194 --> 01:16:35.107 - Right. There's some map data on the S drive. I've helped work with the health department about 15, 16 01:16:35.107 --> 01:16:42.020 - years ago of other locations. So I'm not sure how inclusive DNR's data set is, but I thought that was 01:16:42.020 --> 01:16:49.340 - kind of interesting. And I can point that in your direction. They have good attributes and good information 01:16:49.340 --> 01:16:53.406 - of what they found and observed and if they've been capped. 01:16:54.050 --> 01:17:01.096 - like according to the rules. So these are just capped wells? No, they have a whole interesting inventory. 01:17:01.096 --> 01:17:07.877 - I think DNRs also has, you can hit the data point and it pulls up. Well, we will check to see if they 01:17:07.877 --> 01:17:14.724 - could be serviced. It does sound like under their letter, they're saying that they researched existing 01:17:14.724 --> 01:17:21.504 - water wells in the area based on the existing database, no issues acquiring water. However, we cannot 01:17:21.504 --> 01:17:24.030 - guarantee water quality and quantity. 01:17:24.322 --> 01:17:31.329 - We do require on the flat and on the deed that they state that it's serviced by a well. That's part 01:17:31.329 --> 01:17:38.476 - of the CDO requirement. So the fire beware is my choice. I think it's more that the note says it just 01:17:38.476 --> 01:17:45.624 - doesn't have access to municipal water because there are people in our community that do cisterns and 01:17:45.624 --> 01:17:52.911 - they collect rainwater and then they have water delivered to their cisterns when it's dry. There's just 01:17:52.911 --> 01:17:53.822 - ways around. 01:17:54.018 --> 01:18:01.051 - not even having a well or having a connection to municipalities. And a lot of families on baby creek 01:18:01.051 --> 01:18:08.084 - are like that. Is this on baby creek? No, they don't fill up. But there's wells. I just wondered if, 01:18:08.084 --> 01:18:15.256 - you know, we have like five or six small water corporations. I just wondered if there any one of those 01:18:15.256 --> 01:18:21.662 - things that we're in. Yeah. And finding Montano is running several of those. So they might, 01:18:22.050 --> 01:18:33.401 - I know they're running Van Buren, so we could try to call them. OK. OK, any other questions on this 01:18:33.401 --> 01:18:45.319 - one? I don't have any. That was just interesting. I get to see that. OK, do you want me to go on instead 01:18:45.319 --> 01:18:50.654 - when I'm going to reach three? Yes, please do. 01:18:50.914 --> 01:19:01.137 - And then Shiloh. Oh, interesting. This is the Garner flat. This is another major subdivision, technically, 01:19:01.137 --> 01:19:11.170 - creating three lots. Again, partially vacating out of one subdivision and putting it into another total. 01:19:11.170 --> 01:19:18.622 - This would make it a major. So the reason being that we created under the CDO 01:19:18.946 --> 01:19:26.029 - But if you're going to vacate out of an existing minor or an existing sliding scale, your next option 01:19:26.029 --> 01:19:33.042 - is a major. So just a reminder, that's why these are coming through the way they are instead of just 01:19:33.042 --> 01:19:40.195 - a vacation and a redo of a minor flat, for instance. So they're asking for street tree waiver, bearing 01:19:40.195 --> 01:19:47.486 - utility waiver, two points of interest egress, as well as the partial plot vacation where everyone is in 01:19:47.618 --> 01:19:55.259 - in agreement or we are requiring and want to be in agreement on that. So we are recommending a positive 01:19:55.259 --> 01:20:02.826 - recommendation for each of these. And then this is the lot sizes. They're all feeding or exceeding the 01:20:02.826 --> 01:20:10.246 - 10 acres in the buildable area. And then I'll go ahead and go down to the lot under the flat. It's a 01:20:10.246 --> 01:20:14.654 - corner lot and it has plenty of road frontage, pretty flat. 01:20:15.906 --> 01:20:26.725 - And it's a fairly large lot. So here we go. So here you are on May road and Leonard Springs, and this 01:20:26.725 --> 01:20:37.863 - is lot 4C, 4B, and 4A. So technically they were in a four lot minor subdivision, so they're adding five, 01:20:37.863 --> 01:20:45.182 - six, two new lots to that. There was an existing home and barn here, 01:20:45.442 --> 01:20:56.098 - and then they'd be adding two new driveways for two new lots, so. On the street tree waiver, I think 01:20:56.098 --> 01:21:06.965 - that they just are requesting not to plant those. I do think that on this one, they may have committed 01:21:06.965 --> 01:21:14.878 - to a preservation area. So they've already kind of committed to that here. 01:21:15.138 --> 01:21:24.010 - Yeah, better defined area. And then they don't have the two ways in and out, which would again be something 01:21:24.010 --> 01:21:32.224 - like this, the May road, the Leonard Springs, which we don't want to see crossing during use months 01:21:32.224 --> 01:21:40.685 - unnecessarily or added impervious. So we are recommending approval on that. Any questions on this one? 01:21:40.685 --> 01:21:44.382 - No. Go back to the last comment on page 612. 01:21:46.594 --> 01:21:55.057 - Is there an action there for the bottom page? Staff support store recommendation, et cetera. Oh, I see. 01:21:55.057 --> 01:22:03.358 - Is there an action there? I think we should go ahead and just say positive recommendation on the flat 01:22:03.358 --> 01:22:11.821 - vacation if we don't have anything to the effect of negative. So we'll fix that. OK. That was my phone. 01:22:11.821 --> 01:22:12.798 - Good point. 01:22:20.226 --> 01:22:30.136 - Any other questions on that? I have a question. Okay. Next. And I will say that Tammy and just now myself, 01:22:30.136 --> 01:22:39.768 - the first submission is Paul Gardner, major submission, and then the second request is by someone named 01:22:39.768 --> 01:22:43.102 - Gardner, but it's Paul Trinity, so. 01:22:43.234 --> 01:22:52.617 - I had a bad phone call. But I got answers out of both of them that I needed because of it. I just have 01:22:52.617 --> 01:23:00.542 - one question. Okay, Van Buren says they can supply water to three homes on the garden. 01:23:00.962 --> 01:23:08.593 - Okay. Okay. Then you have to know what the cost benefit analysis would be to dig the well and chance 01:23:08.593 --> 01:23:16.148 - that versus extending those services. Like I'd be interested to know like how much easements. Yeah. 01:23:16.148 --> 01:23:23.779 - I think that's, I think that we would have a preference on invisible water and not well. I think so. 01:23:23.779 --> 01:23:28.766 - We'll check that. Yeah. Okay. I am here and so they can say this. 01:23:35.778 --> 01:23:51.802 - Thank you. That was under SB 26-1. Next up we have REZ-26-2. This one has a report back from the ordinance 01:23:51.802 --> 01:24:04.382 - review committee. So tonight what I am requesting is that although this goes to the 01:24:04.482 --> 01:24:11.184 - commissioners, the plan commission is authorizing this or offering this reason because there's a error 01:24:11.184 --> 01:24:17.692 - in the map. So right now these properties are zoned PV. And when we did the research, when they had 01:24:17.692 --> 01:24:24.264 - it on the market, we realized that they should not be zoned PV based on the legal description of the 01:24:24.264 --> 01:24:31.422 - ordinance that was put in place at the time by the city of Bloomington, but in our now planning jurisdiction. 01:24:31.842 --> 01:24:39.192 - So the request before the planning commission is this better fit as a community development zone or 01:24:39.192 --> 01:24:46.910 - residential zone or even high development zone? So what's the zoning that we're going to be recommending 01:24:46.910 --> 01:24:54.554 - here? The ordinance review committee met and discussed this on August 10th and posed questions in black 01:24:54.554 --> 01:24:56.318 - and then the red is the 01:24:56.802 --> 01:25:04.832 - the representative's cancers. So question number one was they purchased both parcels in 1989. And just 01:25:04.832 --> 01:25:12.783 - to give you some context for these parcels, where they are on the zoning map, zone PUD. They are near 01:25:12.783 --> 01:25:20.735 - all different housing types, which the ordinance review committee did discuss. There's a lot of mixed 01:25:20.735 --> 01:25:26.270 - residential, either single-family attached or multi-family apartments. 01:25:26.434 --> 01:25:33.642 - a lot of density in this area, but also constrained on the west side by the floodplain. These are the 01:25:33.642 --> 01:25:40.921 - two partials. They are built out currently. They have some potential buyers. They want clarity on what 01:25:40.921 --> 01:25:48.058 - can be done here, and we need to fix the zoning cap to give them that clarity. The questions that we 01:25:48.058 --> 01:25:54.206 - posed to the representatives were here in black. The first question was, was there any 01:25:55.074 --> 01:26:02.278 - When they were purchased in 1989, did they rely on information that it was PUD? So they state that when 01:26:02.278 --> 01:26:09.275 - these parcels were bought, there wasn't a mobile home park. To the west, duplexes and apartments all 01:26:09.275 --> 01:26:16.340 - around, it was more of a rural setting. And then number two, what is your plan for the apartment over 01:26:16.340 --> 01:26:23.614 - the garage at 1540 South Curry Pike? She says accessory dwelling, second separate rental from the house. 01:26:23.842 --> 01:26:30.818 - may involve planning processes, and so the owner is not going to be living on the property going forward. 01:26:30.818 --> 01:26:37.399 - Therefore, the adder is not a factor going forward. So just as a note, the 1530, which is closer to 01:26:37.399 --> 01:26:44.045 - Currie Pike, there's just a single family residence in the swimming pool, 1540, which is set off the 01:26:44.045 --> 01:26:50.758 - road a little bit, single family residence, and a detached garage with apartment above. So that's the 01:26:50.758 --> 01:26:52.798 - only development that's there. 01:26:53.730 --> 01:27:00.099 - And then, did you have any changes to the staff report conveyed to ORC? So we conveyed that we thought 01:27:00.099 --> 01:27:06.283 - there were two options in front of the owners. One, rent the property and remodel the structures as 01:27:06.283 --> 01:27:12.838 - they are, no owner living on site. Or two, knock down structures, rebuild multifamily, potentially paired 01:27:12.838 --> 01:27:17.662 - patio homes with garages or fourplexes with garages, no owner living on site. 01:27:18.402 --> 01:27:24.343 - And they state that we've had two separate potential buyers state the two options below. We now have 01:27:24.343 --> 01:27:30.225 - lost these buyers in the meantime due to this situation. They both wanted multifamily. Buyer number 01:27:30.225 --> 01:27:36.283 - 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 01:27:36.283 --> 01:27:42.577 - what the use determination correctly is for the site in order for a real estate agent to market correctly. 01:27:42.577 --> 01:27:45.694 - And honestly, we need the appropriate county zoning. 01:27:45.794 --> 01:27:52.050 - We hired Rich Fig to do an appraisal and this is where we're at currently. He was not able to finish 01:27:52.050 --> 01:27:58.739 - the report and it's been six months. Have you talked to anyone at CBU in relation to getting sewer approval 01:27:58.739 --> 01:28:04.933 - for the property to redevelop at a higher density? Do you intend to reach out to CBU or will you be 01:28:04.933 --> 01:28:11.870 - letting the new potential buyer do this work? And they state that they know there's a substation very close and 01:28:12.098 --> 01:28:19.283 - They're asking why wouldn't the county allow PD to maintain or establish to begin with? And then at 01:28:19.283 --> 01:28:26.540 - the end of the day, the current owner would not be living on the property as a as to a new buyer. We 01:28:26.540 --> 01:28:33.868 - do not know. It depends on their intention. Simply need to know what the highest and best use for the 01:28:33.868 --> 01:28:36.958 - property is and that they understand this. 01:28:37.282 --> 01:28:44.778 - Surrounding parcels arms with that higher density allowance under for instance a PD Now just to clarify 01:28:44.778 --> 01:28:52.347 - for everyone, you know, we're not recommending this be zoned a PD Because it wasn't part of the original 01:28:52.347 --> 01:28:59.627 - PD for Western Estates To amend it would actually be a different process. What we're recommending is 01:28:59.627 --> 01:29:02.654 - a by right zoning district Whether that's 01:29:03.426 --> 01:29:11.375 - Community development, high development, or residential one. We've indicated those two pagers in there 01:29:11.375 --> 01:29:19.477 - and now it's up to the plan commission to decide how they would like to see these properties be authored 01:29:19.477 --> 01:29:27.503 - to be rezoned. We had a situation like this last year on South Rwander Street where the plan commission 01:29:27.503 --> 01:29:30.590 - differed from what the owner wanted and 01:29:30.914 --> 01:29:38.548 - Basically, we fix the zoning map to what the commissioners voted it to be, and then let the owner know 01:29:38.548 --> 01:29:46.182 - that they could petition again to rezone the property to what they wanted. That is a possibility here, 01:29:46.182 --> 01:29:53.594 - but we do try to get the most information we can in order to answer the question. I think last time 01:29:53.594 --> 01:29:55.966 - there were some questions about 01:29:56.226 --> 01:30:03.665 - the basically like how many lots they could get if they combined or if they didn't combine. I did include 01:30:03.665 --> 01:30:10.822 - some of the information here, but we can do that math. I don't know that I completed that. So I guess 01:30:10.822 --> 01:30:17.980 - this would be it. Then I'll go where I needed 10,000 and connect with the store. If the property were 01:30:17.980 --> 01:30:23.454 - to obtain approval from CBU, increase sewer connection, avoid all floodplain, 01:30:23.842 --> 01:30:29.983 - Leaving 1.63 acres, they could get seven lots. Under HD, they could get up to 11 lots. But the question 01:30:29.983 --> 01:30:36.066 - is, if they were to go for multi-family, five plus units. I think that was the question is, what would 01:30:36.066 --> 01:30:39.550 - that be? Okay, so I still need to get back to you on that. 01:30:53.026 --> 01:31:01.027 - And that's including the floodplain, right? They can still get 11 lots. Under HB because the roads are 01:31:01.027 --> 01:31:08.795 - already there and they would just be doing driveways. What was the CD on page? CD was seven. So can 01:31:08.795 --> 01:31:16.718 - we go back up to the page that shows all the various zones for that area? Sure. And just point out to 01:31:16.718 --> 01:31:21.534 - everybody here, you've got a little bit of everything though. 01:31:22.274 --> 01:31:29.168 - And the industrial white industrial high development conservation residential PV Western estates, which 01:31:29.168 --> 01:31:34.206 - just as a manufacturing home park. These are multifamily developments here. 01:31:34.658 --> 01:31:41.694 - This is community development with single family attached, very small, skinny lot sizes with lot lines 01:31:41.694 --> 01:31:48.526 - down the middle of structures. And then it's right next to a railroad track and there are apartment 01:31:48.526 --> 01:31:55.767 - complexes across different road groups. And then in time at home. In the Lincoln Creek watershed. Lincoln 01:31:55.767 --> 01:32:02.462 - Creek watershed. It needs to be part of our consideration. I see. So I'd be interested if each of 01:32:02.594 --> 01:32:09.819 - You know, with the density that's being possibly looked at for subdivisions and for multifamily, like 01:32:09.819 --> 01:32:17.185 - there might be a restriction for impervious. Yeah. That's what I was wondering. Like, but that's, yeah, 01:32:17.185 --> 01:32:24.481 - I don't know how we look back to it. I mean, we're already excluding the floodplain. But with 11 lots, 01:32:24.481 --> 01:32:32.414 - like at that size, 1.4, what's your impervious match? So like we're talking about very small structures, right? 01:32:33.954 --> 01:32:43.302 - but then there's that whole floodplain that you can't build on. So you count, right? Well, they've already 01:32:43.302 --> 01:32:52.126 - accounted for that. So you could get seven to 11 lots, but depending on the size of the lot, if it's 01:32:52.126 --> 01:33:01.649 - a surface match, they're pretty small. But that's per the estimates that you could count. So I'm calculating 01:33:01.649 --> 01:33:03.134 - for multifamily. 01:33:03.586 --> 01:33:13.821 - then total would be 15 units is what they could get based on the acreage and this requirement change. 01:33:13.821 --> 01:33:24.256 - Just doing the simple math, they can do a multi-family 15-unit apartment across the 1.63 acres. I think 01:33:24.256 --> 01:33:33.086 - that measurement was total right here. By comparison, these across the street, I think, 01:33:34.146 --> 01:33:43.715 - I want to say they each have eight, but I want to verify that with the addressing and data that we have 01:33:43.715 --> 01:33:53.009 - for these. And that's what the HD that's with the HD. There's multifamily five plus is not permitted 01:33:53.009 --> 01:34:01.566 - in the CD or the rest district. And if you look at it, I mean, it's surrounded by CD mostly. 01:34:01.698 --> 01:34:10.437 - I mean, it's not contiguous and they even have those two little HDs right in the middle is the CD bump 01:34:10.437 --> 01:34:19.176 - to the door. Yeah, right there. I had a couple of those questions and I don't know if the question is, 01:34:19.176 --> 01:34:27.661 - what did the property owners want? And it seems like they kind of just kept alluding to the highest 01:34:27.661 --> 01:34:30.206 - best use, which maybe they're 01:34:30.594 --> 01:34:37.821 - pandering to us a bit that, you know, just, you know, what do you think is best versus trying to ask 01:34:37.821 --> 01:34:45.049 - for something? I don't want to speculate too much, but I guess what I'm getting at is I think CDE is 01:34:45.049 --> 01:34:52.204 - appropriate. I think it limits the numbers. I think if they really want to build to a larger scale, 01:34:52.204 --> 01:34:58.430 - that makes them have to come through another process in that particular area. I think, 01:34:59.074 --> 01:35:07.757 - It makes sense. Also, there's the Karspar Greenway connector that also pretty much almost a contiguous 01:35:07.757 --> 01:35:16.356 - connection all the way down to the B line. So like, there's also a lot of opportunity for other means 01:35:16.356 --> 01:35:25.630 - of travel on a built out travel system. So again, you know, that kind of just goes into my support of the CD. 01:35:29.186 --> 01:35:37.952 - OK. Does anyone want to move? Probably need to take like a raise of hands or a vote since we'll have 01:35:37.952 --> 01:35:46.717 - to notice it to a certain zone. Right now we still have it open. I think we should put it. Go ahead. 01:35:46.717 --> 01:35:56.958 - 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. 01:35:57.250 --> 01:36:04.400 - The two buyers that they had on the book have dropped out. So they're no longer in the picture. So if 01:36:04.400 --> 01:36:11.551 - I'm the person and I've got the property, I'm going to want as much flexibility as I can. Okay, so if 01:36:11.551 --> 01:36:18.701 - I've got everything going on in that area and I can justify just about anything in terms of how we're 01:36:18.701 --> 01:36:22.206 - going to sell it, flexibility I think is the key. 01:36:22.882 --> 01:36:28.322 - So that would be my argument. Now, if there's a compromise there, because you don't want to go with 01:36:28.322 --> 01:36:34.089 - 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. 01:36:34.089 --> 01:36:40.020 - That was my proposal. Well, going in position would be, you said, give them as much flexibility as possible, 01:36:40.020 --> 01:36:45.514 - because you've got so many other things going on in the area. Unless you have a limiting factor that 01:36:45.514 --> 01:36:49.214 - we haven't brought up. I mean, everybody's kind of going, eh, okay. 01:36:49.506 --> 01:36:56.142 - I mean, should be a little bit, right? Shouldn't be adjacent, so I want to inform that a little bit, 01:36:56.142 --> 01:37:02.910 - continuity of the tone. So I mean, to pass it to the north, then you've got a CD. To the south, you've 01:37:02.910 --> 01:37:09.612 - got more CD. And then you have HD. Yeah, the point is, it seems to be CD bounding. I'm looking at the 01:37:09.612 --> 01:37:12.766 - read. I've got to take a little shortcut. Sure. 01:37:13.026 --> 01:37:20.938 - The impervious cover for HD and CD are the same, so no matter what they develop it as, if they had a 01:37:20.938 --> 01:37:28.772 - single family with a huge tennis court or they had a multi-family, they still would be held to 50%. 01:37:28.772 --> 01:37:36.841 - Oh, sorry, CD, 50% or 5,500 square feet, whichever is less, with an impervious cover within a critical 01:37:36.841 --> 01:37:38.878 - watershed, which this is. 01:37:39.202 --> 01:37:47.348 - And then this would be 50% of the lot size to sleeping and building. So actually the per base cover 01:37:47.348 --> 01:37:55.738 - or CD would be more stringent. I'm sorry. I think the setbacks. You say CD is much more stringent. And 01:37:55.738 --> 01:38:03.884 - then the setbacks 10 feet or further side and 10 feet from here. And then high development would be 01:38:03.884 --> 01:38:06.654 - five feet side, 10 feet rear. So. 01:38:07.330 --> 01:38:20.214 - Yes. Waiting for the ocean. Yeah, so I prefer to see heat is because of the watershed and it doesn't 01:38:20.214 --> 01:38:33.482 - match neighboring blocks. But the other. Question is if there isn't. A sewer connection. It's pointless 01:38:33.482 --> 01:38:36.926 - to talk about this anyway, 01:38:37.634 --> 01:38:46.623 - It's strange, but that's where we're at. I think those folks need to know that. They're appraising. 01:38:46.623 --> 01:38:55.791 - I mean, it's in the packet, but yeah. Thank you. So Mr. Harris, where are you? Because my thought was 01:38:55.791 --> 01:39:04.960 - throwing out the CD as kind of part of a compromise based off of the discussion and my observation of 01:39:04.960 --> 01:39:06.398 - the discussion. 01:39:07.394 --> 01:39:15.947 - As I mentioned privately, it's really makes sense. It's in six and one half dozen or whatever. There's 01:39:15.947 --> 01:39:24.250 - one where we think of some groupings to best compromise. If CDs to best compromise, I would support 01:39:24.250 --> 01:39:32.803 - that. I know this is the admin, so is the motion appropriate or just signaling planning? Well, we have 01:39:32.803 --> 01:39:35.294 - to get it. We have it online. 01:39:35.394 --> 01:39:42.424 - But this is to indicate which zone is going to be proposed. And that's why we have to pull it up because. 01:39:42.424 --> 01:39:49.521 - Is this not going to our regular? It does. Oh, no, it does. But we have to indicate on the regular packet. 01:39:49.521 --> 01:39:56.154 - I totally agree. We don't need to have this discussion. Legal notice. I would prefer that we have a 01:39:56.154 --> 01:39:59.934 - discussion here and come to come to come to spit it out. 01:40:00.130 --> 01:40:06.736 - to come to a resolution here, instead of debating it in the planning commission meeting and having the 01:40:06.736 --> 01:40:13.663 - same discussion. If the property owners straight up came and said HD, that would make a lot more persuasion 01:40:13.663 --> 01:40:19.756 - for me to suggest that. But since they did, does anybody else have any thoughts about, I mean, 01:40:19.756 --> 01:40:26.234 - 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 01:40:26.234 --> 01:40:27.966 - start with the vote on CB. 01:40:28.226 --> 01:40:42.669 - I'll go ahead and call the vote. Yes, I'll vote to support a rezone of REZ-26-2 to CD. Scott Harris? 01:40:42.669 --> 01:40:56.254 - Yes. Drew Fields? Yes. David Henry? Yes. Jeff Morris? Yes. Julie Thomas? Yes. David Bush? Yes. 01:40:57.186 --> 01:41:15.606 - Yes. Okay. So CD unanimous. This is presented at the regular session. I think it needs to be noted that 01:41:15.606 --> 01:41:26.942 - there is a sanitary sewer service currently servicing the area. 01:41:27.234 --> 01:41:35.429 - Is sanitary, are you talking about the map where it doesn't show the sewer service? I will verify that 01:41:35.429 --> 01:41:43.545 - information because I know they might have like a stub across the road, it may not just show it green 01:41:43.545 --> 01:41:45.534 - as sewer, blue as water. 01:41:45.826 --> 01:41:53.394 - But the question for them that they didn't answer was whether they had the conversation with CBU because 01:41:53.394 --> 01:42:00.673 - they would require an increase of capacity in that. I guess that's what I was asking for, a capacity 01:42:00.673 --> 01:42:08.313 - letter, something of that nature. Okay. All right. I don't want to send a mixed message to the petitioner 01:42:08.313 --> 01:42:13.502 - that, yeah, CBU is ready to go and we're all behind it. Oh, by the way, 01:42:13.730 --> 01:42:26.019 - You can't get sewer service. Right, right. The highest and the best use is almost contingent upon something 01:42:26.019 --> 01:42:37.854 - out of this body's control. Right. Moving right along. SIA-22-25 North Shore Amendment, one final plat. 01:42:37.854 --> 01:42:39.902 - Yes. So this is a 01:42:40.066 --> 01:42:49.202 - water credit that we've held since 2008. It is for sidewalks on East North Shore Drive. And the project 01:42:49.202 --> 01:42:58.162 - has been before the Plan Commission just in terms of a requirement for sharing a driveway. We've been 01:42:58.162 --> 01:43:07.035 - working pretty closely or communicating with the developer that we really would like to see progress 01:43:07.035 --> 01:43:09.758 - on the sidewalks in this area. 01:43:10.050 --> 01:43:19.676 - So we actually saw this almost a little over a year ago, and we recommended that they get one one-time 01:43:19.676 --> 01:43:29.115 - extension till September 19th of this year. And they posted an amount of $40,099.08. At the time, we 01:43:29.115 --> 01:43:37.246 - stated that if they do not make progress, then we would be asking to cash that amount. 01:43:37.538 --> 01:43:45.851 - And that's what we're recommending tonight is that it's been more than 10 years. We have not seen the 01:43:45.851 --> 01:43:54.002 - progress that we've been asking for. And so we are recommending at the hearing that we go ahead and 01:43:54.002 --> 01:44:02.885 - cash this amount. We do have a letter of credit on file until December 8th of this year, but the performance 01:44:02.885 --> 01:44:05.086 - period would expire before 01:44:05.346 --> 01:44:13.403 - the next plan commission meeting. So essentially, if we don't extend the performance period tonight, 01:44:13.403 --> 01:44:21.619 - they will automatically be expiring. And then we'd be looking to cast us and contract out the sidewalk 01:44:21.619 --> 01:44:29.676 - work along North Shore as required. You said tonight, you mean that regular meeting? Tonight we have 01:44:29.676 --> 01:44:34.622 - to discuss. It's a new business. Yes. At the regular meeting. 01:44:35.394 --> 01:44:41.904 - because they've already asked for one performance period extension. This is the self-split one. It's 01:44:41.904 --> 01:44:48.865 - the ZECOM. And I need to fix that. The proving body is planned commissioning regular. It'll be the regular. 01:44:48.865 --> 01:44:55.310 - So, okay. So you're not wanting to mistake that for that. Right. But I do want to hear any thoughts 01:44:55.310 --> 01:45:02.142 - as to whether there, if anyone wants to see this be extended. I just have one question, I guess. I guess, 01:45:02.594 --> 01:45:10.911 - I remember this coming through and there was a new owner. How long have they been managing this? 01:45:10.911 --> 01:45:19.657 - And like, I guess if you want to give us kind of your thoughts on like, them actually addressing this 01:45:19.657 --> 01:45:29.003 - and kind of how those communications have gone so far. Sure. I don't know the exact date that they purchased 01:45:29.003 --> 01:45:30.718 - the property. 2022. 01:45:30.914 --> 01:45:38.805 - That sounds correct. When we've been working with them for the past at least three years talking about 01:45:38.805 --> 01:45:46.772 - this requirement. So they are aware of the requirement. I think that when the subdivision was approved, 01:45:46.772 --> 01:45:54.586 - there was a request to waive the sidewalk and it was denied. So I think that from the very beginning, 01:45:54.586 --> 01:46:00.638 - there was a hesitancy to do the sidewalk in this area. Do you have the kind of 01:46:01.154 --> 01:46:08.404 - belief that if we call the letter of credit, they will get to work and do it. If we call the letter 01:46:08.404 --> 01:46:15.798 - of credit, they're not going to do it. So worst case or best case, depending on your perspective, you 01:46:15.798 --> 01:46:23.265 - cash it out. You've got 40K. The work still needs to be done. Who's going to do the work? It goes back 01:46:23.265 --> 01:46:29.790 - to our earlier discussion. Is this something the planning department is going to take and 01:46:30.018 --> 01:46:36.906 - do whatever they have to do to take a project in place and manage the contract or project management 01:46:36.906 --> 01:46:43.999 - standpoint, or is Highway Department going to do that on your behalf? And North Shore is a public road, 01:46:43.999 --> 01:46:50.956 - so we would be working with the Highway Department on any kind of contract bid. We try to get all the 01:46:50.956 --> 01:46:57.776 - materials together for them, but as far as actually going out and making sure that the work is done 01:46:57.776 --> 01:46:58.526 - correctly, 01:46:58.626 --> 01:47:07.385 - we do rely a little bit more on the highway department than the planning department on that. So this 01:47:07.385 --> 01:47:16.230 - is a big ask when we're asking to cash these, it's not a simple task. On the other hand, the kids are 01:47:16.230 --> 01:47:25.075 - an outstanding 30 down to 28 tonight. We're making progress, right? There isn't an HLA in the area or 01:47:25.075 --> 01:47:27.070 - anything that could be 01:47:27.266 --> 01:47:41.647 - Yeah. I mean, so, I mean, just to make sure everybody's clear, if we cash in this surety, we can't just 01:47:41.647 --> 01:47:55.614 - use the money for anything. It has to be used specifically for the building. And it may be that, um, 01:47:56.578 --> 01:48:04.871 - we can create card of one or, I mean, I don't know what that answer is, but either way, I don't think 01:48:04.871 --> 01:48:13.164 - it's right to leave that money on the table, even if we don't have an answer today. But it does leave 01:48:13.164 --> 01:48:21.457 - us with responsibility to try to figure out, do we just need, is a short path helpful? Where would it 01:48:21.457 --> 01:48:25.278 - be? Can we use this money and cover that cost? 01:48:25.602 --> 01:48:33.432 - You know, and that's, yeah. So I'm willing to consider cashing this in because I don't see any change 01:48:33.432 --> 01:48:41.109 - coming. I just don't know how we're going to use it. And I don't think we, and obviously we have to 01:48:41.109 --> 01:48:48.863 - use it for a sidewalk, but I don't think we're obligated to have an answer as soon as we cash it in. 01:48:48.863 --> 01:48:51.166 - I think that answer can come. 01:48:52.290 --> 01:48:58.371 - you know, maybe in a year or something happens with that roadway, we're going to be doing something 01:48:58.371 --> 01:49:04.633 - where it will be easy to build that. Yes, we've got that money sitting in that fund. So it's something 01:49:04.633 --> 01:49:10.836 - that Tim and I didn't notice while going out there on multiple site visits is that there are a lot of 01:49:10.836 --> 01:49:17.038 - people coming from across the street. And so if there was an ability or an interest, we could explore 01:49:17.038 --> 01:49:20.990 - the path of saying, okay, we, is there a way to amend this plot? 01:49:21.218 --> 01:49:28.184 - but led by staff to, instead of the sidewalk going this room, would we be able to use that money for 01:49:28.184 --> 01:49:35.219 - like a hawk light or something, even crossing of some sort? Yeah. It's busy out there. It's busy with 01:49:35.219 --> 01:49:42.254 - golf carts. Yeah. They provided a video. Yeah. That's pretty. I like that. No, they did do the video. 01:49:42.254 --> 01:49:49.289 - It was pretty interesting. And like, if you look at it, we're not creating much connectivity. I don't 01:49:49.289 --> 01:49:50.462 - even know, like, 01:49:50.818 --> 01:49:58.054 - maybe a safety area for people to jump off the road if some cars are barreling down. But also, I almost 01:49:58.054 --> 01:50:05.080 - think it almost creates almost a bigger hazard to try to direct all the people on the golf carts and 01:50:05.080 --> 01:50:12.107 - stuff to jump on a little tight sidewalk to get down there. And that's only gonna be kind of more on 01:50:12.107 --> 01:50:19.134 - your eastern side because I don't think anyone's gonna use it from the access point straight across. 01:50:19.778 --> 01:50:29.295 - I would be way more in favor to explore a different amendment to this to create better access and safety 01:50:29.295 --> 01:50:38.449 - versus this sidewalk approach that goes to nowhere. I don't know what the highway's goals are coming 01:50:38.449 --> 01:50:47.422 - out there and improving the highway, but I also remember digging into some accident reporting data 01:50:48.066 --> 01:50:54.887 - And there's not too many accidents in that immediate area because there was a driveway cut, I think, 01:50:54.887 --> 01:51:01.844 - up there where you kind of see the new paving and stuff. I think there was an issue. I think we didn't 01:51:01.844 --> 01:51:08.800 - end up making them move their driveway, but no, we didn't. OK. We need to. We need to. They still need 01:51:08.800 --> 01:51:16.027 - to do it. I was personally fine with waiving that. I think they were supposed to connect that new driveway 01:51:16.027 --> 01:51:17.918 - over to the neighbor. Yeah. 01:51:18.114 --> 01:51:25.318 - Right. So just all cards out, you know, I I'm not in favor of cashing this because I don't see where 01:51:25.318 --> 01:51:32.521 - that huge benefit of building these sidewalks really come into play in the first and extending it to 01:51:32.521 --> 01:51:39.867 - see if they want to amend the whole thing to create a better situation out there. That's where I'm at. 01:51:39.867 --> 01:51:47.998 - I don't know who raised their hand first, I'm Julie. To Jackie's point though, if we could do a pedestrian island 01:51:48.098 --> 01:51:58.574 - for a hop signal with that money by changing the flat, then I would be great with having that money 01:51:58.574 --> 01:52:09.050 - to pay for that. There's no other way we're going to pay for that. So I don't, you know. Not taking 01:52:09.050 --> 01:52:12.926 - the money means we can't ever do it. 01:52:13.090 --> 01:52:21.173 - obligated to do to what we asked them. If that's cost savings, I think the petitioner would be more 01:52:21.173 --> 01:52:29.255 - generous with that approach. Scott? I support drawing the financial guarantee with a statement. And 01:52:29.255 --> 01:52:37.742 - you could use the word, if you guys help me here, pursue how you're going to spend that $40,000 in inner 01:52:37.742 --> 01:52:40.894 - workings between highway and planning. 01:52:41.250 --> 01:52:49.332 - whatever terminology you want to put in there. I just want some sort of a commitment. Well, let me ask 01:52:49.332 --> 01:52:57.492 - Sean, since he's here, if we cash the bond or take the guarantee, that means we can only use that money 01:52:57.492 --> 01:53:05.574 - for those sidewalks. So for instance, if we don't extend this for them to come and discuss a different 01:53:05.574 --> 01:53:07.614 - way to use the money that 01:53:07.746 --> 01:53:15.729 - we have there for them to build out the sidewalks and we go ahead and cash it as recommended by staff, 01:53:15.729 --> 01:53:23.711 - our only approach is to build a sidewalk. We can't be like, oh, well, they come and amend it after the 01:53:23.711 --> 01:53:31.694 - fact. Now we didn't give you your money and do this other approach of a project signal. So if we don't 01:53:31.694 --> 01:53:34.174 - extend it, this is all we have. 01:53:34.754 --> 01:53:41.305 - And that's what I'm saying. I don't think this creates the best use for this particular area to just 01:53:41.305 --> 01:53:47.856 - build these sidewalks if the petitioner is amendable. So if we extend it, we could extend it, Scott, 01:53:47.856 --> 01:53:54.667 - to a short period of time. And if the petitioner doesn't show any progress on wanting to amend the plan, 01:53:54.667 --> 01:54:01.218 - even if we initiate it, which is weird to me, we can initiate an amendment. Does the petitioner have 01:54:01.218 --> 01:54:03.358 - to agree to it? If we cashed it. 01:54:03.554 --> 01:54:11.104 - I don't know if then we would be. No, but if we didn't catch it, we would not. The petitioner would 01:54:11.104 --> 01:54:18.880 - have to agree to what we're supposed to amend. What's before us is extending the performance guarantee 01:54:18.880 --> 01:54:26.731 - timeline for cashing. Right. So we could extend it to a short period, six months. And if the petitioner 01:54:26.731 --> 01:54:32.318 - comes to us to amend it. We'd be favorable. Then we could move down that. 01:54:32.738 --> 01:54:39.832 - That's kind of how I'm thinking. I just go back to Margaret. You had your hand raised. Yeah, but he 01:54:39.832 --> 01:54:47.067 - was responding directly to Tron. You can go back to 665 and just go up to paragraph C and look at the 01:54:47.067 --> 01:54:54.232 - last sentence. And I'm sorry. I mean, I fixated on the incomplete improvements reported more than 10 01:54:54.232 --> 01:55:01.822 - years ago. I mean, come on now. I mean, I understand what you're saying, Tron, but we've got history here. 01:55:01.922 --> 01:55:08.741 - I mean, I wouldn't have supported that. I mean, we're talking about commission 20 years ago, but it's 01:55:08.741 --> 01:55:15.695 - different. We're talking about a new owner, but that's less than, you know, four years ago. Hasn't done 01:55:15.695 --> 01:55:22.982 - anything. Okay. That's true. Okay. So I get, I, I completely understand those signs of this and I understand 01:55:22.982 --> 01:55:29.534 - what Scott's saying. So, you know, like the other stuff, I totally agree with what Ron is saying. 01:55:29.922 --> 01:55:37.429 - that if we cash it in, then our hands are tied. You're billing sidewalks in there where you can't amend 01:55:37.429 --> 01:55:44.647 - the plot, you can't amend the plan. But if you have a little window to work with the petitioners to 01:55:44.647 --> 01:55:51.865 - where highway or connector is not tied in to billing that sidewalk to nowhere, then you can look at 01:55:51.865 --> 01:55:57.278 - other improvements in that area for pedestrians. That's the better access. 01:55:57.474 --> 01:56:05.483 - Right. Absolutely. It's just over. But if there's maybe a workable solution to where we don't pass this 01:56:05.483 --> 01:56:13.185 - in, that money's sitting there for another 10 years because we aren't going to do anything with it. 01:56:13.185 --> 01:56:21.348 - OK, that links perfectly to what I want to say. I am really opposed to the concrete islands in the middle 01:56:21.348 --> 01:56:26.046 - of where folks will be turning in and coming out and hitting 01:56:26.530 --> 01:56:35.721 - the concrete islands on what seems to be a well-designed driveway. I do think that some safe traffic 01:56:35.721 --> 01:56:45.094 - crosswalks would be useful, but I would not support any kind of pork chop, lamb chop, any kind of chop 01:56:45.094 --> 01:56:54.558 - in the middle of the road that would make it hard on our maintenance staff. I just would not like that. 01:56:55.330 --> 01:57:01.085 - But they have a parking signal, you don't need to have a pedestrian island in the correct place. Just 01:57:01.085 --> 01:57:06.783 - saying that. Yeah, and I don't know that term, but, you know, I'm not- It's that flashing sign, like 01:57:06.783 --> 01:57:12.425 - you press a button. I'm not opposed to anything like that, a crosswalk, a strip, a painted strip on 01:57:12.425 --> 01:57:18.067 - the highway to say this is where the pedestrian should cross. There could be two of them, you know, 01:57:18.067 --> 01:57:23.822 - one before the big turn and one after the big turn. But anything in the middle of that big turn would 01:57:23.822 --> 01:57:24.894 - be an obstruction. 01:57:27.266 --> 01:57:34.202 - So I feel like we're all taking a very narrow approach to improvements to asphalt surface. It seems 01:57:34.202 --> 01:57:41.138 - like there's a more novel way we can look at this for any of these things, whether it's the divides 01:57:41.138 --> 01:57:48.352 - or the lines or anything else to the asphalt surface. And so I believe approaching from that direction, 01:57:48.352 --> 01:57:55.566 - maybe this leads to property transportation with a way to use that $42,000 in a way that can make sense 01:57:55.566 --> 01:57:56.606 - for everybody. 01:57:57.282 --> 01:58:04.751 - And I think you can use that nearly 2000 more economically and more improvements to pedestrians than 01:58:04.751 --> 01:58:12.811 - you can ever build that sign. So you're not getting any, you're not getting any benefits from that sidewalk. 01:58:12.811 --> 01:58:19.836 - There's a pedestrian crossing road. There's flashing beacon signs when I say road turn around, 01:58:19.836 --> 01:58:25.086 - maybe 25 turns. You can still crosswalks, you can do pavement margins. 01:58:25.346 --> 01:58:35.020 - There's options out there that's more affordable than building that site. But you're not going to sit 01:58:35.020 --> 01:58:44.410 - on that money forever. So I agree that if you can find a way to spend that. So what's the heritage 01:58:44.410 --> 01:58:54.558 - performance they're sending to you right now? September 19th of this month. How is the LOC stuff? It's OK. 01:58:55.042 --> 01:59:02.325 - They are good until the center. So we have the money. It's just that the contract that they signed said 01:59:02.325 --> 01:59:09.399 - we get a done guy is this thing. Can we do a short turnaround on that? I mean, can we say, you know, 01:59:09.399 --> 01:59:16.892 - two years and then we come back and see if they've done anything? I mean, if not, then we have to consider 01:59:16.892 --> 01:59:20.254 - an internal flat change. Right. You know, okay. 01:59:21.058 --> 01:59:28.822 - two years essentially. Well, I'm going to communicate back to the owner to say the discussion here, 01:59:28.822 --> 01:59:36.820 - listen to the reporting. They filed for a flat amendment two years ago, maybe three years ago now, and 01:59:36.820 --> 01:59:44.584 - we told them, this is what you need to do. But with the rezone not getting their shared driveway or 01:59:44.584 --> 01:59:50.718 - removal condition, they stopped in that process. They stopped in that process. 01:59:50.850 --> 01:59:57.116 - Remind them that the sidewalk is separate and that they still need to go through with that process or 01:59:57.116 --> 02:00:03.259 - we will be looking to cash it if not extending it. But we do want to work with them. We've been, we 02:00:03.259 --> 02:00:09.402 - will continue to try to work with them and give them these other ideas that come out tonight. Yeah. 02:00:09.402 --> 02:00:15.730 - So are we, are we extending the period of forms? This is a regular meeting discussion because it's the 02:00:15.730 --> 02:00:18.494 - second time they're asking for an extension. 02:00:19.298 --> 02:00:27.077 - So we just agreed to. Or is this still about the schools? When you ask the regular session and the legal 02:00:27.077 --> 02:00:34.782 - advertise my point has been all along that we should hammer all the stuff out there that made it before 02:00:34.782 --> 02:00:42.191 - we take it to a plan commission. Yeah, the beginning of these long blown out discussions and should 02:00:42.191 --> 02:00:43.006 - be better. 02:00:43.298 --> 02:00:49.612 - That's all. That's all. So like staff rewrite this portion of the recommendation to say extend 02:00:49.612 --> 02:00:56.524 - the performance guarantee as opposed to recommend cashing it. We could do that for the regular meeting. 02:00:56.524 --> 02:01:03.370 - It would depend on how your conversation goes with these. Okay, I don't think. I'm suggesting you have 02:01:03.370 --> 02:01:10.016 - that discussion as soon as possible. That's where I'm going with that to see whether or not this is 02:01:10.016 --> 02:01:12.542 - even more of our time than your time. 02:01:12.770 --> 02:01:20.682 - to continue this dialogue will continue. I do appreciate what you said, because that's the radical change. 02:01:20.682 --> 02:01:28.149 - I mean, it really is the radical change, but we're dealing with something that's been going on for a 02:01:28.149 --> 02:01:34.878 - very good time, and we all know that, and the outcome has changed. And so that's my guess. 02:01:35.970 --> 02:01:43.134 - just a quick note, there's a good chance I won't be here for the regular session on the 21st, so it'll 02:01:43.134 --> 02:01:50.368 - probably be the 10th of May. I see you can tell. I mean, thanks for having me. 23rd? 23rd, yes, because 02:01:50.368 --> 02:01:57.393 - of council. But anyways. But is that a problem with the average? It's higher. The letter credit's so 02:01:57.393 --> 02:02:04.766 - good. Oh. But the contract that they said, well, hey, we'll have this done by his here. So it's two days. 02:02:05.026 --> 02:02:12.410 - Their original letter of credit did expire this date, but they had a new bank and extended it to the 02:02:12.410 --> 02:02:19.720 - state. You in fact are giving them an opportunity to a successful outcome. That's right. We need to 02:02:19.720 --> 02:02:27.397 - know whether we have a successful outcome before the plan is approved. That's the point. Otherwise we're 02:02:27.397 --> 02:02:31.710 - good. This plaque thing that they tried to do that failed, 02:02:32.194 --> 02:02:38.867 - Is there any way we can kind of poke that in this and make it sweetened for everybody? They get what 02:02:38.867 --> 02:02:45.739 - they want. It seems to me that based on what I've heard, if we're not building sidewalk, they get their 02:02:45.739 --> 02:02:52.478 - money back. Or we just hold it. We don't give it back unless they were to succeed with the waiver. So 02:02:52.478 --> 02:02:59.283 - we just hold it. I'm going back to the Bell Vista thing. Yeah. You know, this is something altogether. 02:02:59.283 --> 02:03:01.662 - Yes. Different, but a lot the same. 02:03:01.922 --> 02:03:08.206 - Yes. And we let those guys walk. Steve? Seems reasonable to extend that performance period to marry 02:03:08.206 --> 02:03:14.552 - up with the letter of credit expiration, right? Because then it's a shorter period of time. It gives 02:03:14.552 --> 02:03:20.962 - you some time to figure this out. I mean, you're going to have to extend the letter of credit anyway. 02:03:20.962 --> 02:03:26.366 - So why not address it all together instead of these separate truncated pieces? Right. 02:03:29.378 --> 02:03:37.457 - 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 02:03:37.457 --> 02:03:45.456 - know if December 8th is enough, but I will talk to them based on our finally deadline that they got. 02:03:45.456 --> 02:03:53.614 - We'll try. We'll see. Okay. Any other discussion points? In the meantime, when you're meeting with the 02:03:53.614 --> 02:03:58.366 - petitioner, you might ask them if they would be amenable to 02:03:58.594 --> 02:04:07.007 - some sort of traffic crossing option, you know, as a community service for their funds rather than just 02:04:07.007 --> 02:04:15.259 - building a sidewalk and over. You know, that would be good, you know, good for the community. I don't 02:04:15.259 --> 02:04:23.349 - know if you can even give them some PR as to how they help fund it or whatever, but nevertheless, I 02:04:23.349 --> 02:04:27.070 - think word of mouth gets out. It didn't hurt. 02:04:28.834 --> 02:04:38.672 - anything else on this topic. Oh boy. And I think the last two, I understand you want to take these together. 02:04:38.672 --> 02:04:47.698 - Yeah, they're bad. 678. And I do know that the petitioner and the representative are online putting 02:04:47.698 --> 02:04:55.550 - in your questions if you have any at this point. But you know, phase one and phase two 02:04:56.002 --> 02:05:03.997 - their performance period ended, and I think we heard it earlier this year, and the thought was to push 02:05:03.997 --> 02:05:11.759 - it to this meeting and discuss a performance period extension. We were really trying to see if they 02:05:11.759 --> 02:05:19.598 - could work with the developer at Holland 3-Lot Miner to come up with a solution for the intersection 02:05:19.598 --> 02:05:25.342 - at South Walnut Street Pike and East Holland Drive. From what I've heard, 02:05:25.506 --> 02:05:34.012 - Recently that they are kind of in the middle of a mediation process to determine which developer is 02:05:34.012 --> 02:05:42.604 - going to be taking on certain responsibilities. I don't know. We would have to ask them if they have 02:05:42.604 --> 02:05:51.110 - any updates on that or not. But we are kind of staff is recommending that we do ask that because we 02:05:51.110 --> 02:05:53.662 - are recommending an extension 02:05:54.178 --> 02:06:03.917 - Other performance period, we would like to ask that they submit an additional amount for the inflation 02:06:03.917 --> 02:06:13.751 - cost for another year. Yes. Holland three lot minor just did that same thing. And so this seems to make 02:06:13.751 --> 02:06:23.774 - sense that they would supplied 10,000 for the phase one and then based to the total that we had for them. 02:06:24.578 --> 02:06:31.571 - I'm just going to find your table because I think that was going to be about an additional $5,000. So 02:06:31.571 --> 02:06:38.427 - they could either amend their letter of credit or they could submit a cashier's check, whichever is 02:06:38.427 --> 02:06:45.489 - easier for them. And so I think they're very similar recommendations and update their performance bond 02:06:45.489 --> 02:06:50.974 - documents and subdivision improvement agreements after they have submitted that 02:06:51.586 --> 02:07:00.077 - you know, those funds, and then we would be able to have an accurate document to like submit to them. 02:07:00.077 --> 02:07:08.734 - And then we're giving them a tight turnaround with April 17th for phase two of this next coming spring. 02:07:08.734 --> 02:07:17.058 - It needs to have an application for acceptance into the right way. And the other one, I think, just 02:07:17.058 --> 02:07:21.470 - a little bit longer, they would have until May 14th. 02:07:21.634 --> 02:07:29.153 - Uh-huh. Have you discussed all these items with the petition? They have read this staff report. They're 02:07:29.153 --> 02:07:36.456 - here listening to this meeting. I may or may not hear from them before, but they were sent the staff 02:07:36.456 --> 02:07:43.758 - report and this was happening, so they're paying attention. Well, if they're listening, what I would 02:07:43.758 --> 02:07:51.422 - ask is that they respond to whether or not they've read this and they don't have a problem with it. Okay. 02:07:52.258 --> 02:08:01.479 - I agree with that. I mean, an email would suffice if they wanted to respond via email, but I can include 02:08:01.479 --> 02:08:10.525 - that in the staff packet. Right. They reviewed and they concur. Or if they don't concur, they can also 02:08:10.525 --> 02:08:19.395 - say they don't concur. And then slowing it back and forth between them. So I just want documentation 02:08:19.395 --> 02:08:21.854 - with what's been discussed. 02:08:23.618 --> 02:08:30.246 - Another point of discussion is that we were going to additionally have the planning commission state 02:08:30.246 --> 02:08:36.939 - if the petitioner fails to complete all remaining work and apply for acceptance based on the May 14th 02:08:36.939 --> 02:08:43.632 - and then the April date that we would be directed to cash loan and credit. But I want to be sensitive 02:08:43.632 --> 02:08:50.325 - to the idea that another option is to continue to extend this and keep hitting the 10% inflation part 02:08:50.325 --> 02:08:53.278 - in hopes that that's more motivating than us 02:08:53.410 --> 02:08:59.975 - trying to do this work. So that's something that we can strike under this and complete allowing for 02:08:59.975 --> 02:09:06.934 - the extension to what we are asking for the first part. And it will say that their representative, Angela 02:09:06.934 --> 02:09:13.565 - Parker, has it hand raised. Correct. If you had a question and wanted to ask, you could. But this is 02:09:13.565 --> 02:09:20.196 - not a hearing, and so it's not really public record difficult for us. You have to take a vote to see 02:09:20.196 --> 02:09:22.494 - if we're going to do that as well. 02:09:23.010 --> 02:09:31.608 - I'm trying to mute. I know it's getting late. Do you want to go for public comment? No. Okay. Sounds 02:09:31.608 --> 02:09:40.292 - like the- I'll just try and talk to them tomorrow. Please, and then- Did they foresee any issues with 02:09:40.292 --> 02:09:49.145 - the timelines and then like this? It's okay. All right, very good. Last item. Is it all the information 02:09:49.145 --> 02:09:51.614 - together? Motion to adjourn. 02:09:51.906 --> 02:09:57.630 - Good job. Thank you for your patience.