Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I think when I get started.

Yeah, I know. Sometimes it's hard to get your hands on available these days. much less

I think we're good. Yeah, this is recording. So the high frequencies are probably gone. Oh, is it really? kind of interest.

Yeah. That's the one thing you'll never win.

Uhhuh. in still has a minute. All you got to do is look out for a Miata.

No Miata today. Yes, there is.

I know it's you. It's me. Call on time.

Well, good evening. My clock says 6 o'clock. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Roll call. Martin here. Templan here. Lane here. Huggin here. Milg here. Mock here. Schultz here. All commissioners are present today. Great. Uh items 3A, general business, approve the planning commission agenda. Any changes or corrections to add to the agenda? Mr. Chairman, I'll need to recuse myself for items 6A and 6B. Not that. Hold that thought and we'll keep that here in a minute. As far as the agenda goes, is there any uh changes we need to make? Did you want to make a motion we approve the agenda as written? So, there was uh Mike did send an email. Oh,

not to everybody. It was just a discussion at the end. Maybe if I could just have a couple minutes to just bring up a discussion, not as an agenda item, just as a discussion at the end. Yeah. Okay. If that's okay. Well, that's fine. Then, Justin, I think you have a fabulous motion. Yeah. I make a motion we end the discussion at the end of the meeting. Second. Uh, all in favor of approving the agenda as written. I opposed. Same sign. Agenda is approved. Uh, item 3B, approve the minutes of the planning commission meeting held on December 16th, 2025. Any changes, corrections, additions to be made. Motion motion to approve. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. the same sign. Minutes have been approved. Item C, disclosure of conflicts of interest. You're all I'll need to recuse myself for item 6 A and 6B.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Seeing no further discussion on that disclosure of outside communications regarding commission business. Anyone had discussions about items on the agenda tonight? Okay. Moves us then to item four, call to the public. Members of the public who wish to address the planning commission regarding items not on the agenda may do so at this time. Any presentations forformational purposes? No action is taken. There's a 4-minute time limit. Anyone like to address the planning commission tonight on matters not before the commission? Seeing none, Mike, I'm assuming we have nobody online.

Correct. I will close the call to the public. That takes us to items 6A and 6B. Thank you. We'll let you know. Oh yeah, he's going to be in the construction zone. Good luck. It's torn up. Item 6A, consider a preliminary plat for Cedar Valley Estates. Brad, you have a report.

All right. Thank you, Mr. chairman. So, you know, we talked about this at the December meeting and there were some issues that residents raised about flooding. Also, the sidewalk location was also an item that was discussed and then additionally talked about street trees and we'll be kind of getting to the street trees at a a new item on the agenda tonight. But uh basically as we've gone through this and talked with the uh and the and the uh developer and resident engineer also here in the audience tonight if you have my specific questions for that but after talking with Joe and and Todd Allenbrand who is the engineer for applicant the flooding issues will not make a change in any of the development or this development won't change the potential for flooding. Um, if you want more of the details, Joe can explain all the intricacies of how the Kansas River works and and how it might change some things, but the develop itself is not going to be an issue. So, I feel confident in telling the planning commission those words and items. So, for your consideration, uh, the other thing as we and I'm not going to go through all the items that we went through last time. We think we're pretty well verssed in all the items for the preliminary plat uh the sidewalk issue. The applicant has decided that they would like to as part of the homes association install the sidewalk. So there could be some areas where the sidewalk might go onto the private property, but it will be installed and maintained by the developer and and maintained by the homes association. So I'm okay with that and I've spoken with Joe about it. He's also in agreement with that approach for the sidewalk and it is shown on the preliminary plat. So there is a sidewalk. Now it may not be exactly like that one, but it is shown on the flat itself. So it may weave around a little bit depending on the

ditch section of the roads and some of those types of things. But the sidewalk is also uh taken care of. The one remaining item is the street lights. staff has recommended that street lights be shown at 80, pardon me, on Cedar Creek Road, also the short culde-sac that comes in the subdivision and also at very end of the subdivision. So, we're in disagreement with that and if the applicant would like to address planning commission on it, uh that item, we certainly may, but staff is wanting to have street lights developing in the city. That's part of our process for having being in the city is street lights and that's part of what we do. And the last thing is the landscaping plan. Now on the preliminary plat it does show what is our current policy that's in the city code 40t on center. the applicant, we did talk about and it did come up the last plan commission meeting about having massing the trees to have a little bit more of a rural type feel, not so much the u I guess lollipop kind of entrance that you would see more commonly in a denser city subdivision. However, our code says 40 ft and there is no remedy for that. So that's why that is shown like that. So, we do have it up as a later agenda item to talk about whether or not planning commission wants to make a recommendation to city council to change city code for rural subdivisions only to allow massing of the trees. it won't decrease the amount of trees that are planted, but instead of just having them, you know, soldiered marching up and down the uh roadway itself, uh they can be masked and grouped more so like you would see in a in a rural area. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will stand for any questions you may have. And once again, the applicant is in the audience tonight.

Questions for Brett? Yes. So Brad, are we approving the landscape plan as it's presented or guess with a stipulation? Yeah, at this point my suggestion is that you would approve it with the landscape plan as presented and then the applicant can modify it. If the U city planning commission and city council agree to make the amendment to the city code, that seems right to me because we can't just unilaterally just throw that out the window. I mean, if we're going to make a change to the code, then they could always come back and redo it. Right.

Right. That I'm having a hard time picking out where the sidewalks are. Is there They're actually slide to look at. Yeah, there are actually shown as I along the street itself. It crosses Oh, right about the midpoint of the culde-sac. You can would page six be the best page to look at. You can kind of see it there. Oh, okay. If you look at the landscape plane, see that shaded here? Can you see the cursor? Yep. So there's sidewalk there crosses the street and then along it's on the south side of the street.

Okay, I see it. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, one thing also, Mr. Chairman, I did talk to the applicant about um common mailbox drop. That's the policy of the post office now. And and they have talked about they have agreed to put that on the pre preliminary plat. So it's part of the application itself. Now, it's still a little bit to be determined where exactly where it's going to go, but probably about the midpoint where the that short culde-sac is that you can see. Slide six, right before that first culac. Is that right? Yeah. Okay.

So, Brad, you might have said this and I apologize. I didn't hear it, but on your in the conditions number three, have those drainage flood plane issues been addressed. Is that

Yeah, you once again talking with the applicant and Joe, I you know, there's concern there certainly by some of the residents, especially the one that's just to the south and they're also on the west side of Cedar Creek Road in between the road and the creek. But everything that I've talked with Joe and the applicants engineer about is this development won't affect their property. Was there sorry um there there's two lots on here that's one acre and 1.1 acres I know did we resolve what the the minimum size was supposed to be

well for a rural subdivision it's supposed to be 1.5 average okay and so they're they they've exceeded that because there's almost 80 acres there and they're at lots. I think the the one that was bothering me, Charlie, the average lot size is two was kind of a buildable area on this. Some of those were less were like an acreage where the lot itself well exceeds that. Okay. Oh, I see. Flood plane area. I see. Okay.

That's what got me through from last time. So, as I understand what you're saying, Ren, I guess two things. One, I take note of the fact that there was a half a paper that was given on the storm study and that you guys have all reviewed it, and you don't think we're making anything worse. Correct. Okay. Then second is um the the issue we have is whether or not to require more than one street light. Yes, sir. And in accordance with our code, we would require three. Yes. Subdivision. So we believe the applicant is going to ask us for something different.

Yeah. And the thing about our code is it isn't that specific about street lights. Not like the street trees. It's bang bang bang. But um Okay. That's our standard sort of our internal policy. Any questions for Brad? So, we have one street light right at the entrance, right? And they've agreed to that that one at Cedar Creek Road. Gotcha. And then Brad, your desire would be to have it two more probably. Yeah, somewhere around where Mike's got the cursor in that area and then of course at the end of the culde-sac. Okay. In that area. I I assume cost is the reason why Oh, okay. don't feel like subdivision.

Yeah, they feel like to make it a more of a once again a rural subdivision, you wouldn't have typically have a street light. But I guess Joe and I's argument is that's great, but you're in the city limits of Dodto and that's our policy. And while you want to have a rural subdivision, you know, cities require street lights. So,

and so we were willing to bend a little bit on the on the landscaping with the text amendment and then also the culde-sac length was another thing that we have talked about because it does exceed our requirement but planning commission can wave that under circumstances like this is a very low density development. So don't feel that that culde-sac length is going to be a hindrance to public safety issues or anything like that. I was just going to say living in a rural subdivision, I kind of like having a street light at least key locations and the ones you're talking about don't seem unreasonable to me. And I I do appreciate the fact that we like to see the stars at night, but we got big lots here and we're spread out. I don't know that I necessarily think that diminishes the value of the rural nature of the subdivision. You have a street light at the culde-sac bulbs and kind of something out there that at least for safety purposes, there's some lighting out there. Um, so I I'd certainly support staff's view on that, but certainly happy to hear any argument.

Okay, any other questions for Brad? I suppose wouldn't hurt to hear from the applicant in terms of addressing that issue. And hopefully we've characterized all this correctly. I'll just touch on ahead on that. Give us your name and address for the record.

Brad Tiger, 19598 South Clearview Road. Uh, two points. Yeah, not because of cost, just because of the feel. And um, we we were about the lighting. We thought about possibly doing um something in the HOA to say that we would require accent lighting, a minimum minimum of accent lighting. That way you get the light coming in off the homes itself and lighting up the road rather than on the road itself. So it it gives more of an acreage feel, which is why we wanted to get the trees off the road, too. So it has nothing to do with cost. It's just the feel. And I got some good news for Linda. What's that?

Pressure release valve at the end of the 12 in at where the 2 in connects. So we did some research at water one. If you call the guys at water one, we'll actually turn that pressure up for you. They told us one time they couldn't, but we will call them again. strongarm them because Sharon did some research and he's like, "Yeah, I don't. We got a pressure relief valve. If it's low pressure, we can just turn it up." So, good news for you. And they and they said that uh there wasn't any impact on the downline supply from us adding this that it should be more than adequate because it's 12 in that we're extending.

Just a counter to your light thing. I I live on 30574 West 98, which is a very similar size lots and houses. Yes, sir. I can tell you, we've got three street lights, and those things come in real handy around Halloween when you've got hundreds of kids. Yeah. Running up and down the streets and whatnot. So, I would side with Roger here. Well, I'm not. And it's not a deal killer. It's just some It's just a preference that we had. I live on uh acorage myself in southern Johnson County and uh we don't get any trick-or-treaters. We have Clear View Road. It just kind of passes through. We have one street light, but we all have accent lighting. And that accent lighting goes almost to the road. And I think I'm a 100 foot setback. So

that's a heck of an accent lighting. Yeah, that's a lot of I'm a builder. I know an electrician. I can hook you up with some if you want to bid. Yeah. I can tell you in in uh developments like this, you get hybrid trick-or-treaters, which is dad's on four-wheelers uh towing trailers. If you get the fullsize candy bars, you could be right. You could have a lot of um We haven't had any trick-or-treaters, we would Yeah. Yeah. Well, having driven many trick-or-treaters around being pulled behind a John Deere tractor when I say that does happen. Th this would probably be a little pocket, you know, of, you know, people would get kind of clicky and they'd all want to travel in and around there on their UTVs.

Would it be written into your HOA part of the lighting requirements? Well, that's what we were supposeding as a supplemental, but Trent, I mean, I would probably required it anyways. Yeah, I did look at, but that's typically not what the planning commission reviews association. I did a great book. It's it's basically about how HOAs control everything down in Houston. And so, that's all a wonderful way as an alternative to zoning, right? Well, I don't think we're here yet. Fair enough. So, we kind of have to still follow those rules.

Did you Did you guys have any other questions? We oh another note we did already start to seed that to native grass. So two pounds per acre native grass which is pretty low but over the next course of three to four years of development if you add two pounds and it goes to seed and you keep mowing it twice a year. So it's got uh winter forge wheat native grass and oats on it. So hopefully kept keep some of the water down

water and to establish the native grasses. And we thought about possibly, not that it matters, but we thought we tossed around the idea of requiring a minimal amount of the yard to be a pollinator plot like a 50 by 50 or something like that because it's it's cool and it looks neat, you know, and you can incorporate your trees in that pollinator plot. Make a mound, have your native grasses, a couple few trees. Sure. So, just something that looks a little more jazzy than trees and a house. I get it. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Good. All right. Matter before the planning commission. Oh, real quick. Sorry. Oh, sorry about that.

Todd Alen Brand, 102 Abbey Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas, uh with Renaissance Infrastructure Consulting. So, they do have a draft, just to let you know, with the HOA, they were going to require uh set lighting on the front facade of the houses to kind of address some of the lighting issues where the kind of gives the homeowners an ability to control what the light, you know, if it's on or off. But they're again, they're not opposed to adding the lights. I mean, if it's comes down to it. The other thing is is I don't know. Did you get the street tree plan that I'd sent you the alternative one? Because I had emailed it to you. Okay. Show it to me. But so, just included because Yeah, I know.

standard hasn't changed. I'm just curious how does that work? We had sent in a plan with 80 foot centers and clustered on the lots as an alternative because you mentioned, you know, give us an alternative. So, I was kind of hoping it would have been in your packet. But if we come back for the street trees, what is that going to is that just a submitt to staff for reapproving it or or can you look at that street tree plan when you guys discuss the street trees later today, later tonight? I don't know if that would be helpful or if you could pull it up even.

Well, I guess one thing that and it Mr. Chairman, I did talk to Patrick, city attorney about that. You felt it almost sort of was a planning commission decision if it's okay to approve based upon city council action because like I said, preliminary plat it's really just an internal document for the city itself. The problem is we're approving the final plat too, right? Pardon me. We're approving the final plat too. That's the next but that doesn't have any of the landscaping or anything like that's just property setbacks. Not even setbacks. So the idea would be that we we could revisit the preliminary plat if there was a change in the code.

Well, I'm thinking if you approve it, you could also add if the council ultimately approves the text amendment that that could be administratively approved. I don't have any objection to that. you guys. Okay. Good solution. Yeah, I think that that's what I was kind of getting at is like how would we go back through this process? I mean, if it's a resubmitting a whole preliminary plant, that's a kind of a intense exercise just to get the trees addressed. I think all of us agree with you guys, the lollipop look is probably not what you're going for. Yeah, it looks all right in a normal 70 foot wide lots kind of, you know, more dense stuff, but in a rural thing, I think it'll look better. Yeah,

80 foot centers and cluster wherever they want to put the additional trees. All right, that was the uh only thing I wanted to address. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, the matters before the planning commission. What are your thoughts?

I do think the lights are necessary. We do have an increase in walkers down on Cedar Creek and I think once these sidewalks go in, we're going to have more people utilizing and and the trees you got picked out I think are just going to be gorgeous. I think people are going to be walking a lot down there. So, you know, that's my two cents on the lights, but and the cluster of the trees I think is a good idea just so that it gives it more of a girl feel as well. So, I would agree with that. Agreed. Exactly with what Linda said. Same thing. We're all in agreement with Linda.

All right. I'll tell Dave about that. So I I think in terms of an action item here, the fourth item that would be here on the conclusion staff report would be they'll allow staff to approve alternative landscaping plan if council changes the rural subdivision street tree requirements. Is that something that you guys would entertain? Yes. Okay. So that's a fourth item. If you're going to make a motion further discussion, there's two things that we're saying, right? We're going to agree with staff on lighting for a total of three. All three of those items are

I didn't print the whole book out. Okay.

Anyone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we approve the plat as submitted with the staff recommendations to include the trees to allow for staff approval. Alternative landscaping plan. Alternative landscaping plan. Second move and second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Martin, yes. Melbourne, yes. Templan, yes. Mock, yes. Schultz, yes. Lane. Yes. Huggin. Oh, he's not here. Motion carries. Thank you very much.

I moves this then item 6B. Consider the final plat for Cedar Valley.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. based on we've kind of covered a lot of the ground of the final plaque, but as you know, this is typically uh just roads, rightways, easements, all those types of things that uh we went through the checklist. It does meet our standards for development. These this is a document obviously that does get recorded down at the county courthouse. It will go to city council for accepting uh road wide rightway and easements. The planning commission does approve the plat itself, but it's really property division that is shown on a final plat. I did add the note on there that uh the homes association would maintain right away or pardon me the sidewalks for the subdivision as a condition. So with that stand for any questions.

Any questions for Brad? motions. Make a motion we approve the final plat as submitted uh with staff's comment and move forward the plat to city council for acceptance of rightway and easements. Second move and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call. Schultz. Yes. M. Yes. Mil? Yes. Lane? Yes. Templan? Yes. Martin? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks. have a question.

I have a question. Do you ever opport offer an opportunity to the community to speak or ask a question or when was that supposed to be here? So, this is not a public hearing item. Okay. So, it was dismissed last time too that no one was allowed, no one spoke. So, at the end of the last meeting, I suggested that if you had comments or concerns, that you talk about them with city staff. Did you have a chance to do that? If that isn't the way I understood it that we have an opportunity to speak, but if that's the way it works, that's the way it works. Well, I'm sorry. It is not a public hearing on this matter. Okay, that's fine.

Okay. Item 7 A, discuss text amendment for accessory building maximum size of 5 acre lots and above and street tree requirements for rural subdivisions.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, we've gotten calls from residents that have large lots, 5 acres and more, that have kind of run up against our maximum size for accessory buildings. And it's frustrated them because a lot of them are not the original builder, but whoever built the house then built like a threecar garage off to the side, matches the house perfectly, things like that. and then maybe somebody built a small barn or a shed and because it's a detached garage that counts against their size requirement. So, it's kind of come up a few times and really a variance is not going to work because I mean the rule is the rule and you know just even though there might have 10 15 acres, they felt like you know we could we could put something bigger on our property completely out of the the way that nobody would see or anything like that. and and so it was early on it was kind of more of a one-off here and there but in the last 8 months I probably had three four requests uh about having you know to increase the size so doing a little bit of research I looked at Lanexa Shauny and unfortunately there's no consistency on any of these communities maximum lot size so I just sort of took a stab at some of the things that um I thought might work in Dotto Lanexa basically if you're over five acres they had no limit as long as it met uh their zoning setback requirements some of their storm water issues things like that so um they really you know they just have at it you know as long as you meet our conditions on the other hand max period for a shed and you can have a detached garage I think it was 1,000 square ft so they're

really the screws down pretty tight and and Shaune was the maximum. It could be the same size. It couldn't be the footprint couldn't be any bigger than the house. So if you built a huge house, you could have a huge accessory building. So So there's really no correlation to anything. And then you look at the Sodtos. Um we've actually got a pretty good table. I kind of like that because it actually drops down and lets people that have smaller lots have an accessory building. As you can see that as you go up in acreage, we u decrease the amount of square footage. There's a standard size and then it kind of decreases as you get larger and larger. So I've just made a suggestion at the 5 to 10 instead of 200 square ft over the 3200 square ft allowed um it would be 300 as it and it kind of is consistent how it steps down. So that'd be a 4700 square foot max building and then over 10 plus I mean that's just kind of a 7500 that's pretty good size building. So uh so there's really no rhyme or reason to that maximum size. Maybe we could even you know looking at you know Lanex's standard or Shaun might be something you want want to consider but you know at some point there is something about too much is too much. I don't know if we want to have somebody build a small arena or anything like that. Uh

which we have sometimes.

So, and and once again, you know, people that have horses or whatever, if they've got the uh ability to do that, uh you know, is that really necessary a problem? 7500 square feet may not be enough. But at some point, it does seem to me that there needs to be an upward cap. So, I really haven't given you much help on that. Uh but nobody none of our surrounding neighbors have really done much work on that as well. So they've kind of got anywhere from knock yourself out from Lanexa to 1,200 square feet in a tha and that's a big gap in between. So so I just gave a a number of 7500. Nobody's asked for anything more than that. Just going through some of my emails and remembering conversations. So that's kind of where I came up with the 7500.

So Brad, just so I'm clear, what numbers are we changing? Is it just the 300 in the 7500? Yeah, that's actually And then I actually added one thing it, you know, dummies like me, I always like to have the max size in there and we don't really spell it out very well in our table. So that's why I added that to the table itself. So you just so somebody looks at and says, "Okay, bang. That's as big as I can get." So really it's a 7500 and a 300 and the other ones are just for clarity. Correct. Okay.

Obvious question. I'm assuming this solves the recent number of inquiries you've gotten. Yes, it would. I've actually had a few in the 5 to 10 and actually a couple in the 10 plus that were, you know, think, wow, I've got to have to somehow attach my garage now to my house. And they're talking about all these sort of crazy things. It's like, you know, maybe it's time to reook at how we uh and they were good with that 7500 square feet.

Yeah, I don't have any problem with making this change. I guess my question is, is our accessory building requirements sufficient so that we're not actually creating accessory living space requirements or living spaces? Because that's the thing that kind of troubles me about the proliferation of large accessory buildings is if right they were end up being, you know, get a barn to them, three families, they're going to live in there and, you know, it's a little different situation, but we we have limitations on that, right?

That is correct. Yeah, you can't allow we don't allow mother-in-law orders or separate buildings to be living spaces and that kind of does fall on our building officials department and when they get plans they I mean I know I've talked to them about it. They look at those things. Now somebody had 20 acres and they built a big building and back in the middle of nowhere they decided to do something that they could probably get away with it. But, uh, generally speaking, that has not been an issue because I could actually try to get away with it with a

with a small one too, smaller lot. So, I don't think that's relative to the size of the property that somebody might try to sneak one in, but it really hasn't that I know of been a problem.

Well, are you looking for comment tonight? Yeah, if this works, we'll uh schedule a public hearing for the next meeting. We actually might have quite a few public hearings on this next uh planning commission meeting, but I personally have no feel about it. I don't know what you guys think. Um I don't have any real strong feelings. It just kind of it seems like if you got less than an acre, I'm not sure why you would need more.

Yeah, I've seen that, too. And you know, some of them I mean, if you put up a little shed or a shack or something, I mean, that counts. So, sometimes people have a little barn, not a barn, but you know, some Home Depot kind of shed. And so, you could actually end up having more than just one bigger one. So that's kind of I think the grace that

I guess my what I question is you know is that what we want on quarter acre or halfacre lots you know more than one out building and then on the other side if you exceed 10 acres of ground uh I guess I would be more inclined to not put a limit um the building. Well, that's fair. I kind of like Lex's language.

I would concern with that as well. Nexus think that's a good idea. on five acres or larger just say 10 acres or larger. So you do that with 10 because Lex is on five, right? But I mean if somebody comes in with a 100,000 square foot horse arena, you know, is there something we needed to say tie it to, you know, well at at some point the square footage and then sprinkler systems come into play and a lot of those things. Okay.

The occupancy of the building would be a potential and maybe I could work with Cameron on so we don't get with something or somebody builds a like I said a small horse arena or something that has some seating or whatever uh just like to keep that from happening. Yeah. So they have something that says as long as they follow open space requirements something Yeah. a little more tighter. Yeah. just to tie something in.

Another question I had is this square footage reference footprint or is that square footage storage space? You know, these arenas do have stories. Mike, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always said it was the footprint. It's VR specific about that. It's been only been 15 years since I probably read. I think it's just footprint though. I don't think it includes the multiple stories. Now, we have maximum height of course requirement that would limit probably to two stories, but I believe it's just footprint. I can look it up real quick.

Yeah. Some things to explore for when you bring it back. other comments or feedback.

Okay. Well, if that satisfies what we need to talk about tonight on that, then I guess the question is for us on the street trees.

Yeah, I think we kind of covered it in our discussion about the preliminary plat uh about the street tree. linear plantings and the code does say it's one large deciduous tree tree for every 40 foot of frontage. It doesn't discern between rural subdivisions or R1 or the R2A or anything. it's 40 ft. And so that's why you know once again talking with the building fish departments like you know the only way around that is to change the code if that's the direction planning commission would like to go. So I actually just had that other and I added that language about street tree plantings grouped along street frontage for rural subdivisions only and then the total trees would still equal the street length divided by 40. So you're still getting the exact same amount of trees you would normally get, but they can be masked in a way that doesn't just look like they're just dropped in a row. So we kind of covered all these things, but that's kind of the language I was proposing. And I know at times we've kind of gotten the weeds on some of those things, but that's quite all right. So that's why I like to bring these up the planning commission before we have a public hearing. Make sure you're comfortable with the language that's in front of you. One thing I would I guess I'd like to consider is what I call rural style roadway with no curving. Mhm.

You're going to have a ditch, roadside ditch along the edge of the pavement that usually, you know, has pretty steep slopes to the right of I wouldn't want to put trees in this ditch and I really wouldn't want to put them on the slope either. So, I just Maybe we could think about rural style roadways differently street.

Yeah. And I that was kind of the issue when we talked about earlier with the sidewalk is because you have a rural section, you know, where's the sidewalk going to go because it it may drop off fairly quickly at the edge of the road and doesn't work well for the sidewalk. But that's how we came up with the homes association installing well the developer installed homes association would maintain it. So I may end up on weaving through on private property but I can get with Joe and Mike and talk about if we want to tackle that but I I guess for the immediate thing is u this is clearing this up for the street trees. Well, I don't think I think the solution you've suggested sounds appropriate and it also kind of addresses that because it allows the applicant to do groupings that aren't necessarily in 40 foot fronts but has the same number of plans.

So I I think I think that's a pretty good solution. So they're still doing 80 foot along the road and the rest of the trees can be grouped. Is that how that's I think the way I read this is that none of them have to be necessarily on the road. group them as long as they have as many as 40. Yeah, that's why I was thinking. Does the street trading in the street right away? No. No, there's no actually we prefer it not to be in the street right away. It's just in the front yard. Okay.

I don't know that there's a that there's a set distance from the curb or between the house or exactly how far. So when you were talking about they come come to my mind that there's nothing that says a street tree can't be set back on the sidewalk of the ditch and and matter of fact I don't think we'd want them in the right way. Well, that's as you say that I started thinking, yeah, we've kind of there have been, but there's two schools thought on that. Public works guys are like keeping out of the rideway. The neighborhood planners are like they belong between the sidewalk and the curve. I see. Most of the planners seem to want it right next to Yeah. I wonder if maybe the language should be instead of street tree plantings, it should be frontage plantings.

Yeah. Something different. It does imply that they're in the rideway. Yeah, this is not a public hearing. I would I would suggest whatever comments you have to Brad because he's going to have to bring this back for talk to him about it. This is just for getting input from from the group at this time. Should Should we clarify that? You know, we say rural subdivision, but should we say RORO? I I suppose we could do that because it's only allowed actually think R1 can't have real subdivisions as well. But a real subdivision is actually defined term, right? So that's probably capital RD

at RS. Is it if that's defined? I think it is. Don't we have a special subdivisions? Yes. Oh, okay. Yes. So that should probably be defined the capitalized word. And I think frontage may be better than street. Okay. Have we got got that noted? Well, I guess my preference would be working into the requirements, the understanding that these trees are out by the in front of the house, not necessarily behind. Yeah, I agree.

That's true. I also like the idea that the number of trees based on

stage.

Well, ain't Prairie Village.

Any other comments for Brad? I appreciate your input. Look forward to getting it back. That concludes our agenda. Um, council meeting on the 3rd and the 17th and our next meeting is the 24th. Any other uh Oh, my just a quick discussion here. If you'll entertain it. Um,

again, I apologize. This is something that just came up uh really within the last week or so, so I didn't have a chance to put it there, but um as you know, within our zoning regulations, there's a and I'll pull it up here uh appendix uh to our zoning regulations uh regarding allowable uses in any particular zoning district. So, we have uh this table that's at the back of our zoning that defines the allowable uses in our our zoning district. Um you'll remember recently you know Astra Enterprise Park has reszoned several thousand acres to M1 uh light industrial uh and the city's overall uh pursuits out there align with theirs advanced manufacturing jobs generators positive economic development with the least negative impacts possible. Um and so when you look at the amount of of land that's zoned in one uh there's a substantial amount most of it's at Astro Enterprise Park. Uh recently and and really over the years we've had a number of economic development pursuits that um are in the advanced manufacturing industry that would require a special use permit in the M1 district uh but would be allowed by right in the M2 district. Um, and so when the applicants or, you know, the site selectors are looking at whether or not their use is allowed on any partic in any particular site you're proposing, they see a special use permit. That's is that's the same thing as saying it's not allowed to because, as we know, special use permits often come with a public

hearing and a another process, but uh, most impactfully, they have a term. And of course any manufacturing is going to come in and invest in the community. Uh there's this resistance to obviously to having a term. So we're not able to u you know say you know that that that uses. So uh um and and tonight uh there there are there have been several uh uh proposed applicants or possible pursuits like that. They're in the auto manufacturing industry. Um, I guess you could say Panasonic might be one of those, although it's it's in a different electronics sort of thing. Uh, but if you look at these allowable uses, um, and you look at manufacturing as a whole, um, essentially it's in use group, this is NICS use groups, so use group 31. So these columns are a little difficult to see on on the screen here, but the far right column is the M2 zoning district and the next to the right column is the M1 district. So for instance, the first one here, food manufacturing is allowable in the M2 but only by special use perform. Uh if you look down here to chemical manufacturing uh which is probably a more impactful highly uh you know more sensitive from environmental and impact on the overall community it those are only allowed by special use permit in the M2 I think appropriately. But if you look at things like uh for instance the um uh where is transportation manufacturing so 336 specifically is the one I'm I'm thinking about now transportation manufacturing involves everything you would think of with uh automobile manufacturing uh body panels there's subcategories for engine assemblies and there's subcategories for some of this would not involve um essentially the

manufacturer of parts parts from raw materials, but the assembly of parts um transportation manufacturing you see generally is needs a special use permit um in the N1. And and I' I'd like to entertain the idea that we permit this this use group in the N1. So if you drill down a little bit further, uh the way our code works here is if it's if it's in this use group 331 that that includes a lot of things. So guided missile manufacturing is in there. So, I think at some point somebody said, "Whoa, guided missiles. Let's make sure that is only allowed by special use permanent, too." Uh, you can look at the other use groups in there. As you as you drill down just a little further, oops. Uh, you'll see some of the other use groups that are involved in this. So, they all start with uh 336. So, there's motor vehicle manufacturing, body and trailer manufacturing, parts manufacturing, aerospace is on there, ship building is in there. Um I I think it's uh certainly with the state of these types of of uh of projects. um when when you used to think about making cars and things, it was a it's a it's a different um a different use category when you think about, you know, the 1950s and60s in Detroit uh than you would you would think about Fairfax now or or a new facility that would come in uh where the use is largely contained in structures. there's no outside moving of materials or storage handling uh outside the vibrations, the noise, that sort of thing is far less impactful. Um so from an intensity of use standpoint, if you think about the the state of advanced manufacturing now, I think it's appropriate to allow those in the M1 district um by right just allow that by permitting. Uh there are other things that we might look at as well. computer

and electronic products u the NICS code 333 and then electrical equipment and appliance component I think would sort of fit into that same sort of sort of for instance there was uh and this project's kind of dead now in a way so um I can talk about it but uh there was a company that wanted to manufacture solar panels a re recyclable solar panel kind of the next sort of generation of solar pans um that would have fallen under uh 335 electrical equipment compliance component But the use was very much, you know, like you would envision. It's it was a much smaller scale, but envision the Panasonic. It's a it's a it's a large building. It's uh you know, the all the activities take place inside. There's not a lot of bulk material storage moving around or or emissions, things like that. So, um I I'd like I'd like for the planning commission to consider that um at the next meeting possible. Where does what's Panasonic fall under? What do they

Panasonic? Uh we've we actually made a specific uh carve out for them. Uh and that is in battery manufacturing recycling. And so we did this. This was a text amendment four years ago. Uh and so now you can see it's permitted by writing in one. Okay. I was wondering because it sounded like it should have fallen and it sound we carved it out. Okay, that makes sense. So a good example be like John Deere come in here and build tractors. Yeah. Or K Cabota. Cabo is another good example. It's down in in Why do you want to do that in an M1 as opposed to M2 any?

So, here's here's the thing. The the choice we have is to not pursue these these pursuits. Um, which which I I don't I I think the pursuit of these are are are supported by the by the council. Um, or reszone vast swaths of property to M2 out there because there's no middle ground. When a company comes in and sees a special use an S under this column, they consider that that it's not allowed. I mean, they Is there a reason we don't red go to an M2? What What's the downside? Uh the reason you don't want to move to an M2 because then it opens up permitted uses on some of these other uh less um less desirable and more intense.

That's better than just randomly assigning whatever one happens to have an interest, making an M1. Okay. I mean, well, that's why that's why I'm saying there's there's this category. And of course, we could go through the whole thing, right? And reassign these. And somebody did that originally. It's like an R1A thing. Like, no. Seriously, it's like instead of doing R2, they do the smaller lots, we're saying, okay, R1A, you can do single family, but you can't do duplexes. And I think that's a reasonable response to a changing industry and a new product that you know may I think this is sort of along the same lines. A reasonable response to a changing

Mike is it fair to say that you're trying to carve out M1 as a light manufacturing and then M2 would be more of heavy manufacturing? Well, sure. I mean that's the intent of Well, the question is if you're putting together cars, is that heavy manufacturing? And I guess we're saying we don't think it is. Correct. Well, I'm not sure that's right. I I mean I don't know. Oh, I'm sure I'm open for discussion on that. In my mind, simple version.

When I think of M1, I think of, you know, a contained business that has an industrious purpose. M2, you know, it could be a pipe supplier. It could be anybody that, you know, has outdoor storage. And, you know, I I it occurs to me that maybe like the auto manufacturing or assembly or things like that. Isn't Isn't the concrete batch plants, aren't they? M1 approved. Uh that's a special use for Oh, that's ballpark. These people that are coming in, how big a lot do they need? Hundreds of acres.

Okay. So, there's no other spot in Dotto besides the out there by at Astra that that would be impacted like local stuff that's in one right now. in the town of Minnesota, they would not be able to go in those spots. Correct. Yeah. I mean, these of course these users. Yeah. Yeah. Those users. Yeah. I'm not saying there might be some very small scale supplier. I kind of always thought M2 was more so hazardous stuff versus M1 is a little bit less hazardous. It's that Yeah. It's impact neighbor. It's just overall intensity of use standing at the property line and looking in. Yeah.

I mean, you stand out street in front of it. What's it look like? That's probably oversimplification if we you know I guess I see a possibility here that would create a land use and district has special considerations. It has M1 zoning but it allows for other uses that don't include We do have other pockets of them want outside of Astra.

Yeah, it's not the only Mike. I get the feeling that the the pursuance of the of these areas are maybe Panasonic adjacent or in similar fields. Uh, no. Oh, no, not really. I mean, I wouldn't make that's No. Okay. It's all it's manufacturing. Um, some Some are in the auto industry, like I said, solar panels. Okay. Uh we've had pharmaceutical companies take a very close look. Um power generation. Um yeah, well solar solar field. So, I wouldn't No, I wouldn't make

The reason why I responded the way I did is because I know how much you love that R1A on the books. It is on the books, but Ice Fest was on the books, too. Yes. You want a bigger shaker of salt? No, I just laughed because I thought here goes M1A, you know,

I have no reason to have any background or knowledge as to the intensity of the use of the categories you're suggesting versus how that compares to Panasonic. I'll take your word for it. Manufacturing has gotten so much better, they don't need to have the M2 designation. It's not going to be intrusive. it's not heavy, whatever it may be. But I don't know that. And you know, I guess if my my concern with this is is that we're just going to ad hoc make these judgments based if somebody wanted it, well then we'll go ahead and change it. Then it's like that that troubles me. There's the theory behind it, the basis behind it is that the M2 uses are more intense, I'm assuming, than the M1 uses. And as you've noted, it's from the street or outdoor storage or whatever. those may be. I don't know that any of those are inappropriate on Astra. I mean, Astra is an industrial site and they chose to do it all as M1 and I'm assuming that was for marketing reasons that it was more valuable to them as M1 was M2 gave more options maybe. So, that was the applicant's choice in doing all that. And if part of it should be designated M2 because they have M2 industries that want to use it, then I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But I also don't think we want to make this harder for people to build out there because the idea here is you have property you want them to use. So I guess I'm going back and forth on it, but I it just troubles me to say, well, yeah, there's somebody who's interested in this, so let's go ahead and just change the designations. What was the basis for that? I mean, I we do have other M1s in the area and so that that does, I suppose, allow for somebody else to become a manufacturer of heavier parts or whatever it may be that is in some of those other M1s. That's probably not what we want,

which is why you have a special use in the first, which is why you special use permit to consider case by case. Yeah. Engineered air one, you know, most of Commerce Park, you the Hudamaki, the the Red Pacific, and then Merc. Is Merc under a special use permit or is that allowed under M1? No, it's just allowed under M1.

Okay. I just I know you said pharmaceutical was looking at it, so I was wondering if there was something that we didn't allow. Yeah. I mean,

it's not just Astro. No, it's not. Well, I mean, if if if it's staff's opinion that's the best way to address this issue is to to do that, I'm certainly not wanting to stand in the way of it. But I just question the logic of it. And maybe it's shouldn't maybe that we're just doing this and that those industries that we're making this change for really shouldn't concern us and they really technically should be qualified as M1 businesses because technologies changed and they can do what they need to do in a way that it's consistent with M1 use. Yeah, that's right.

I I think that's where I am with it now. I'll I'll agree. If if they weren't knocking at the door, it may never have come up. No. Right. Just like the street trees we just talked about. Right. You're talking specifically 336 though. Is that right, Mike? 33. Yeah. Yeah. 336. Yeah. So, if you um and I can send the link, course when we do step, we'll we'll send a link to the NICS lookup and you can drill down into exactly where all those are. Yeah. And there's transportation equipment and we we might want to preclude the boat stuff. I don't know.

Yeah. Because you there was just 2,000 of one and 9,000 of another, right? So, it's talking about like five figures worth of uses. That would be Yeah. Oh, is that what this Yeah, this column is. Yeah, I'm assuming that's individual descriptive descriptors of uses. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. Yeah. No, don't take that. I'm not sure about that. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm not sure about that. I was taking that as a total of I'm sorry. I just meant to show you that these are the these are the only sub main categories under the 336. Okay. So it's not just a 336. There's a 330 3361 62 34 69.

Not sure what those numbers are. Yep. I mean I I don't know how you guys feel, but when you think when I think about railroad stock manufacturing, I think well maybe that's not something we want to we might exclude that allow Okay. Well, I think what we'd like to do, unless there's just complete aversion to it, is call for the public hearing uh on this text amendment for the uh the Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate

motions. Second journey. Thanks. All right.