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