Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

like to call to order the City of Belton Planning Commission meeting for January 6, 2026. First time I've actually gotten to say it out loud. Could we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Shut here. Commissioner Crate, here. Commissioner Mcdana here. Commissioner Rugles here. Commissioner McFersonson here. Commissioner Christensen here. Commissioner Walton, Mayor Larky, and Council Member Bryan.

All right. Thank you. Uh first item that we have on our agenda this evening would be the approval of our minutes from November 18, 2025. We had several meetings that were cancelled and uh so it's been a little while, but those minutes have been distributed to everyone. Hopefully, you've had a chance to look those over. Are there any corrections or additions, changes that need to be made that you're aware of? If not, would entertain a motion for the approval of those? I motion to approve the minutes for November 18th, 2025. Thank you. Second

motion and second. Thank you. All those in favor of approving motion or the minutes as printed say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Thank you. All right. We will move on to our new business for this evening. Uh first item we have is a presentation of project or PROJ25-00008 request from Y58 partners for the partial vacation of a utility easement generally located at the northeast corner of North Cedar Street and the main access drive to the crossroads at Belton Retail Center on property addressed as 231 North Cedar Street and we'll ask our city planner, Miss Fernandez, to present that.

Thank you. Uh, an application was filed for the partial vacation of a dedicated public utility easement, generally located at the northeast corner of North Cedar Street and the main access drive to the crossroads of Belton Retail Center or Price Chopper. The utility easement is located near the southwest corner of lot B, uh, Crest Plaza, Fourth Plat. address is 231 North Cedar Street and the purpose of the easement vacation is to accommodate a multi-tenant monument sign for the retail center. The original Chris Plaza plat was created in 1997 and has been expanded and replatted four times since with the last being from the current owner of this property in 2025. and all replats have maintained the 20 foot utility easement on the front of this lot. Um, and that included also the expansion and rideway dedication for 163rd Street. Currently, the utility easement has an 8 in sanitary sewer line, an 8-in water line, and a 6in water line inside the easement, as well as the possibility of added services in the future. The city maintains its position of preserving and establishing utility easements along the front and rear of all platted properties at a minimum, especially along arterial streets like this along 163rd Street. And this just ensures that any development that could occur along the corridor has adequate adequate access to utilities in the future. Uh staff has several concerns with this vacation application. um in this specific portion of the utility easement. And those concerns are that the size of the utility easement is intended to accommodate current and future utility needs along a major

arterial corridor that is less than 50% developed currently. Additionally, improvements for both street infrastructure and utilities may be needed as development occurs. And the location of the sign further reduces the developable area of lot 4B. the lot shown here um which already received a modification in the plat to for the lot width to accommodate its smaller size. An additional barrier um of the sign makes the lot less likely to develop in the future. There's already an existing monument sign serving the shopping center on this property across the access drive um in front of Price Shopper which is a suitable location for an upgraded and large sign which is being proposed. A sign at this location would be allowed with staff reviewed sign permit and without any special reviews or modifications. And one of the main arguments we've heard from the applicant is that the sign uh they would prefer the sign be closer to the street than the current sign at the Belton Crossroad Shopping Center. So we showed a image here in the staff report um with a measurement from our GIS showing that the Belton gateway sign which was developed and created by the owner of this property um is approximately 84t away from the curb of the street. Um and the existing crossroads of Belton sign on in front of Price Chopper is 66 feet away from the curb of the street. So this sign location is actually closer than another one of their multi-tenant signs. Um, per UC requirements, we also uh let the utility companies know of the

request and were notified and staff received objections of the vacation for multiple utilities with concerns of the loss of an area in the middle of utility corridor which supports staff's recommendation. Uh the objections we heard from were water, city of Belton, sewer, city of Belton, AT&T, and gas fire. Um and with that staff recommends denial of the application based on these points described in the staff report. Um the applicant is here and he does have some exhibits. So if you do have questions for me I can also take those but he also has some material. Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll ask the applicant to uh go ahead and present this. We will have a public hearing. So, we will open this up after the applicant uh makes his presentation. Go to the prior one. How do I zoom it down? We'll make it.

I'm sorry. I'm not real good at some of this stuff. Uh, good evening. I'm Russ Enan with Enan Architects. I I represent Y58 on this matter. Um unfortunately we're um we're in disagreement with much of the assessment and the representations of staff on on this particular project. Um they note in their u background [snorts] that this is for two years um that they've been telling us to put the this pylon sign where the existing sign is. And for two years we told them that neither the price chopper nor the retail center ownership will put a penny into that location because it's fundamentally flawed. It's too far away from the street to be legible. It [clears throat] is uh on a sides slope in a wet bottom detention basin. We couldn't even get trucks in there to build it or to change or mount the sign panels. There's no electricity u in that area. It would have to be brought from an extremely long distance to be there. Um, long and the short of it is that sign will never go in that location. It's it's just wrong. Um, it it won't work. Um, just going down through the bullet points. Um, we're [clears throat] being told here that, uh, the Jenna had to go back to the my site plan. here.

Thank the site plan that was in your report. Oh, the one to the left of that one here.

Okay. [clears throat] Staff is maintaining that the sign as it's shown here is damaging the ability to Sorry. um that [clears throat] the sign as located is damaging the ability of this lot to be developed. The sign in that location is impacting this lot absolutely zero. The development challenges here are the um storm sewer that the original developer put in bisecting this lot as well as the [clears throat] water line that goes to nowhere that has an easement. Those are far more restrictive to the development of this lot than the the positioning of this sign. That the sign [clears throat] is having zero impact on the development. [clears throat] So [clears throat] in terms of this easement and the utilities, there is a sanitary line in there. There is not a water line in there. The water line is in the street rightway. There [clears throat] is uh 30 plus feet from the property line to the curb line in the rideway. We are working with the um utility agencies mentioned uh specifically Spire, Evergy and AT&T on bringing the utilities to the AT&T property.

[clears throat]

We have not heard anything from them in terms of having a problem with this site plan which they have seen and they are extending your their utilities to this property without utilizing um the subject um easement. We do not and that will complete their utilities extension to this portion of the property. They already have utilities and full and are fully built out on the area south of the line. [clears throat] So just uh in terms of um the representation that was made in terms of the positioning of this sign and comparing it to Gateway, we find that invalid. First off, the dimension that was given uh was from the right turn lane, not from the driving lane in regards the crossroad sign in respect the sign at um Gateway. Uh that's not the same type of property. Uh this property that we're trying to provide signage for is a small box retail. That particular property is largebox retail. And you can see the buildings are huge and you can see the signs from the road which you cannot in this retail center. Um, frankly the only reason that sign was built at Gateway was because the Nationals require signage along the street or they won't sign a lease. [clears throat] I I don't know if you can read the numbers. And I'm going to try to show you a few things about this property. The [clears throat]

the distance from the driving lane to the existing sign is uh 75 ft. In our case, it would be 45 ft. Um, the most critical visibility for this signage for these retail shops, which are some 4 to 500 ft away, almost 500 feet away from the southbound lanes, is being able to see the signs prior to hitting the left turn lane. [snorts] At this critical point, you're 180 feet from the the sign position that we propose. You're 285 to this sign. It will be illegible. You will not be able to see that sign. Even if you see it slightly from here, it's too late to make the turn. It's it's totally without function and without use. Not to mention the technical problems that we mentioned. We we do not believe that the um there is any further use that could be um envisioned in the um in the current utility easement. Um the sewer is there. We had the had a presubmittal meeting with staff and we asked about uh repair and expansion to that sewer line and [snorts] we were told stay 7 feet or more away from it and we're fine which we're doing. Um the city's got their own water line not even in the easement. Um the other utility carriers aren't needing the easement to fully build out this part of the properties.

um when when they get their utilities over for this lot, they're done. There's no more work that they need to do. So, we don't believe that what we're proposing here um damages anybody's ability um to develop these properties or uh the utility agencies to service them. [snorts] Um, we we just don't don't think that there's any any issue with what we're proposing. [snorts] Um, I don't know the proper protocols, but I'd be glad to clarify anything or entertain any questions.

Okay. At this point, what we're going to do is we are going to go ahead and call the uh public hearing into session and we'll ask for any uh members from the public to speak either in favor or in opposition and then uh after the public hearing is closed then the commission will go ahead and we'll be able to answer ask any questions of you at that time. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. So, I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Uh, and we will ask, is there anyone here that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to the uh proposal to vacate the easement? As you've heard, anyone to speak either in favor or in opposition? Seeing none, we will go ahead and close the public hearing then and we'll open it up to the commissioners. Uh we've heard from the city, we've heard from the applicant. Uh are there any questions anyone has? Comments?

Make sure your mic is on, please. Commissioner, [laughter] we're we're getting a getting frantic signs from our sound man. [laughter] Well, I'd just like to hear what the city has to say about it because we don't we don't know how far anything is. We don't we don't know. We don't you know what the city what do you have to say about what he says?

Of course. Um I think at this point um we have received an application for a large scale um development across the street from Price Chopper on the 40 acres. Um large indoor entertainment use with over 500 proposed apartment units and uh commercial space. And as you can see, there's a curb cut right across the street from this access drive. So this access drive will likely be used by um that development and we want to ensure that there's no break in the utility easement for any um possible um you know breakage in the line for connecting the utilities in the future. So essentially this corridor is only 50% built out. So the city's perspective is that we maintain those utility easements for a reason, just for the common good of making sure that there are access to utilities for any development along the corridor.

Did you have anything to add? Yeah, I think the biggest thing is is that we've received objections from for water and sewer, but we've also received concerns from both um AT&T and Spire with this. Um, AT&T specifically had an objection to um, vacating the easement. They said that the only thing that they would entertain is potentially an encroachment agreement which allows the utility easement to remain and a sign to be installed there, but then if there's ever a need for utility to go through there, the sign would be removed. So, we typically um, use that sparingly because of that added risk and cost associated with that. Commissioner,

one more question on uh the proposed sign where you guys propose to put the sign on. Um is is he right? Will they not be able to put the sign there because of the because it's it's wetlands and stuff and there's no electricity.

That sign is not specifically in an easement. Um it is a lit sign, so I thought there was electrical to it. um unless it's solar powered in some manner or something. But um in terms of in terms of the the there's not a a specific easement that that sign is located in. So there wouldn't be anything at least from a code standpoint that we would have to not approve a sign there. So we you couldn't guess if they'll be able to put a truck in there and put a sign in there.

We obviously haven't done any soil testing. We don't know exactly how compact that land is, but essentially staff is willing to work with the applicant on any other location of the sign. Um, just not in a space that would require vacating the utility easement, but we are open to any and all other locations that just wouldn't inhibit this sort of thing.

All right. Thanks. I guess my my followup to that would be apparently they've had a truck in there before to put a sign in of some sort. They had to have some kind I mean in order to position it sounds to me or it seems like there would have had to have been something to put that in. And the fact that it does have electric because I know I've been by that sign many times and seen that it was lit. Um, I guess the the other question that I have just immediate and especially looking at this picture to see the sign as it is now on the right side of that road going in cannot be seen. But if we put it on the left side, then it'll be able to be seen and read. It's not really moving I mean I don't see where we're moving it that much closer to change the ability to read a sign uh by what are we talking maybe 10 20 feet that we would be talking and if we were to put a bigger sign over on the right uh I I I just have my to me it doesn't quite add up that that it would not work where it currently is. Any other questions, comments from commission? Commissioner,

can you not make a larger sign in the existing spot, remove the smaller one, make a bigger one, add utilities, and it be seen from a distance? That was staff's recommendation, but the applicant can comment further, but that was our request. Was that the bigger sign go in that space? Can can you answer that? Sure. I' I'd like to respond to all the comments, but I'd kind of like to wait till they're all done. Okay. But but I'm glad to start now.

Will you please come up to the lecture when speak? Okay. Um, yeah, I um I misspoke. There is electricity to the sign. This is not what we would call a pylon sign. This is a monument sign, meaning it's only about four or five feet tall and it's made out of masonry. They and it and that they didn't need to get trucks in there. What we're talking about is even though it's called a a pylon a monument sign, we consider it a pylon sign. It's 24 28 feet tall. And to build it, to set all of the pieces and parts and to get the sign panels and so forth, you need a boom truck. And you can't do the south side of that sign with a boom truck off the drive. You can't take a boom truck into a wet bottom detention basin that's full of muck. It will sink in there. It It physically won't work. the

there's no way from the street or from the entrance if you shut the entrance down. Has nothing to do with the with the I'm not a construction worker, but that's just I'm sorry. You get a crane in there instead. Yeah, but to maintain it, what he's saying is to maintain it physically put a truck in there to maintain that thing when it goes out. You cannot do it because I know exactly what he's talking about because I've been in that situation. The truck is too heavy for the ground and will sink into the ground and the outriggers will not help hold it up either.

You got to be able to reach the back side of the sign. If the street's over here and you can't get the truck to the back side of the sign, you can't change the panels. You can't change the lights. You can't work on it safely in the bucket of the truck. You can't do it. Make sure you guys are unmuting your microphones when you're otherwise otherwise the stream won't won't hear it. So I see what he's saying. You can't you can't get the sign to the people to the back side of the sign to work on it safely.

Bringing bringing the sign 30 ft closer to the curb and bringing it over a 100 ft closer to the view angle is huge. Um, Fire Marshall Bill will tell you that part of your ordinance it has the the sign the letter or the number address numbers get massively bigger with every 25 to 50 ft because of legibility and their their chart goes up to 150 ft. We are way over that. Uh the other thing that I didn't mention is um we have an devilishly hard time renting these shops, attracting and maintaining um tenants. And a big part of that is visibility. It's so far back from the road you cannot read um any of those signs. They're illeible. So it makes it even more critical to have street signage. you don't really need to look any further than your cedar tree development, which was unable to attract tenants and maintain them. They did a nice job um retrofitting it, but they put a great big huge pylon sign out along the street, which makes an enormous difference. And now that place is almost full. [snorts] You go to the north Cass across the road where there is no signage presence, there is no visibility, they have a devil of a time getting anybody in there of inequality and keeping them in there. We're fighting the same battle. This is critical to us for us to backfill these

um these tenant spaces. Um I would love to see the correspondence from AT&T and from Spire. um we have shown this to them. They're not utilizing this at at any level at all. Um made it very clear to us that it wasn't an issue. Um and lastly, I don't understand how the roadway easements on our side of the road affects the development on the other side. They will have their own easements along the rideway for these utilities. And I don't really believe that that they're going to punch that road and expand utilities in that direction. It would be I would love to hear from public works to see if that's their intention because [snorts] I I don't believe it would be.

So, are you guys proposing to put that next to that storm water zero? is where it's going. No, let me get back to the proper this. This is the storm water that goes here and into the detention basin. There's there's the inlet from the detention basin into the storm. And this is where that little masonry sign is. Here is the location that we're where Okay. You're going to be in front of it then. Yeah. And right in front of it,

we're we're more than seven feet away from the sanitary. The city water lines already not in the easement. It's in the right It's in the rightway. Um EverGy Spire and AT&T are bringing their services in front and behind the lot. They h they have no need or no intention to use that. We don't think anything will ever go in to that. uh easement ever again. There's absolutely no reason for it, [snorts] right?

The lots will be fully serviced at when we when they do their extensions for lot 4 A and 4B and we we will have no interference. We will pro we will provide no detriment to them.

City manager.

Mr. Chairman, yeah, I look the city's very empathetic to the needs of this of this developer. Um, obviously sales tax is the number one revenue generator for city services. Um, we have growing needs for streets. We have we have way more needs for sidewalks than we were able to to fulfill. And so we want more revenue. Um, we want to help here in some way, shape, or form. We want to we we would love to have, you know, better signage in this area for this uh shopping center to be more successful. Um, the easement issue is is the hard stop. Now, regardless of Spire, regardless of AT&T, the city of Belton is the water and sewer utility in this area. And so, um, it's current needs, potential future needs, even future needs that are not even identified at this point or why easements exist. And so whether it's redevelopment of this specific property down the line, whether it's the punching in somehow or having access for us to for the the city sewer and water systems to uh to service the the land across the street to the west. Um those future needs, we don't know what those needs are going to be yet. We don't have an application. We don't have a design plan. We don't know where the need, you know, where the the the draw is on water, where the the heavy use for sewer, depending on what goes in there, what could come for redevelopment. And having the easement is is is better than having to go back and try to regain an easement or or or re, you know, re lay this uh infrastructure for our utilities. And so that's why they exist. And so I it's we don't want we're not trying to be obstructionist when it comes to to this development and and the signage here. We we want more signage. We we want to help that we just we can't in good faith say yes, let's do this here at and and cut off our nose to spot our face to to the potential future uses that we may have for that for those

utilities. And um public works has looked through this and that that's where this came from. It's and we don't take that lightly. We're we're pro business. We're business friendly. And so we're not trying to be obstructionist here. We we just want to make sure we're not putting ourselves in a bad situation down the line. All right. Thank you, city manager. Um to to our uh director lot 4A is that not currently under development with the Valvalene. Correct. So basically the only lot left to develop along that front would be that lot for uh B. Is that correct?

Yes. That's the only lot that's not developed along this frontage. However, this utility easement is not exclusively for the use of the shopping center. This goes along the entire 163rd Street Cedar Street corridor. Um, and that's that's the concern is what other utilities may come. I mean, we have, I think, now four different uh fiber networks um in the city. So, those are other utilities that continue to enter into these easements. So, it's not like the easement is closed just because the current utilities have uh facilities in there. Um there's always other um utility improvements that may come come across uh that need access to these easements.

I'd only I'd only inquire why the city didn't put their water line in the easement. They put it in the street right away as is spire at and ever. I don't know that any of us were here when that was done but yeah this was done 15 20 years ago so we can't speak on that and I

there is a additional water line that is in the easement that's serving the Arverse bake and lot for a because they determined that the uh line that's in the rightway is 16 ft deep so they can't reach it. So, the Arverse Bank did add a additional water line that's in that easement. [clears throat]

We're we're currently servicing lot 4A and 4B with EverGy, AT&T, and Spire. And none of none of them are going into any of the frontage easements. They're going into the rightway and they're going behind the the lots. Is there no alternative location? Does it have to be right there? Um, the developer is not willing to put a sign in a location that doesn't have sufficient visibility. And this is the the only place that even gets close for the whole shopping center. I don't I think there has to be

where where is it that look I don't disagree that the current sign is not adequate but I also can't see going into easements because we don't know what the future holds. I I understand there could be somebody here down the road that needs access and now we've given that access away which is not No, we're encroaching about 4 feet into the into the easement out of 20 ft because that's a big shopping center that goes across a major road for a long distance. There's got to be other points. It's got one, two, three entrances. Four. We have

three. We're trying to serve the signage needs of this retail strip here,

which is almost 500 feet away from the road, and you can't see their signage. [snorts] This is the only place that we can put it that will direct that people can see the signage and will direct them to there. Coming from the south, you can't even see a lot of this. But even if you drive past that entrance and you see a sign and you say, "Oh, wait. There's X in there. I want to go in there." You have that whole extra street where you can turn right in there. You've not gone past anything. You can still access everything and it shows you that. Even if you go past it on this route, you can turn left at the light and enter in off of 58. So, you've never you're not really gone past it. I understand what you're saying, but I think that there could be a different location

and still access.

All I can tell you is Christy Development has done re retail development for over over 45 years and this is the only place that's acceptable to them due to uh retail design and signage standards. It won't [snorts] go anywhere else. It will go here or there won't be one at all. And it will continue to hamper their ability to lease the space. So is it and and this is just a point of clarification. Is it normal that communication with the parties that might be affected by this would be with the city and so it's not unusual for them to not be communicating that to the to the applicant. Is that correct?

Yeah. So, after we receive any vacation application for anything that impacts utilities, we notify all of our utility contacts through email. Um, and then they follow up with us through email or through phone call. Um, we didn't receive, as noted, we didn't receive anything formally through Evergarter Communications. Um, Everg did reach did want the content information for the developers so that they could reach out directly and have a conversation. Um, EverGy did not report back to us um on any decision or conversation that they had. Um, AT&T and Spire both did express concerns. Um, Spire typically their their process is if they are supportive of an easement vacation, they will submit us written documentation, but in this in this case they did not. Um, and then AT&T um expressed concerns with vacating the easement. um they were against vacating the easement, but they said that they would be um agreeable to an encroachment agreement that would allow the easement to remain. Um any kind of encroachment agreement has to be approved by the city council.

I think what I'm feeling right now is that to to our applicant's question, why is the water line out in the street? I'm guessing it wasn't when it was first put in and an adjustment was made and the easement at that time it may have been in the easement and that's been changed and now you know we're we're looking at a complication down in in the future. The other thing I would say is it looks like maybe the developer missed on their uh on their part when they first submitted plans as far as submitting a a sign that uh they did not plan ahead for something like this. and now they're caught and they can't lease out their their space because they can't advertise for them and they want us to to make a change. So I, you know, I'm I'm thinking again, we're at a point now. Do we want to make a change that could come back and bite us in the future where it looks like maybe we're the reason we're having this conversation today is because we've done that a couple of times before in all probability and that's why we're [clears throat]

we we would be willing to stipulate that if in the future there was a need for that 5t of the easement that we'll remove the sign. We're so confident that that will never ever happen that we're willing to stipulate we would remove the sign if it became a problem. Um I would like to see the correspondence from the utilities. Um as I mentioned, we're working with the uh those those three utility agencies right now. None of them have expressed any issues with what we've shown them. They're all running uh their utilities to serve 4 A and 4B without using um this easement.

But it's not just the utilities. The city has an issue, correct? With the water lines. So if they're fine, we're still not fine. I just think there has to be a middle ground. And if he really wants a sign, let's come up with a backup plan. If We're glad to entertain options, but you know, we've we've studied this extensively for a long time and this is the only viable location that

I got a question for the city. Is it possible you guys could grant him to fill in part of that pond where they where the flood plane is? Fill that in so he could build they could build a pad big enough to put a truck on to back in there to take care of the sign. Um, in terms of storm water, that would be a Dane question. Um, but something like that could be possible. Um, and we are willing to and then you could put the sign back right where it was. We We won't put it where it's at. It's too far. They'd have a pad to build the sign on.

We will not build a sign where the current sign is. It's too far away from the road. It will not be visible. Well, if you built your sign to where the back was bigger and the sides would kind of set like this, you'd be able to see it from the street. We we have a sign designed that's part of the package that's the largest that's allowed by your ordinance. If you put that sign at that location, it will not be legible. It sounds like It sounds like, you know, we're trying to work on a compromise. And if you built it up higher, Yeah. put the pad up higher to where the signs higher. You're gonna see it. And uh I've sat here and looked it over. I You're gonna see it. So I think our city manager has a a comment.

Yeah. Well, I work construction for 20ome 30ome years and I've been in this situation and I know that it would work where it's at. If you just build it up higher and make the sign a little different and put them a pad in there, it will work where it's at. If if the sign goes in where it's proposed and there's a need in the future for it by the city, I can just already tell you how that conversation is going to go. When I call David Christie in two, three, five years and say, "Hey, we need you to move your sign." That's not going to go very well. So, I'd rather us just avoid that from the get-go. Right. Well, and to piggy back off, I mean, I'm not I'm just trying to also meet middle ground here, too. But

developers saying you're open to other options and then in the turn you're saying you're not. So, I'm I'm just trying to I I I would entertain doing the sign in the um detention basin if it's out by the road, but not where the current monument sign is located. It's too far away from the road for the signs to be visible. So, if there is a change, yeah, there is some interest in that it could be in that same area. I as long as Just a minute ago, it wasn't. That's why I'm just

No, I I didn't have any problem with the concept of putting it in in the detention basin on a pad, but if it's that far away from the street, you you are you are way so far away from the southbound lanes with that sign that deep into that basin. If you if you put the pad up here and the sign up here, that's a whole different story. Well,

so my my question is what's going to draw more attention for those businesses? a sign where it's at now on a slab making some provisions to get it up so that it can be seen or no sign because it what I'm hearing is as a city we are not comfortable with changing the uh the easement and so it can be you know I mean we're trying to find a a a working solution And is it possible to move the sign a little forward on the current location? I mean,

is there room there to move it forward? That is a private drive, so it wouldn't um be the same setback as it would be on a private or on a public street. So, we could definitely work with placement and I think that the get utilities or anything over there on that side? There are no utilities on that side. There's a there's a water line along the private drive on lot 4B. So I I would ask uh what I'm seeing with the storm water and if I understood it runs across under that road

and into a into the detention pond and that little rectangle box is the place where that comes out in there. So, if we I mean, it appears that we don't have a whole lot of room to play with moving it forward towards the street because then we're going to be running into an easement with the storm water system again. Yeah. But if we move it forward a little bit, it's got to help a little bit. Yeah. I mean, anything would help. Yeah. Give them what they want. But that would that would be the the one thing, you know, we're going to be running into easements on that side as well, right? You have to turn on storm water.

So there are currently no easements in that whole detention area other than where the storm water goes in. Um so so he could move it in front of the storm wire possibly. It if if the if the sign was in this location that may be workable. We would entertain any other application from the applicant for a different location. I think if we can move it forward from where it's at or something in the storm water and there's no easements in there. Nobody have anything to worry about. We let them build a pad to get their truck in there,

a road to get their truck in there to work on it. Yeah, that is something that we can talk about with engineering on exactly the approved plans for that storm water system. I know since that was developed, we also have our marquee regional detention. So it there's some other [snorts] potential options in terms of storm water, but that's something that we'll visit with um with engineering on.

Okay. So, I I think what we've accomplished is we're trying or we're on the verge of getting where we want to be. We want to give them a sign. We want to help those businesses. We don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot in the future with easements. But if we can find some place else uh to to make that work, I think we're all for it for I I don't want to misrepresent because I I don't believe that Price Chopper wants it on their property in any any way, shape, or form. I don't believe that Constantinos will approve this. And I also think that when you build a pad big enough to get a service truck in there that you're going to be reducing your storm water detention volume considerably. And that may be an issue as well.

Yeah. But does it catch that much water? There's there's a I've never seen it full. There's a 20 years [laughter] I've been here. Um well what what codes and ordinances require and what reality is don't always make. Right. Right. I agree. So [snorts] um I I'm you know I I'm glad to present this to the two ownership groups. Um, I don't think that it will get improved by them, but um, but I see the bank sign is way back off the road, too. And

and I help put that bank sign in, so I know where it's at, and I know how big it is. So, I know the bank sign's way off the road, too. And the bank don't have no problem with it coming down from what you're saying. Well, there's a significant difference there. There's a big building with three big wall signs on it. That little monument sign isn't what you see. Well, you can see it though from the road. What I'm saying? Okay. And and I don't think the parking lot's never very empty at my other place either. And they don't have a sign out on the street. So,

no. But they but if you drive down 163rd, their north elevation is a big wall sign. And on their west elevation there's a big wall sign and on their south elevation there's a big wall sign and they are 200 feet closer to the street than these little retail shops and signs. You you I I understand what you're saying but it's not the same thing. Arvest Bank is 100 feet from the curb and has huge wall signs. They're not 500 feet away up the hill with tiny signs. It's just it's apples and oranges. I'm sorry. [snorts] I understand. I mean, yeah. My question would be, would this sign include signage for our vest and the other place as well?

No. No. So, they're separate. No. The other place would have a sign because they elected um with agreement with staff to not do a p a little monument sign like Arvest if they could be on the future pylon sign. So, right, uh, Price Chopper and the other place would be on there, but the rest of it would all be the small shops in the back

because my other thought would be to put it on that corner where Arvest has its landscaping. Would I hate to see landscaping go? Yes. But there's a light at that corner and that's where I turn when I'm coming south. I don't wait to try to fight traffic to turn left across traffic. I understand it's the main entrance for Price Chopper, but in our current setup, where that stoplight is is the more reasonable entrance for that whole shopping center. That that is true for an educated, experienced visitor to that center like yourself. I think that's true for a lot of drivers.

A question, and it's something you just stated a second ago. Price Chopper is going to be on this new sign. Yes. But yet they would not allow the sign to go on their property. That's corre correct. I think there's a problem right there. But anyway, [laughter] well, I mean that's that's not our problem to solve, but uh

there there's a there's a very reasonable explanation for it and you can see it when you drive by the detention basin and the cattails are 12 feet tall. Price Chopper doesn't have a property management system in place. They're a grocery chain. They're a grocery store. And Constantinos doesn't want something to maintain. So, they don't want it on their property. They want it where a professional developer is maintaining it. And the city should want the same thing. I'm I'm sure you if you've been by there often, there's times when that detention basin looks like a jungle.

Commissioner So, let's do the what if game. What if this was approved, the sign gets put in down the road there is an e there is a need to go across the street and that sign's in the way. We call the developer and say, "Hey, we need the sign moved." They say, "Kiss off. We're not going to do it." Where do we stand as a city at that point? Are we just stuck? Do we have any options besides that? I mean, once we vacate an easement, we lose those rights and we would have to go back and condemn something, which obviously condemning a sign would be very costly. Um, an encroachment agreement doesn't give us or the encroachment agreement doesn't necessarily have that because then they're in our easement. Um, but even then, that's not always the most ideal situation to be in. Typically, when encroachment agreements are made, it's because the sign was already put in there um and it was put in the wrong place. So, the Cedar Tree sign is a good example of they have an encroachment agreement, but that's because the sign was put there decades ago and further improved. U but there are utilities that are running through there. Um this is kind of where we know that a sign's going to become a potential issue. So, we're we're trying not to put a sign on a location that's going to be an issue long term.

The way that you would address that is you would record it. You would make it part of the repling. So, um it says that the property owner is obligated to remove um the sign at the written request of the city and and then you don't have to get into condemnation and all that stuff.

See manager. Yeah, I'm a little bit befuddled because we work with the Chris T de Development a lot on he's done a lot of development here. We've got a very good working relationship with devel with with them. I I'm not sure why we couldn't have come together and had this conversation before it became an application for or or maybe we did have part of this conversation and they didn't like the answer and that's why they're coming to you guys to try and get the get to over you know overrule staff. But, you know, we've been open to other options and other opportunities and we just we've just talked about that other location, you know, and I know staff is is interested in in trying to do whatever we can to be creative and make something here that works. I don't know why we wouldn't get why Christie wouldn't reach out to us and say, "Let's let's where where's the best place for this? We want it here obviously." Okay, we get that you don't want it here because of this reason. Where else can we go? I I mean the there the where else can we go part never has never happened and that's that's kind of frustrating from a city's perspective because we do try to help them out with you know when we can um because they do a lot of development in the community.

The reason why is for two years we've been told by planning staff that the only place they will ever accept for this sign to go is where the existing sign is. and we've told them that neither John Constantino or David Christie will ever put a penny into that location. So, we had no choice but to take this route, sir. So, any other questions from the commission? We would entertain a motion. I would like to make a motion to table this and give the applicant time to work with the city and come up with another plan. Okay.

Commissioner, is it okay if I postpone it rather than table it? Postponing would take it to another meeting. Table would be in the same meeting. Yes, let's postpone that. Thank you. [snorts] So, I have a motion to postpone. Is there a second? [clears throat] I'll second it. So, question. [laughter] Sorry. Question to staff. Will this work or is this going to uh I see see major raise your hand. Is this

I mean that you guys are welcome to do with this however you'd like to do this. This the the the ask is for the vacation of the easement. So moving the sign somewhere where there's not an easement necessary would would make this motion or this ask moot. Um so you know we don't have to try and and shoehorn a solution into this particular particular action. This action is are we going to [clears throat] give them the or vacate the easement in this specific location. Basically, we could we could take action to deny the application this evening. Mhm.

And then the uh city and the applicant could come back or the applicant could come back with another application after having a chance to meet with the with all parties involved. So, in order well, and if there's no easement, there's no if there's not a utility easement, then there may not even be a need for a vacation. So, it would just be a matter of just getting it done. So, we would prefer to keep this active until I at least have a opportunity to talk to the ownership.

I I think the consensus that I'm hearing anyway is a desire that we're not going to approve it as it was requested where it would vacate the easement. And that's really what we're considering tonight. Not where it goes, but just do we want to vacate the easement or not? And that's as as I uh understand what the what the uh part is that we are considering tonight. That's basically what what we are are looking at. So in order to do that, we would need to have both the motion and the second withdrawn.

I will withdraw my motion. And do we withdraw the second? I'll withdraw my second. Okay. And then uh if we want, we can entertain a motion then to deny the approval of the vacation of the easement. I motion to deny the uh vacation. Vacation. [laughter] Thank you. Of the easement. You need a vacation. I do. All right. Have a motion. Is there a second? Second.

All right. Any further discussion? We do have a motion to deny the request. Any further discussion? Seeing none, could we have the roll call, please? And we are voting on denial. So, a yes vote means no to accepting the correct. If you vote yes, then you are denying the motion. You're denying the project. Commissioner Shut. I. Commissioner Crate. I Commissioner Mcdana. I Commissioner Rug Ruggles. I Commissioner McFersonson. I Commissioner Christensen. Yes. Commissioner Walton.

Hi. All right. Thank you. All right. And I do need to take one step back real quickly if I can. I made a mistake when we were talking about approval of the minutes on the attendance from last time. I had made a note and I missed my note, but um Commissioner Krat was here instead of Commissioner Crate. [laughter]

Thank you. So, it's just a scriber error, but uh I did want to to make sure that that we uh got that corrected. Thank you.

So, okay, moving on. We'll move to uh the second item, presentation of CPA 2025-001, adoption of the beautify Belton beautifification plan. And again, we'll have hear from Miss Fernandez. Thank you. Let me get this situated. Let's move on to something more fun, shall we? So, beautify Belin. This is our beautifification plan that we've been working on. Um, you heard this the first kind of phase of this plan back in July. Um, so now we've kind of made it through the first phase or planting season. So, you've seen some of the projects go in. We've had the median plantings go in. We've had some landscaping out front here on Main Street. Um, you will continue to see some things go in. We're preparing the corners here along uh Cedar and Main Street for the new welcome signs, welcome to Main Street signs. Um and then we're also going to be putting in water as an irrigation and landscaping into the new big roundabout um at Mullen in Cambridge. So that's kind of finishing out our phase one and all of that was in the beautifification plan uh shown to you guys and so hopefully you've seen some positive progress and hopefully we're on the right track. So essentially with the beautifification committee, we came up with an overall map of all of the locations for beautifification projects that we'd like to see done in total across the entire city. Um so essentially what we have today is I'm calling it phase 2 plus

[laughter]

um where we're going to talk about um everything that's left. So everything after phase one, these are all of the projects that were left on that uh project map. So we have so essentially these are prioritized lists of those projects per type of improvement. So generally it's broken out by parks improvements or public works improvements um or art and economic development improvements. So those are all of the different types or categories that were left on the map. Um so essentially all of these projects are prioritized one through three and it shows you where the improvements are going to be made and what type of improvement it is and what department is kind of handling the uh implementation of it. Um so this essentially will help us as a road map going forward into this budget year. it's helped a little and then next budget year um to essentially pick those projects out and fund them as we go through. So, I don't know if you guys have had a chance to review these, but um we generally have these broken out by streetscaping projects, which is generally handled by uh public works in our planting team that handle the um median plantings and handle all of our other uh landscaping maintenance. Um, so we have all of the priority projects listed here and um, essentially it is more medians, it's more corner improvements um, and it's some roundabout improvements, etc. Um, so we'll be using this list to work with the public works team to help uh, kind of pick out projects to

continue doing work. And then we have art and signage projects. So, this is really with the art commission and with economic development. Uh, the economic development budget handles our signage, our wayfinding signage right now. Um, so that's where the welcome to Main Street signs are coming from and that's where the new wayfinding signs you see out today came from. Um, and then the art commission is helping with location identification as well as artist uh selection. Um and they helped actually uh change the locations of some art that was on the previous map. They would like to focus on art that is more um interactive and not so much in medians. So we have kept some art pieces in medians but we shifted other art pieces to be more in park space or other public space. Um so they're helping prioritize this list um and fund and select out of these projects. And then we have park beautifification projects. These really focus on the entrances of parks, not necessarily things inside the parks. Um, so this list is really just um picking a park monument sign and picking a large and small version of it and then making sure every single park in the city of Belton has a large or small u Belton sign that it is a city park. Um, so that's prioritized by um, you know, how active is the park, how large is it, um, and the needs for signage, and then we also have some landscaping enhancements around those uh, entryways. So, that's really what this park uh, beautifification project list is about. So, we're just looking to um have your guys's blessing and help us get this

adopted so we can use it as our roadmap uh going forward as we do our budgeting um and continue to allow us to do this work. All right, any questions?

Thank you. Any questions from the commission? I'm going to be good. [laughter] Um I I do I wanted to say that I do appreciate the standardized look that we are having with our signs now. um was driving in earlier this afternoon and saw the signs coming in on uh from from uh D or from from Holmes and uh saw the signs and everything and it was like, you know, this really looks nice, the the color scheme. Uh, I missed that old uh Halloween sign that [laughter] we had out there,

the purple one, but uh but it it really has has made an improvement and I've noticed them around a number of places and so I appreciate all the work that's already gone in to to doing that. That's awesome. Thank you, Commissioner. A kind of maybe naive point, but you know, they do a lot of work on those roundabouts. Is there any way they can in the future get CCTV on a because as soon as they fix those roundabouts up, they're they're torn up by a truck within 24 hours.

So, based on our conversations with public works, we aren't necessarily going to touch the smaller roundabouts right now because that's kind of uh what the consensus was is that they're a little small and it's hard for people to not drive through them apparently. [laughter] So, so we are going to focus more on the larger roundabouts that allow us a little bit more space to either put sculptures or landscaping in them. Um, but Dane can definitely take the CCTV thing back. Yeah. And ask Greg about that. Those trucks should they suffer the damage they do. Agreed.

I followed a tow truck. I won't mention the name of the tow company, but it had a trailer, brand new trailer on the back of it the other day, and they could not get around. And I watched them all the way in from the first and we hit all four and they went up and over on every one of them. They could not manage. I mean, if anything, the route should be no trucks and uh I believe that was the original intent. So, we are still working on getting an alternative truck route uh installed, but yes, I think that was the intent because it goes through residential areas. So, we're trying to deter truck traffic.

And just as a trivia question, was Belray the first roundabout in Belton? I thought so. [laughter] So, all right. Any other questions, comments? Uh, anybody want to make a motion to give our blessing on this? Was there going to be a public hearing on this one, Matt? Oh, there is a public hearing. I'm sorry. I I totally overlooked that. [clears throat]

So, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor or in opposition to uh making Belton beautiful? [laughter] We'll ask again. Anyone want to speak? All right. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And now we can entertain a motion. Motion to approve CPA 2025-00001, the beautify belt and beautifification plan. All right. Thank you. I'll second it.

All right. Motion and second. And is this an official vote or that that we need a roll call or voice vote on this? I would do a roll call. Either way is okay with me. Whatever you want. Yeah, a roll call vote. Do a roll call. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Shut. I. Oops. Commissioner Crate. I. Commissioner Mcdana. Hi. Commissioner Ruggles. I. Commissioner McFersonson. I. Commissioner Christensen. Yes. Commissioner Walton. Hi.

All right. Thank you. And move on to our next item, presentation of CPA 2025- Z002, the 2025 annual report for the 2050 comprehensive plan. And we'll hear from our direct community development director, Mr. Wright.

Yep. Thank you, chair and commissioners. before this evening is the 2025 comprehensive plan annual report um which provides updates on the goals and strategies um identified in the 2050 comprehensive plan which was adopted by the commission um back in November 2024. Um a summary of the report and the goals and strategies statuses are on page four of the report. Um and so far we have initiated progress on um a majority of both the goals and strategies. So 58% of the strategies are currently in progress and 69% of the adopted goals are currently in progress um in some form or another. Um a lot of the goals will remain active ongoing or in pro in progress. Um, very few of the actual goals are strategies or things that are actually have completion tasks with them. They're usually just things that we're going to continue to be monitoring. Um, but you'll see on there that we also have future short-term are the items that we anticipate beginning in 2026. So, there's five new goals that we'll be working on on that list and then impacting 10 strategies. Um, still several long-term goals and strategies that we haven't started yet. Um but those are things that are on our radar and if there is any information on those those are reported on in here. Uh but just a few of the main highlights um for 2025 in terms of the things that we have accomplished um this year over the or over the past year. Uh we started the unified development code update uh which is currently in progress and expected to be completed in fall of 2026. Um, we've continued to make improvements to our neighborhood improvement and code enforcement processes through enhanced communication and citizen engagement as well as the util utilization of some improved web-based systems that we use um to track and monitor the progress on

those um code enforcement activities. Um, we've also improved our public documents um including an awardwinning budget document uh that um provides additional transparency on how tax dollars are spent in Belton. Um the parks department opened new pickle ball courts at Wallace Park um as well as an 80 ADA fishing dock at Cleveland Lake. Um we've also completed two multi multimodal corridor improvements um to South Mullen Road and the Marquy Parkway extension in North Scott. Um the rental registration and inspection program started last year with over 3,000 units registered and over 300 inspections conducted so far. [snorts]

Um we had our first major city public arts project with the mural under I49 being completed last year. Um the belt the beautified belt and beautifification plan which the um commission just uh made a recommendation to adopt uh was drafted last year and we've already seen progress made through that for streetscaping signage and public art. Um and then the installation that was already mentioned of the new wayfinding signs to provide directions to downtown and parks and more of those improvements are coming here um in the first half of 2026. Um a couple of the items that we anticipate beginning this year include um focusing on some Oldtown and Main Street visioning. Uh we do anticipate having a meeting on February 5th to discuss potential improvements and needs for public spaces, businesses, infrastructure, and redevelopment along the main street corridor and surrounding blocks. Um and we'll have more details coming out on that here in the next few weeks for everybody. Um and then we've already started it, but we're going to continue to make a big push on our windshield surveys of all properties in the city. um essentially kind of a documentation of exterior photos from the street of each property in the city along with um address not documenting any property maintenance concerns that may need to be addressed in the future. And that may also help guide long-term improvements in the city, including the potential for exterior programs that can help with grant funds to help make those improvements um to bring more properties up to the standard in the city. That's just kind of a quick rundown. Are were there any questions on any of the goals or strategies or any of the content that was included in there? I'm happy to answer that.

Any questions for the director? I hear you say it. Sounds like we've been busy. We have been busy. Plus, we just finished up that that plan last year. So to to get that much of it done uh already. Yeah. And um although not required, we're not making any changes to the comprehensive plan, but we still wanted to have the opportunity to have a public hearing for anybody that had any input on our goals and strategies with the comprehensive plan or things that they wanted to see um us continue to address with that. Um but there's no formal vote needed after the public hearing um since there's nothing changing in the plan.

Okay. So, we will go ahead and call the public hearing into order. Anyone here that would like to speak either in favor or uh have any comments about any of the items that the director reported on with the comprehensive plan. Once again, anyone who would like to speak? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing and ask any additional comments, questions from mission. I guess it good job. That's all we can say is good job. Uh and uh did the unified development code update was that included in what you did or do you have more to give us?

No. Um some additional updates on that. Uh we have a call this week with the consulting team, but they did give us an updated timeline of where they're at in the drafting process a few weeks back. U we anticipate having our first few chapters um for review by the end of January. And then the remaining chapters, their goal is to have that to staff for review um by the end of February. Uh so uh once we take a look at that um the the goal is to have kind of some back and forth and some revisions on that and it would be ready for a final draft in April for public review and comment to start that process.

Um so that's the update on that. We're still um currently on track though to hopefully get that here to the planning commission and onto council sometime uh mid to late summer. Okay, very good. Um there's one item that I did want to bring up and I'm going to ask Dne to to speak to it. I received a letter uh at home and it was uh from belt and water services about a survey that needs to be done and I asked him if he would just kind of share a little bit about what what needs to be done with this.

Thank you chairman. So yes, uh we've been required by the state of Missouri to perform a service line inventory of our entire water system. So we as a city we've already completed major portions of the uh publicly owned water infrastructure. Uh what we need help with on the private side, so the other side of your water meter, we need to determine what material your pipe is. Um so a common question we've been asked is my house is built three years ago. Why did I get a letter? So the state is requiring us to have photographic evidence of what that service line is. So we don't have photographs of those service lines because we weren't ever told to do anything like that. So the people who are included on the list who didn't get a um form where people we sent last year a like a sample of this. So we have those responses and anytime you've ever done a water line replacement we reset your meter. We took that picture already. So those are the people who are on our list of water lines that we know already. Okay. So, what we need is a picture from the penetration of your water line into your house and you can send that to service or um serve serviceline surveyb.org or use the QR code in the U mail form.

All right. What was the email address again? One second. It's It is service line uh surveybellon.org. And I think there's a link from the city website that takes you to that as well. So that uh you can just go to the Belton city website and find that uh waterline survey. Yeah, there's a whole web page dedicated to this. So feel free to click around and you'll find it.

I know I've already submitted it, but I didn't see a place where it required a picture. So I'm going to have to go back and resubmit the picture. [laughter] All right, director. Is there anything additional that you have for us this evening?

Yeah, just before uh the meeting this evening, I did send out an email to the planning commissioners uh just notifying you of a neighborhood meeting uh for the 163rd district project, which is the 40acre property at the northwest and southwest corners of 163rd and given across from Price Chopper. Uh we did receive the resoning and the development plan application for that last month. Um and have completed our first review of that. Um and we are set for a neighborhood meeting next Thursday, January 15th, um between 5:30 and 6:30 here in the council chambers. Um so we did send uh over a 100 notifications. Um, everybody within 185 ft of the property received a letter as well as all of the single family homes in the Bradford Place subdivision since they were the closest single family subdivision to the development. Um, so you all are invited to that attend that. Um, it's been properly noticed that there's no that there may be a quorum and there will be no votes taken by planning commission or council for that. Um and then tentatively we have that um pending getting the uh revisions submitted and reviewed by staff. We tentatively will have a public hearing on February 3rd for that item. So um please uh make sure that you're able to attend that night that evening um just to make sure we have a quorum. Uh we we do anticipate that there will be interest in the project. Um not sure of uh in what degree of that um since it's not immediately adjacent to any single family subdivisions. Um but I'm sure there's some some interest in the development.

I think the director just or the uh planner earlier just kind of wet our appetite a little bit as to what some of that could include. So uh exciting to hear all the details on that. All right. Anything else this evening? Motion to adjourn. Have a motion. A second and second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed?