Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is the first thing. You would be allowed change my cousin's

back. It doesn't. Hi Linda, how are you? What's up? It's five. Everybody wants Charlie

the official one. It's like the official

help. Thanks. Charles.

Oh, he didn't. Hi, how are you? How are you? Good seeing you. I'll wait.

Thanks for situation. No, I just needed power. Yep.

See it? Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting of the planning commission to order. Roll call. Martin here. Templan here. Lane here. Huggin here. Milgorn here. Mock Schultz here. Uh, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Medok is absent today. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, can I remind everybody to uh adjust their microphones if they need to? Thank you. Okay, check. Sound check. Very good. No feedback. That's good.

Excellent. Uh, item 3A, approve the planning m comm approve the planning commission agenda. Um, I've got a suggestion. I don't know if you guys have this agenda or have any other suggestions, but um I would like to take a good look at seven. And um quite frankly, I kind of think that we would benefit from having a discussion about those three together because it's really a campus as opposed to trying to break them out and do them individually. But I don't know if you've looked at this or had any thoughts about it. I suppose we'll vote on each one individually, but I'd kind of like to have those all be together.

Presentation. Yeah, just because they're going to tie together. Oh, that's fine. I don't know that it's formal need to change the agenda, but I just wanted to kind of lay that out there. Okay. And we do need to remove five. Excuse me. Yes. 5A. Is 5A being removed from the agenda tonight? Withdrawn. Yes, it's withdrawn. Yeah, withdrawn as requested item be removed from the agenda tonight.

Okay. So maybe a motion to approve the agenda with the removal of 5A and I don't know we need to do anything other than just talk about it together. Make a motion to approve with the recommendations. Second. All in favor? I oppose. Same sign. Okay. Agenda is approved. Uh item 3B. Approve the minutes of planning commission meeting held on March 24, 2026. Any changes, additions, corrections to be made? Motion. Motion to approve as presented. Second. Any further discussion? Roll call or all in favor say I.

I. Oppose. Same sign.

Approved. Item 3 C, disclosure of conflicts of interest. I have a conflict of interest that I should disclose on 5B. I've had um some engagement with some of the property owners on that and I probably should recuse myself. Anyone else? Okay. Item 3D, disclosure of outside communications regarding commission business. You want to talk about All right. Seeing none, item four is called 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 for information purposes only, no action will be taken and there's a 4-minute time limit. I would note for those in the room, we have removed item 5A considering the special use permit for bed and breakfast. So if you have something you would like to share with us about that tonight, you can do that in public in this call to public. Give you that opportunity. Please approach the podium and give us your name and address for the record. remind you there's a four-minute time limit. So,

I appreciate that. Don't start my timer yet. I did have to switch gears about an hour ago learning about it taking off the agenda. So, just bear with me. I will try to be as eloquent as possible, but I will probably be reading more than I actually intended. No worries.

Um, hi, good evening. My name is Melanie Limewer and I live at 9853 Southboro Circle in Cherish Oaks here in Dodto. Um, I'm representing a large group of neighbors who came together quickly because of concerns for a non-owner occupied short-term rental and how that would change our community. While the short-term rental application in our neighborhood was withdrawn just a few hours ago, the core issue still remains and what comes in the next weeks from council's May 7th discussion, I'm sure with you all involved as well, uh, will help determine how Dotto protects its neighborhoods moving forward. Cherish Oaks is a single family neighborhood of about 45 homes that's been around for over 25 years. Just next door is a new subdivision of about 22 homes and growing called Arcadian Estates. It's a family centered area where neighbors know each other and kids play safely outside. That stability and community is what we love about Dotto, as I'm sure you all agree. It's why we acted fast when we learned about the property um and proposed VBO affecting our two communities. For tonight's meeting, I submitted a petition with an affid affidavit for consideration. Notably, my petition represented only households that fall outside of the city's official 200 foot protest boundary. It was intentional to not mix with those certified letter holders, which accounted for nine of the households between our two neighborhoods. In Cherish Oaks, 77% of households opposed the VBO VBO special use permit. That is 30 households out of the 39 that did not get certified letters. Additionally, five households in Arcadian estate signed as well. This demonstrates a substantial concern from nearby residents directly impacted by a use such as this. All agreed it created avoidable risk in a residential community zone. So to f focus on policy moving forward, short-term rentals are not the same as long-term housing. They introduce high turnover commercial activity and unnecessary

uh uncertainty in areas designed for stable residential use. Research and real world experience show that they are associated with increase nuisance complaints, reduced neighborhood cohesion, and concerns around safety and oversight. Other nearby communities have also acted on this. Prey Village has banned short-term rentals. Lanexa requires licensing and strict limits. Kansas City restricts all nonowner occupied short-term rentals in residential zones, which would have been 5A's um situation on the agenda tonight. These policies recognize that short-term rentals, especially non-owner occupied, function more than a business as a business than a residence. These policies recognize that short-term rentals Oh, I said that already. There's the um based on these models, I respectfully ask Dotto to adopt strong, clear protections, including prohibit non-owner occupied short-term rentals in residential zones like what you see on VBO. Set strict occupancy limits, for example, not rent by the room and parking requirements. Establish a licensing and annual inspection program. Require a local responsible party available 247 and an escalation plan for residents on nights and weekends when impacts are the most likely. Create quiet hours, create a clear enforcement process to revoke permits for violations, and consider minimum stay requirements to reduce high turnover use for neighboring communities, like for example, three or more nights. These are not extreme. They are consistent with what neighboring cities are already doing to protect residential neighborhoods. This is not about opposing all rentals when done responsibly, but non-owner occupied short-term rentals are a different use with different impacts. They should be regulated accordingly. At the end of the day, the decision is about whether Dotto prioritizes long-term invested residents and stable neighborhoods or allows incremental commercial commercial use to

reshape them over time. We appreciate that the council, as with your help, I'm sure planning commission is being proactive in addressing this now, but before more neighborhoods are impacted. We act that you put strong protections in place from the start. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. We all know who you are, but you're going to have to tell us your name. Oh, I know.

Um, Marie Caldwell, 8412 Cordless Road. Um, probably going to be not very popular right here. Um, concerning the BMBB, um, just a reminder that I don't particularly like them either and I agree that we need to have more stringent laws where those are concerned. However, in 2020, you did have um, a resident who lives in that area that passed a law um, or ordinance that we could have these BMBBS. And I want to remind you that we have one on on Waverly Road that is awesome and we've never had any problems with it. and we have Grandma's B&B here downtown and we've never had any problems with it. So, I think that's a big consideration as well. I don't think that you can say yes, let's have these and then not in my backyard. Um, so that's just um my cons my opinion about it. However, I do believe that we need to have more stringent rules on what would be allowed with them. Thanks.

Thanks, Doug. Hi. Uh, my name is Tim Petty and I live in Cherto Stokes as well at 30854 West 98 Street. One of the original owners in that particular uh area. Don Par is the one that um established the area. And when he did that, there was 45 homes that were platted. It was meant to be a single family uh residential uh area. Uh and the nice things about that and the reason why I bought the property specifically over several others was the deed restrictions that were in the area. Those were uh uh documented. They were filed with the county and they are tied and they also did not expire. They are automatically renewed. Um, and so they are in existence and uh, anybody that wants to go review it can uh, because they're out there. Uh, and they specifically talked about several of these particular issues. So, I would recommend that people go revisit that. Um, because uh a lot of the things that we liked about it, whether it was restrictions on the roof color or it was restrictions on uh equipment out in the yard uh associated with other businesses or things like that that aren't supposed to be in there. Uh RVs, which I have one that's supposed to be behind the corner of the lot of the house. Several people have that. They honor it. they um abide by it, which is great. But most of all, it's a family environment. Everybody knows each other. We got lots of kids. We're on the second and third turnover of those houses and love the families that are there. Uh we want to keep it that way. Uh adding an element of like this, even though I understand the bed

and breakfast and the business aspects of that, that's great. put it in another area that doesn't have the deed restrictions that uh keep it the family environment that we bought. I paid money for that lot and it was important to me because of the restrictions and I want to keep it that way. So, thank you for your time today. Thank you. Seeing no one approach the podium. Is there anyone online?

Oh, sorry. I'll make this pretty quick. Uh Brian Linewinner live at 9853 Baroque. Um I just follow up. So um live in Cher Oaks and obviously was involved in reviewing the application. Um so I'm a engineer by trade and spend a lot of time with codes and reviewing codes and applications of those. Um I just think one thing that was very apparent when reviewing this is there's no real code definition as it's currently written for BRBOs. Um, Ben Breakfast is pretty clearly defined that the resident or the owner occupies and resides at that uh the house that's that's being rented out, which clearly is different than what a VBO is. So, currently how the code's written, a VBO is basically a motel, which I think, as you know, as previously said, I think there are regulations. This will probably be more common moving forward. It's just important that we investigate the codes and get it clear that for future occupancies how those are defined and how they're used. So, thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, chair. There's no nobody online wishing to comment on this issue.

Going once, twice. I will close the call to the public. And chairman, do you mind if I just give a little additional information about the withdrawal of the use permit? Sure.

Okay. Just a couple minutes. There was some question now that it's been withdrawn now. Withdrawn now what? Um, of course, this does not go forward now to the to the city council in May, it will not proceed. Uh, the applicant is the application essentially dead. So, if the applicant wants to wait until we have some other regulations in place that allow this, that would be a new application uh requiring new hearings and and kind of a a redo of the entire notification effort. So, if anybody's unclear about that, so this issue uh currently is dead. A new application would have to be submitted sometime in the future. Thanks, Mike. That's it. Yeah.

You have a follow-up question that you can talk about with Mike? We just want to make one statement about what's down in the in the agreement from original. It does say it changes only can change if we have 50% or more of the homeowners vote on that.

Thank you. So, uh just because you you offered that, I'll I'll offer something on the deed restriction issue. That is a very valid issue and whatever the city does here is not going to void your deed restrictions. So to the extent that you all have deed restrictions that would apply to this, whatever the city does isn't going to trump that. So you probably ought to have council, you ought to have somebody take a look at that and decide what your rights are in terms of enforcing your deed restrictions. If you're anything like my subdivision over in Oak Country, we have lovely deed restrictions and absolutely no way to enforce them. So I don't know what Don gave you, but that you probably ought to talk to a lawyer about that.

Okay. Sorry, I have a followup question tonight on that point. Go ahead. Um, with you saying it's been dead in the water, I guess. Is there who do we reach out to at city if we find that? I mean, I know there's some unauthorized short-term rentals happening throughout the city. What who do we reach out to if this applicant actually is proceeds with doing short-term rentals without a license? Yeah. Well, certainly um there's an online uh complaint form. Certainly issues, concerns, that's a good way. Just call up city hall. Edgar will, you know, is the city clerk would be the point of contact. He'll either contact codes enforcement probably.

So, it' be in that building inspections department. So, we would treat that like a code compliance issue. Uh either a zoning non-conform non-conformance or Okay, great. Thank you for that clarification. That call to the public as well as post comments are closed. Moving to item 5B then consider reszoning at the northwest corner of Lexington and 95th Street. And Linda, the show is yours. All right. Do you want to go ahead and um have the public hearing now? Brad, do you want to go ahead or do we want Yeah, I'll go ahead and do the staff report and then you can open up the public hearing.

Okay. I just need to have the record show that Chairman Templan has left the meeting.

All right. 5B is a public hearing to consider reszoning from R1 residential, low density, and RA rural A to C2 Business General. This property is located at the corner of 95th and Lexington. It's certainly on a major improved highway access to K10. It's also shown on our land use plan, our future land use plan as commercial. So, this is in compliance with uh everything that we've been trying to accomplish here in Dotto and target commercial activity where it it belongs. So, I'll go through the application background briefly. uh 3.7 acres of R1 and 11.1s of RA both want to be the applicant wants to have it changed to commercial development or business general in our definitions in our zoning category. So we did do the prefuncter notification letters to residents within 200 ft also published a sign and had a notice in the legal record for this public hearing. I have met with the applicant to discuss the reasonzoning and as I updated this memo, we did have a request or Edgar had a request for a protest petition, but I've not heard anything back from the person that requested that. General requirements, it's zoned R1, which is low density residential, and then RA, rural A, which promotes or is intended to promote agricultural activity. However, this site has been tree covered. It hasn't been used for agricultural activity for quite some time. And the business general includes retail trade, restaurants, professional service, healthc care, museums, travel accommodations, if the like. So you can see on the aerial photo, actually Mike back up a little bit where it's at located. You can see that the the larger track is all

tree covered. There are some residential areas to the west of this location. large lot residential areas. But as we've talked about in our southwest growth area plan, this is a area that's being transitioned to a more intense use commercial activity certainly is that also you can see the areas to the south is the Dotto self storage of construction and also the city of Dotto Public Workshop. Then across the street is Betty's trucking. So go through the character of the neighborhood. that talked about it just a little bit ago about the residential track to the west. It is a changing area, especially now that sanitary sewer lines are available in the area. Current property is now it's vacant and is been completely tree covered for quite some time. Talked a little bit already about the C2, what's allowed there. It's general business, retail, hotels, restaurants, uh retail sales, etc. the suitability of which the properties are restricted under its existing zoning. It's not been restricted. It still can be used for these activities. However, with the advent of the additional utility improvements in the area, its use has been targeted and been purchased by someone that is looking to uh create a more dense and upscale type of use for this property. Uh property's been vacant as zone for quite some time at least over the past 5 years. I've had we've had a lot of interest discussions but no formal requests over the past five years. The extent which there is a need in the community for the allowed uses. One thing in our comp plan we talk about the construction development that increases the value of property is an economic benefit to the community. So there will be increased property tax and increased sales tax potentially with this change in resoning.

I talked about the utilities. There is sanitary sewer access available. City of DInnesota provides water. It has a water main along 95th Street. Access to electricity is already on site. We have talked Joe and I have talked about the improvements that will be necessary for 95th Street. So they'll be and Lexington Avenue potentially. So the condition of 95th Street, it's still a fairly rural country road. Even though we've recently overlaid it, it will need to be improved. Curbs, gutters, probably uh uh turn lanes, things like that. That'll be part of the traffic analysis moving forward. And of course, the site plan will be brought before the planning commission for traffic for approval and study and approval potentially. How would the proposed zoning adversely affect the capacity of the street network? Uh I just mentioned a traffic study be necessary. We'll be evaluating all the items. Street lighting, probably a turn signal, traffic signal will be necessary at this location, but that will be all flushed out dur during the site plan review process. Environmental impacts, don't see any uh particularly negative items for environmental impacts. Storm water as we know our policy is that all storm water must be contained on site can increase the runoff just because it's being paved or having structures built on it. So storm water detention, landscape buffering, lighting, traffic issue issues will all be addressed during the site plan itself. economic impact on the community. As I mentioned, additional retail sales, property taxes are certainly beneficial for the city of Dotto and is consistent with our goals in the comprehensive plan.

The extent which the zoning may detrimentally affect nearby properties, certainly the residential tracks to the west um would see impacts from that. But as we've talked about, the southwest growth area plan at 95th Street corridor is a transitioning area. So we will have some significant buffering and setbacks as best possible to protect the residential area that is to the west. Relative gain to the public health safety from a denial. Uh certainly as I'd mentioned there's concern by the surrounding residents which are valid but not unusual when you're uh reszoning vacant property to a especially an intense use like commercial. However, this transition once again has been happening in Minnesota for for the last five years and once again it's always it's been in our comprehensive plan for over 20 years to have these areas transition from a rural A or large lot residential to a commercial development. I'd mentioned earlier in the presentation the future land use map which we've actually studied and recently readopted with some improvements something that we've looked at and this does show this area as a commercial development and some mixed uses in that site as well. So staff recommends approval to the planning commission and of course you make a recommendation to the city council that uh and they make the final decision. There is a suggested motion to approve for reasons stated in the staff report or you disagree with the staff report and put in the motions that you believe are adequate for a denial of the reasonzoning. So with that, vice chair, I will stand for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Brad. Anybody have any questions for Brad? Any issues of concern? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. So members who of the public who wish to address the planning commission regarding the items on this specific topic are welcome to come forward. And you've got a 4-minute time limit. Please state your name. Good evening. And I'm uh Tyler Oliver with KBY Capital and we're the developer of the project. And um as Brad said, it's it's roughly 15 acres at the northwest corner of 95th and in Lexington. And what we're proposing is a commercial development which could include a convenience store, sit down restaurants, quick service restaurants, hotels, and uh we think this will be the catalyst to open up, you know, future development along K10. And uh through my neighborhood meeting that I had a month or so ago, I felt like, you know, the neighbors were supportive of that. There's a little frustration with how long this has all taken with um you know, the power lines and development and so forth. But I think everyone, as you can see, as you drive by there, you know, most of the properties are for sale and they do want, you know, to uh to move on and cash out. And again, I think this will be the catalyst to open up uh both sides of 95th Street. And u I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. Any questions? I do want to say thank you for having a neighborhood meeting. Appreciate that. You're welcome. And I I did it at the new fire station which was fantastic. Beautiful.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Cisco. I'm Richard Cisco, 345 675 West 95th Street, right across the street from this property. I am not objecting to the reszoning. I'm just objecting to there's water flow that's in my 40 years I've been there, the water through there has been over Lexington. If we have more building with more asphalt there, Lexington's going to have to be tore up and a new whistle put underneath that road because with more asphalt you got more water runoff. So there some of that ground is not going to be able to be built on because of that property and the access in and out of there is not going to be real good. Especially, we've heard there's supposed to be a truck stop there, and we do not need more truck traffic invited to that area with all the rock trucks, the school buses, the white buses going to Panasonic and all the hundreds and hundreds of cars that are on that road now. That uh just continues to get worse all the time. So, but as far as resoning, let it go. But it's just the fact that we've got to have some planning ahead of time with some of that before it's all done.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing then and we will Any other discussion from y'all? Do you have anything? I would I would say uh Mr. Cisco's concerns are very valid, but I'm confident that the city standards will address those concerns and I'm in support of this zone at this location. Thank you.

I agree with Commissioner Huggin response on the site plan. drainage and traffic will be handled during the site plan middle and um this track has been on the future land use plan as commercial so I'm supportive recommending approval of the Arizona okay

kind of agree with these guys I've seen the water that Mr. Isco was talking about. It's been a long time, but I have seen the water going up through there. Uh I'm not sure if any of that's in the flood plane that goes down through there because of the north side of it. Uh pretty low elevation, but that would all have to be addressed if this goes through on site plans and all that. Plus, there's like says here, there's going to have to be a whole lot of work done on the on the intersection 95th Street in general. So, And I'm sure that staff will address all of those concerns. So with that, I'll entertain a motion.

I would move that we uh recommend approval to the city council for agenda item 5B as outlined by staff. Second. All right. Add your roll call, please. Martin, yes. Lane, yes. Huggin, yes. Melbourne, yes. Schultz, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Edgar, would you go back? Yes. Thank you. Get Roger out of time out.

Get Roger out of time out. Okay, so for all of you interested, KU is up 10 to nothing on women's softball for Witchaw State and just putting hurt on them.

Seven A, B, and C. Brad, I I didn't mean to throw you a curveball, but I did kind of think maybe that's the logical way to attack this. Yeah, and and you're correct in your assessment, chairman, that this really is one campus situation.

If I could maybe just for the benefit of everyone in the room, this item is not a public hearing item. So, there will not be an opportunity for members of the public to address the the planning commission in connection with the review of the site plan or with the final plat. So, this is a matter before planning commission business. I know that uh some of you may have very well have taken advantage of the opportunity to let some comments known beforehand, but what's before us tonight is a site plan and a final plat for a development. This doesn't have anything to do with tax incentives. This doesn't have anything to do with proper use of the property. This is we now have a proposal before us and so we're looking at in the context of the site plan. So, little background.

Thanks, Brad. Sorry.

All right. Thank you, chairman. Uh yes, you do have a site plan for data center. It's uh being proposed by BL infrastructure and also in conjunction with that a site plan for from EverG, which is a substation adjacent to the B infrastructure project. As you recall, we brought this up to the planning commission last month and planning commission tabled the site plan for the EverGee because you wanted to see the whole picture and certainly that seemed appropriate at that time. So now you do have everything to look at. Uh there was a lot of back and forth that staff has met with the applicant with several meetings, a lot of Zoom calls also send summarize meeting notes. One thing that also that um Patrick sent was the memo about site plan regulates the structure in the specific area but not the underlying uses. So that is really part of the zoning code. So we're really looking at the structures, landscaping, lighting, all those things that we typically look at, access points, uh fire safety, uh utilities, things like that. So that's kind of where uh my effort has been looking at over this past couple of months. And I also understand it's a little bit challenging for planning commissioners because you know Mike and Joe and myself and Patrick and Cameron, we've all been looking at this for a couple months now and you've had a weekend to review the packet and try to absorb a lot of information that is surrounding this project. But I'll go ahead and do a brief summary of the project itself, then talk a little bit about the architectural standards that I went through and looked at and why my recommendations are and the conditions that I put in the staff report are. And then I'll talk a little bit about the Evergy substation as well.

That's even though it's a site plan, it's really the only permit that the city would issue is a fence permit for that one since equipment is not considered a structure. So, um that the only thing a couple things we might have is landscaping, the quality, the type of design of the fence, the height, and then also um we do have a height restriction on items in the M1 district of 100 ft. And uh just briefly, the the 100 foot level is is safe. So they're they're not going to be above 100 feet tall with any of their items. Anyway, starting with the site plan itself or the the data center, there's two buildings. The uh north building, building one is six 6.9 acres, 300,000 square ft. So these are some some large structures. But one thing we talked about when the Flint building went in was this was going to be large warehousing items. We weren't envisioning data centers, but at the end of the day, they really are really just big box buildings, no different than a warehouse itself. So, so we have to have that sort of same context. Even though there's it's a data center, it's using electricity. since using a lot more city water than we would typically see with the warehouse. It's still the use and the size and the proportion of the building itself is similar to what is has been constructed out at that location. Building two is 863,000 ft and it's almost 20 acres of building itself. Uh it will have and this area will have associate parking. There's two private substations. one is the evergy and then there will be an adjacent one to that. So they're they're really almost one because they will have a common uh gate that will go allow those substations to be accessed from either one. And then there's a proposed future

one to the north of the site. But the things that we're talking about that are required for the substations that are going to be built initially are the same criteria is going to be applied to those. So, they'll have to have a decorative wall. They'll have to have uh an ornamental gate. They'll have 9 foot fence. Those type things are still going to apply to the potential future substation itself. I talked about parking spaces. There's 150 of them on the site plan, six of them which are accessible, handicap accessible parking. Did want to note that uh they need to designate van accessible stalls as well. There's three loading docks on building two. They did submit a fairly significant landscape plan. That was one of the concerns at the previous plan commission meeting with the EverGy substation was there wasn't enough landscaping or there wasn't any shown because the Evergy plan does not buffer K10 highway in our zoning regulations. We do have a 30-foot landscape buffer that is required for projects along K10 Highway and they have certainly used this buffering strip to include a fair amount of trees but also uh there are significant trees. They're large deciduous trees. There's several also evergreens and trees have their leaves essentially year round. So um they've met that requirement for the landscape elements. Phototric plan has also been submitted and it does meet our requirements. Traffic study has been submitted as well. There's not going to be a significant increase in traffic as you know also. Uh now I keep calling this area 103rd Street. It's actually energy way at this point. uh that road has been greatly improved carry any kind of traffic loads that will be happening on this

site itself. We've also requested storm water management issues um to review those from the original Flint plan to the plans that have now been submitted before planning commission for review and and Joe has reviewed both the traffic study and the storm water management program for supplied comments which have been addressed by the applicant. Talk about utility improvements. There's electric, storm water, sanitary sewer, and water. Now, the water is saved dotto, but we're working with water 7 on a cooperative agreement. So, that actually has been resolved. Sanitary sewer is available and on-site. There won't be any public improvements on site itself because once it leaves our rideway, all the sanitary sewers is going to be privately maintained. lift stations, anything associated with that is not for us to uh to deal with. And then even the road network uh parking areas, as soon as you enter the site, that is not cityowned or we won't be maintaining any of that. Is all going to be privately operated and maintained. Also will serve letters were provided by Evergy and Water 7 and Dotto City of Dotto will provide sanitary sewer service. One thing also because of the improvements to Lexington Avenue sidewalks are already in place. U Edgerton Road, pardon me, Sunflower has also been improved and it has sidewalks on it. So there's no requirement for sidewalks on this project. As far as the architectural standards, this is one of the things that chairman templan asked me to talk a little bit more in detail. Now, one thing about our architectural standards is we've change

those to be more interpretive and I guess there's positives and benefit positives and detriments to that. But by allowing a little bit more flexibility, not having, you know, it's got to be this much glass, this much brick, this much stone, it does give the design professional some flexibility. But I think when you think about our regulations, while they are open to interpretation, it does it's more outcomebased. We want to make sure the outcome of the building is a consistent design structure that is consistent with the area. And and once again, as I mentioned earlier, this area is designed to be large box warehousing or in this case a large box data center. So it is consistent with what we've been talking about in the southwest growth area plan and then also before that previous comprehensive plans as well. So overall the spirit and intent of the site plan and staff's opinion has been met. There are some notable exceptions which I did highlight in red as far as some of the elevations needs some additional work especially on the south side of building two which is the one that primarily fronts energy way needs to have some more var variations on the on the roof line actually with the screening that does hide the archite or pardon me the air conditioning units and some of the elements that will help heat cool the building and then Also, there is a U screen wall in front because there's uh actually the meters themselves, the electric meters are on the lower part of the building and there's a screen wall has been proposed there. Uh we don't have any details on that screen wall. So, we'll need to see some improvements with that or more more information on that as well. I'd mentioned the landscaping. That's something that we have gone over quite a bit and I feel confident that it does

meet it does meet our requirements and they did do the trouble of and I did even look at the tree species and all those types of things and they are long longevity type trees. they won't be something hopefully that will die off quickly or and we need to also make sure that that it's part of our codes that we do maintain those because it is important to have those trees survive and help screen the the building itself. Uh signage has not been proposed on any of this building but typically that's submitted with the building plans. So that comes through the building officials review. Sometimes they put that in our site plans, but in this case they did not. Easements and lot lines plan shows and this is where we get to the final plat. There is no additional right of way being dedicated to the city since that was all taken care of when energy way was improved. Um K10 certainly has their large rightway behind the uh structure itself and so there isn't any easements or rightway dedications to the city on this. There will and Joe and I talked about this and asked for some cross access easements because they are parceling up the property into into different tracks and in theory when you do that you've got properties that could be sold to different individuals and uh they've indicated that they if needed they will do that by a separate instrument and file those types of access easements with the county. As far as the u items in red that I wanted to talk to you about that they don't meet the elevation was the really the primary the south elevation along energy way does need to have more

glass um and paneling some equivalents a little bit more variation of the uh indentations if you will on the building more shadow lines things like that that provide some visual interest because this this does the 15% glass is one of the few things that we do have in there that is a hard number and just very quickly looking at it. It did not it does not meet the 15% glass along that south elevation. So that will need to be upgraded and that's really not something that staff or plan commission can vary. That's a number that's in the code and that does need to be met. We do have that 100 foot um length facade for articulation type issues. They've done a good job of changing out with the screen wall, which the one we still need some details on the screens themselves up above the screen, the air conditioning units. We do wanted some additional height to vary that as well so it isn't such a long straight row across the top but otherwise feel confident or that does meet that and so that's those are the items that I've flagged as well. So with that I will stand for any um questions that you might have. Uh the applicant I did suggest that their architect be available tonight to answer any specific questions. So chairman if you so feel so inclined or commission feels so inclined that's available for before we get to the detail of that at least in my mind I'd kind of like to talk about the plat because how the plat fits with this I'm not have seen it match up so maybe we could maybe

Okay. Do you guys think that's right? Let's talk about the plaque because I want to see how those two work together.

Okay. Well, yeah. Well, and I will say, you know, we did have some discussions, a fair amount of discussions on this as well because you can see the u the one tract, I guess, in the lower left, which will be the EverGy substation. Initially, Everg was going to own that property and it's going to be sold and they're going to do a separate plan, but we did talk to the applicant and say, "Well, you really ought to include this in all in one track, even though that piece is going to be sold off." And we did also talk about having just one other track for the other portions of the property since it is in essentially a campus as we've talked about. uh but the applicant felt it was important to maintain that ability to have separate lots for the separate uses that will be happening in the site itself. Now, one thing you probably noted is there are flag lots on this and typically we frown upon flag lots. However, when you look at our code in the M1, it says it's subject to site plan approval. So in in essence in residential areas, especially some of these large lot ones, you have to have the appropriate amount of frontage, you can't just have 30 foot little flag or poles, I guess, if you will, out to the flag. So, but in here, because it's just subject to site plan approval, that is an allowable way to divide up the property, and that's what they've chose to do. So lot three is building one, lot four is building two, lot two is the private substation which adjoins the every one and then the rest of the tracks are uh future development. Now one thing also

in track A we'll have the temporary construction trailers that are shown on the site plan and but those are we talked about this on the merc project. Those will be there during construction and removed and part of the uh process and there are notes on the site plan itself that the property will be restored to its previous condition which is basically grass field at this point when the trailers and construction is complete. So just for my benefit just because I'm perhaps geometrically challenged. So lot one on the plat,

that's the average station. That's the utility substation there. That yes, that agy. It looks to me like the utility substation on the site plan is considerably longer fronting 103rd than that is. I don't know if it's just because the way that they got drawn, but it seems a little weird. It's decently close to matching up. I couldn't swear to if you guys are good with it, I'm good with it. I just I was like, as I was looking at that, so the lot obviously extends out to the road. So, it's a little deeper north to south than just the utility station shown here. I get that. I'm trying to toggle between the two. The site was thinking from the left edge whether that's that's that's correct. Yeah,

you're good, but I'm good. But I I think I'm again I Okay, for sure. And then lot two is the private substation, correct? That'll fit within that lot. Yeah. And then lot three is building one and lot four is building two. That's right. Yeah. And the rest of it is essentially unplatted. No, it's platted. It's just tracked. They have detention tracks. Yeah. So the eastern boundary of track A goes in the creek. Is that how that

There's actually an A, B, and a C. And I I don't quite remember offhand where those lines are, but you can see C is that very farther northern piece. And there's a track A. And actually the track B, it took me a while to find. It is actually in front of lot four. Yeah. It is. So essentially they're buying the rest of the Flint development. Yes. Yeah. I think they already have. Okay. Which previously was unplatted, right? Correct. Okay. So, the is the detention for the whole development in tract A? So, the existing building, does it go to tract A as well?

Uh, that where Mike's got the cursor that looks like So, there's there's four detention tracks for this part of it and I believe they're all in track A. Yes. Okay. So, will an access easement to that detention basin be needed for Flint or is that if they need to get to that to maintain it to do some type of maintenance or anything in there? Yeah. So, well, obviously these are private detention facilities. Um, all to be maintained by Beal. Okay. Um, Flint would not necessarily have any obligation to be here.

Okay. And did you say how many square feet building two is? Did I miss that? Yeah, it's building two is the big one. It is 863,000. I forgot. I got to Thank you. It's almost 20 acres.

So, flipping to the substation. So the substations part of the um the greenery part of what they're proposing to do with the be project pilot includes buffering that's going to happen along the north and and west of the substation.

Correct. Yes. And then the south is part of Evergy's site plan, right? Ever shows plantings along the southern edge. Correct. But along the western edge and the northern edge, that's part of the project pilot. Correct. Okay. Well, well, those I guess I'm Are we asking questions or we just we still talking flat? Oh, I'm just just trying to make this confusing as possible.

On the landscaping, uh, are those trees going to be planted on the the ground that's at K10 level or at the proposed grade that's out there right now? The the higher elevation because dirt's been move it's like 10 foot higher. Are those trees going to be planted at that elevation or down at the K10 level? That makes sense. Good point. I mean, those are Well, I'd have to look at the grading plan, but obviously the grades will be established before the landscaping goes in. Some of these are would be at the foot of the slope. Yeah, there's a be up on the slope. Yeah, the grading obviously the grading substation pad comes up.

Right. Right. Right. But no, I'm not talking on that pad. There's a pad out there right now. Yeah. Let's look at the I just kind of get an elevation. I mean, some of those periods are pretty large and it'd be very helpful. Those would be on the grade that's out there right now because there is dirt moved out there today. I'll try to find the grading plan. Of course, it's not this.

I I didn't see a plan that related to landscape with I'm sure the landscaping isn't shown on the grading plan. I'm 100% sure of that. But I'd like to find the grading plan so we can talk about where it exists today. Should be the third page after the cover sheet. Mike,

okay, I just saw it. Oh, pardon me. The second is the existing conditions. There it is. So like those dash grades out there along K10. I mean if they're planted if those trees are planted on top of that grade that's there today that would definitely benefit the screening because they're up higher relative to K10. I just didn't know if they were going to be at that elevation or at the lower grade. I think some some at higher and some at lower according to this.

Well, it has to do with how effective the screening is is a reasonable question. Sure.

I mean, they got some nice trees that are going to grow pretty large and if we could take advantage of the terrain, it'd really help. So, here's the grading on the substation. And more or less, they're not doing any grading within I mean, all their grading is more or less within 50 ft of their fence. You can see the proposed grading lines matching up with existing grade lines here.

Yeah, I just spoke with John Michael Handley who's the applicants representative for this project we've been working with and he said that I mean the that what Mike's referring to is that they won't be messing with that or grading that far the close of the K10 rideway. So the 30 foot landscape buffer will remain essentially intact where those trees are where the grade is now. Yes. Yeah. So it'll be below the deck of K10. Certainly below K10. Yeah. Certainly below K10.

Guess if you can just pull up a street view, you can see what I'm talking about about the grade. It's already there. Yeah.

There are some perspective views on the architectural plans, but I don't think there's any landscaping on those viewshed views. So, do you wanna highway. Yeah, just upward the K10. Yeah. So, you're on the overpass. Yeah. If you just go east,

you have to keep going just a little bit further. You'll see further east. Mhm.

Yeah. You can start to see the dirt right through there. In fact, some of that I guess that's why I was asking where if they're going to be putting more dirt out there to elevate the trees. This really old. That's not helpful. Yeah. Sorry, it's just these views aren't too helpful. You're not able to see much here. But as we as we talked last time, just looking at the substation plans, you know, basically you're at the existing grade on the east end and then on the west end they're filling. What do we say? Eight or nine feet? It's 4 6 7 8 9 10 10 to 12 feet at the most in here. So I think to we look at the landscaping plan. I think the concern is that some of these some of these that are up along

especially up in here are in a low area and would be better off up in here, right? Yeah. Up in there. Well, unfortunately bringing put more dirt there elevators. Yeah. It's questionable how valuable that screening is ever going to be. Get tall enough. I think it I think it'll be good. I think it'll be valuable from the Evening Star Road, you know, from here from that perspective because you're low, but up on the highway, it's going to be it's a hard it's hard to make that effective.

Yeah. So, but you know, maybe some of this stuff along the highway itself, specifically this stuff along that that north line, could be better suited um further toward further in toward the substation. I guess you I remember now, Commissioner, that when we did the Flint building, your concern was as you drive in on Sunflower, you're low in the steep embankment, but by the time you get to Energy Way, you're above the building. So, it's kind of hard to balance that screening so you are actually getting the most effective screening possible. And that's just due to the great changes to say you're going to screen the whole building. I mean that what it is what it is but they're spending a lot of money in landscaping is take advantage of what we can

agree maybe on the point of the view shed from the highway. So I was interested that the north the north facing side of building one it's going to be pretty clearly visible from the highway

building one. Yes. So your comments didn't really talk about that elevation. I mean, I know we have requirements of of within the M1 that faces our public rideway and and that sort of thing, but this is a highway. It's maybe a little different, but still by the same token, I'm curious as to whether it's additional thought ought to be given to what it's going to look like from the highway. Yeah, I'm once again I've been looking at this for a while, but I thought, just recalling from memory, the north side of building one did have some glass and some things on it. Now, the north side of building two actually, in all transparency, it does not meet our requirements, but it's completely shielded from any kind of public view.

So, here's the here's the north side of building one. That's this of course to find it each time we zoom in. Get you a better computer. Yes. So this is this is the architecture of the north side of building one. And I think what Brad's saying is that this in our opinion meets every every prescriptive and subjective letter and intent of of the zoning rags

of the of the yeah of the site plan development rags. This this is a very nice commercial very nice looking commercial building from this perspective. Okay. Glass architectural elevation undulations color variation material variation. That's a nice facade. But the north side of building one's away from the street and actually kind of blocked by building two. Well, building one is a small smaller one on the north side. Oh, so you could be at K10. The north side of building two is blocked by building. Yeah. Yeah. At least part of it.

Well, if you look at these perspective views, maybe it could help. I'm just gonna So there's perspective view from exactly you from K10. So number three here, which would be this one. Oops. Of course, we have to find it. That's essentially from the highway looking toward that north side of building. Hey, Mike. You want want to try to pull up that uh flash drive that John got you?

Uh, sure. It's a little bit better quality. Okay.

Why he's doing that? Maybe shifting gears a little bit. So I I know that when Everg presented before, we talked a little bit about why this this substation is there and and and I believe that this the statement was it's it's literally there because of this project and it's not part of their overall utility needs, but it's to service this particular customer. I may be misstating that but that's what I heard. But assuming that's the case I am curious as to why that is featured so prominently on the edge of this develop this edge of this campus as opposed to an internal within the campus. I was there any discussion about why it's where located where it is? Well, our initial discussions were basically I mean that's where the site plan showed it and then also that was a preferred location based on what the applicant has told us and then the also the picture of the it's allowed in the M1 district. So, and we've got substations that we've approved and felt confident that we could manage that with our landscaping buffering and access points and all those things as well. Well, we felt we got a fairly good, I guess, recommendation or concession, if you will, on the 9- foot concrete, stamp concrete decorative wall that's going to go around this thing as well. So I guess all those things in play. Um staff never really pushed back on that location for the substation itself.

I was just curious is whether there was any discussion about it being other than Yeah, we did talk about obviously. Yeah, but that's kind of like where it ended up after a lot of these types of I mean like I said, we've been talking over about two months now about all these issues that you're raising. Chairman Uh you said there was some architecturals on this uh uh I think around slide 22. Oh, I got my numbers right. Those were in the submission. Oh, sorry. So that's the north side of building one.

That's right. sound study. It'll be in our

just tell me when this those three are about what we have these what you had in mind you wanted to show. Okay. So those are same as what uh plans you were showing earlier just with some of the vegetation instead of I see. Yeah. I think it's L3. Number three is we wanted Mike. Yeah, you can zoom in on I don't know if without getting bumped to another

resolution gets a little dodgy too far in. Okay. So, Brad, you've been mentioning uh revisions to this screen wall. I guess it' be on the on the bigger building. Have you seen those or have you been working with the applicant on updates to those elevations or

Well, I guess our comment was there needs to be variations in the height and that's something that has not been submitted. That's why it's a condition of potential approval that they resubmit those and I guess essentially for staff approval that shows that they met that requirement that the planning commission ultimately set if you choose to adopt that condition. And then you might have mentioned it, but all the utility improvements are paid by the the applicant. It's all they're all private. All I mean interior. Yeah, it's all all private utilities. Are there any off-site stuff?

We have a Yeah, there's a development agreement that lays out significant public infrastructure improvements that are going to be required to meet the service management project. Those are all fully funded by the developer, mostly water and sewer infrastructure. Brad, the site plan says there's 150 parking spots, correct? I don't really see a parking lot. Is are those just spread out around the buildings or

Yeah, they are. And that's they're really Yeah. Yes, they're spread out around the buildings. They're on the the entrance two entrance points primarily and they're they're kind of interwoven as you can see there with the access points. So there's up here along the building here along the building and are there Is parking in here or are they all here? Oh, there's some on the east side of the building.

And how many employees will be on the site? Might be a question for the applicant for sure.

Uh chairman and members of the planning commission, appreciate your time. John Michael Hanley uh applicant with the developer bill infrastructure 14422 West 86 Terrace Lanexa Kansas um the parking excuse me your question was about number of employees um at full buildout for both phases we're looking at somewhere between about 200 and 300 employees um number could fluctuate but that's generally the magnitude that we're looking for um those 150 parking spaces too um so those those 200 to 300 employees at full buildout would be in shift work and so um there wouldn't need to be 200 to 300 spaces there would need to be somewhere north of 100

then I saw a slide with a noise study go to that

absolutely um yeah so when we went through and did noise modeling you're going to see on the left side um with full operations uh without generators running on the right side you're going to see emergency generator generator operation operations. Um those emergency generator operations are exempted from code typically and and in this case they are as well. But um we're showing both of these because we're meeting uh DODTO's code limits for uh sound spillage onto neighboring properties. We don't exceed 50 dB at any of the residential properties. We don't exceed uh 60 at any of the surrounding commercial properties. And we don't exceed 75 at really any location. And when you say it doesn't exceed, is that spike noise or is that a constant 50 dB?

I would need to check with our acoustic engineers. I It meets the the spirit and letter of the code. Question. I Yeah. Um, we might be able to get um we might be able to get input from our civil engineer if Brianna is online. Um, but she also may not know the answer to that. So, it's worth seeing. I I'll need to unmute her. Hold on. She did. Sorry. I'm sorry, Brianna. If you can hear us, I think you're unmuted now.

Lauren's on here, too. Um, I can at least speak to Oh, Brianna says it's not letting her talk. So, uh, we might be having some technical issues. Is she able like are we able to message in? Let me make her a panelist here. Let's try this.

Awesome. While we're working on that, um it looks like those noise limits for sound measured more than five times per minute or more than 15 seconds at the property line. Brianna, are you able to unmute now? Give me that data again you gave me. What did you say?

Um, most recently I said the noise limits are for sound measured more than five times per minute or for more than 15 seconds at the property line. Uh, that I think is city code and how we probably set up this acoustic modeling study. Um, and those code limitations that we're meeting are 50 dB at residential. So lower than a face tof face conversation. Uh 60 dB for any of the commercial properties and then less than 75 for any of the industrial. Thank you. I'm just very sensitive to this because we just went through talking about this with concrete plants. So we kind of been down this path and there's a difference between the loud bang every once in a while versus a constant hum. Understood.

Well, the generators don't run constantly. Right. So, um, the right model output that showed some of those higher values, that is, like I said, an emergency situation. We wouldn't expect that and it is theoretically exempt from city code. However, we're still meeting those city code restrictions even during emergency operations. We can now, yes, sorry about that. Could we repeat the question just so because I did have to restart my my browser so I apologize.

Sure. Yeah. Uh generally the question was on the noise study uh we talk about being below decibel threshold. The question was is that an instantaneous decel uh reading or is that a sustained uh uh noise level on those settings?

No, it would not be a sustained noise level. Normally when modeling acoustics, it's normally um based on operation times and throughout the day. So it's more of a it's more based on I guess the number of employees are there or like not a long sustained time. It's a peak size. Um but it wouldn't be it wouldn't necessarily be instantaneous or would it be a long period of time if that makes sense? While you're here, is there a reason why we're putting the substation at that particular location? What was the thinking behind it?

Absolutely. Yeah. And if I if I miss anything, if it's okay, you know, we have folks from Evergy here to address that as well. But um at its core um part of the reason for putting the substation where it was was to minimize any new transmission infrastructure. If we move that further into the site, we're adding transmission infrastructure further into the site uh off of Energy Way. Um additionally, with its proximity to um the rest of that development, uh it reduces the impact for any of the surrounding residents. uh and then from getting transmission lines any closer to 95th or to um further along K10. So the intent was to minimize new transmission infrastructure and the visual impacts from that increase the safety so that there is access uh off of energy way that they don't have to go through a secure uh access point for um and then uh going off of that our the project substation immediately to the north of the utility substation is located there to minimize the amount of overhead lines from the EverG utility substation to ours so that we can handle as much of that um electrical infrastructure underground from our substation.

Absolutely. Revisiting, if I may, um the earlier conversation about the landscaping. So, all of those to the west and along K10 are essentially at or outside the limits of disturbance. And so, those are currently shown as basically wherever the grade is today. Um, that is something that if it makes sense to basically take another of that string on that western corner and fill that in closer, that's something that we can duplicate.

Thank you. Any other questions for Brad or the applicant right now or should we begin discussion? What's your pleasure? Um, just a comment on the city's noise regulations. We don't have an exemption for emermergency vehicles, but not not for running generators. I think that was mentioned that

and you agree with the analysis that our sound organs doesn't really distinguish between sustained noise and the occasional elevated pieces. Correct.

Well, I'll start. Nobody else wants to.

Um I I think the applicant has done a great job of trying to make this building these very very large buildings attractive and I I applaud you for those efforts and I applaud staff for working with you to try and do that. That said, this is going to be very very visible not only from the highway but from 103rd or energy way or whatever we want to call it. Um, and because of that, I think that we need to be very diligent about what we're doing with screening, what we're doing with the elevations, what we're doing with how these things are going to appear as part of a site plan. I would also suggest that because the substation is part of this campus and it's it's designed to serve this campus that putting it in Everg's ballpark and saying, "Oh, this is just a regular substation is a disservice to the community because I think this is actually electronic and mechanical equipment that is adjacent to a building which otherwise we would require 100% screening from the road and the fact that the applicant has chosen to put this on the doorstep of our community that's right off of what will be undoubtedly a busy intersection at some point that we're going to have that sort of visual impact to me makes it not workable. I don't like that. Now, maybe we can do enough with screening so that we don't end up having a giant substation be the gateway to our town, but the way that this looks to me, this doesn't seem like the right plan for that. So, I'm open to any suggestions on what we can do to address that. I'm I know that I shared that with EverG last time they were here, too, is that the location of this is troubling to me, and I'm still troubled by it. Um, if there's no other way to do it, fine. I understand that. By that same token, I think that we should treat it in accordance with our regulations with anybody else who would build in an M1 that all electrical and

mechanical equipment located adjacent to the building and visible from any adjacent public third affair be screened from view 100% opacity. That's our rule. And I don't think that I'm going off on left field by saying, well, merely because EverG's building it doesn't apply because EverG's building it for this customer. Can I can I provide a little bit of Sure. I knew you guys wanted to hear me talk. Absolutely. We always love to hear you talk.

I wasn't gonna do my presentation at least. Um, so regarding the the substation site because it's electrical infrastructure because it has transmission lines going to it. Our ability to screen is limited no matter where it goes. I understand it being at the at the entrance and stuff is is concerning. we can work and I think we've agreed to work with Brad on some trees. Okay. Some trees and as much as possible and on the west side where you know where the traffic is more we can we can work on getting taller trees over there and and working on the screening on that side. The part of the reason why it's where it is is access is critical for our our infrastructure. We have to be able to have 247 365 access no matter what you move it into the the secured area. we have to work with security for maintenance and everything like that. So, we can't guarantee our access on that side. So, I understand I completely understand it's concerning um on where it's at, but if we move it in, we'll have more transmission lines. Trees and transmission lines don't get along. So, I I really think the screening might be even more difficult if we moved it in um because it would limit what what Beiel can do on their property to help screen it on that side. So, just a little context. I completely understand where you're coming from. We can work on the west side for for some more trees to help to help screen there. We do have that wall and we'll do what we can on the south um outside of our corridor. So, I just wanted to add that little bit to it.

Thank you.

I also didn't tell you my name. Do I need to do that? Please do. Jessica Keek with Evergy, 818 South Kansas Avenue, Topa, Kansas. Of course, we know who you are, but for the record. So, c can you go back to that that last slide that we were looking at just right there? This one? Yeah. So, you can clearly see that dirt that I'm talking about in in that area right there. You can see going it's parallel with the K10 and then it jets back into the east and then goes north. Oh, in here. Yeah.

Yeah. So, that's all dirt that's there today. That BMS could be added. There can be grading done. I mean, the landscape plan that you guys presented is great. It has large evergreen trees, conifers, and then some pin oaks. I mean, that's a large project. We can make this work. We can do a better job. I mean, not that you did a bad job, but we can improve with what you have. So I I I think I mean I hear chairman's point, but we can improve with what we have presented with grading and BMS and this elevate the trees to help with the screening.

Um may I sure address Thank you, uh chairman. Um yeah, we're we're open to adding conditions for additional screening plantings, um additional screening walls as necessary. Um, I think the only thing that I would caution on that K10 side is that I think if we encounter their right of way, we probably aren't able to adjust grading at that area. Right. But I guess and and I I agree 100%. But where I'm getting at is the grading that's there right now on that aerial is outside of the rideway. Should be. Yeah. Sure is.

Yeah. I think additional screening, whether that's through landscaping or birming, is something that we'd be that's a condition that we can accept.

I have other things if you want to move on from that. There you go. So, I do agree with staff with regard to the south elevation and I'd encourage you to work with staff to to address those concerns. Um, as far as the north side goes, I I I'm okay with that. I I think that the north side of building two, it would be nice to have something that's going to be the visible portion of that that's not covered by building one would probably be valuable. Okay.

But, you know, I that's that's a matter of taste, I suppose, more than anything else. But that's part of what we do here. So um and then as far as the noise study issue, I I am concerned about sustained noise and how that may be different than than what we have. I also understand we work with the rules we have. So you're telling me that you comply with the rules and I'm hearing from our lawyer that our rules are what the rules are. It's probably enough to make me want to complain about our rules, but that be the case. I do understand that.

That's kind of what I've got. I might flag as well if I may. Um, full operations on the left. Um, as I said before, we're still meeting those limitations and and going below those. Um, this full operations is again, since this is an air cooled facility for this phase, um, this is actually showing all of our chillers and HVAC running at once. So, this is also slightly out of realistic day-to-day operations and we're um meeting or beating code requirements. Thank you. Just to clarify, were you saying you would exceed our levels with the generators running? We would not. So, we're exceeding the expectation, not the value.

Okay. Lower value. I love that distinction. So, um, I guess I I guess I I know what the noise in Allen Fieldhouse is, but what's the noise on K10? Do you have an idea what the actual highway is so I can get a comparison on on um levels? We would have done a background study, but I don't have that number off the top of my head. Most likely it is greater than that 50. That'd be good. That'd be a good number to compare it to. Yeah, it'd be nice to know that. Good call.

I can I can typical typical highway noises 70 to 80 dB and I think yours came in at 50. So, a little bit louder. Yeah. Over twice as loud. Well, depending on where you make it from, I guess, right? How many cars going, right? 50t 70 to 80 from 50 feet away is where highway is according to Google AI. Correct.

So, I I do want to echo some of Roger's comments. I do appreciate u staff's working with and the applicant working with staff to get, you know, uh to the point where we are today. Uh appreciate really all the work that staff has done on this report. I mean, it really has helped us. you know, we only had four or five days to review this package and this is a heck of a project and and to really kind of uh streamline stuff for us. So, I do I want to say thanks for staff for working hard on that. Um, you know, the building is what it is. I think it's a I mean, it's a large box building and I think you've done a great job. I think it's a it's a modern looking building. I I like the looks of it. Uh but I think we do need to uh you know handle some of the screening and do what we can to uh put some BMS in, you know, elevate the landscape landscaping so it is better screen from K10 and and every way and I understand everybody's point. We got to you got transmission lines and I understand that but if you can help us out on that I think I'd be more comfortable with the landscape plan. uh the noise I from what everybody's AI is probably listening what I'm saying right now. Uh if that's where it's at then I got a good reference uh to the silence out there.

Yeah. Other discussion?

Well, I know noise has been the sound levels has been a real issue for every time I see someone talking about it, that's a real issue. And I think if you can show that it's not um going to be a problem, then I think that was good. And the other issue of course is the water in this system setup is different than the oldfashioned ones I understand. So I don't think that's going to be an issue at all. Um I just want to make sure that that sound is we're not going to hear about that later. Understood.

I guess I would ask a question about the water use. Is is the uh demand consistent or are you going to have a increased demand for startup

uh specific to water? So this this phase is going to be air cooled which means there would be an initial fill that we would coordinate either with water 7 or the city of Dodto. I think something shy of 50,000 gallons uh to start off with but I am not the actual water engineer in charge of that. Um after that once those cooling systems are full they generally don't need recharged um for the next 5 10 15 years. So these are true closed loop as opposed to closed loop augmented with other water. Yeah. So the neighbors could experience some some reduced pressures during

No. No. We're we're working very closely with rule 7 and the applicant to make sure uh part of the development agreement calls for a significantly sized public water man to be extended to the property. And so we'll make sure that peak hourly peak day peak minute demand won't diminish system. If anything the neighbors at you know once the infrastructures in will experience sign significantly better flow and water than they've ever thought possible out there. I I I mean I don't feel bad in saying I mean I I could see it with a little care engine this could be done with no impact you know just like when they fill water towers they Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. That would be the intent for sure.

Yeah. And sometimes you know during construction of the systems you'll have flushing startup things like that. Um you know we're just going through it with Panasonic. Uh and yeah you're right they're coordinated. Let's do them at night. Let's do one off off the

Thank you. uh city manager Brungart, I got a a message from our civil engineer, Brianna, uh that she had raised her hand, but I think the the gist of the message is that um detention pond, most adjacent to K7, Evening Star, and Energy Way, uh will basically have a BM. Um I'm not sure how visible that was in the grading plan. So, you're you're messaging with Brianna. She can't I think she I just didn't want to.

Okay, good. All right. Well, you're on. Feel free. You guys can hear me. We were talking about that northern area along K10 and talking about needing a burn there. So, we want to revisit um that cereal that we had had. Yeah. So, basically, they keep going. You just keep going. Okay. Sorry. Here.

Yeah. Right there. So that that pond to the north of there that you see the top that pond. So um in right there is that 890 and the top of our b of our pond is 899. So that is essentially a 9 foot BM that supports our pond. So there there is essential screening there from casing as well as um the other pond that you are seeing down there. There is also that area the existing grade is at 895 and the top of our is around 9006. So you're also looking at a 10 B up there as well. The ponds do create a natural BM which also natural. So I just wanted to highlight that here from you guys.

I didn't ask are these detention ponds. Will there be water in them or is it just for water? Yeah. Okay. So, they're just just for runoff. Uh, right. Okay.

Other comments?

You guys have all come up with the questions. I would have thought about something and a few I didn't. So, well, I I have a recommendation which would be that we table this to give them an opportunity to address these issues with staff that we talked about.

If possible, we'd love to uh rather make it a condition that we continue to work with staff and you all on what's an acceptable uh confirmation of that BM, what's an acceptable additional amount of plantings to achieve the screening that you all are looking for. the conditions within the staff report uh the approval with conditions. We're comfortable with all of those and so it feels pretty easy for us to say yes, we'll accept a condition for additional screening um and to continue onward.

Appreciate the applicant's view. My view hasn't changed. I still think that this is the very different project than what we normally see and I think we ought to have it set before we approve it. And approving it with conditions makes me uncomfortable. That's me. Anybody else have a suggestion? So, you're saying all three items or just I do. I think it's a campus. They're all three together.

I might bring up some some additional backup. One second. Um, yeah. So, just just to reiterate why we would prefer the condition. Um, obviously we've had machinery out there uh moving dirt. We're on a pretty critical timeline and so it would be um really difficult to accept the the one-month delay from this planning commission to the next planning commission when it's something that we would diligently work on improving and addressing your concerns with staff uh and with city council moving forward.

So Brad, did you take note of everything that we wanted done? Edgar did. No. Yes, I did. So if Edgar relays what our stipulation requests were, would that be sufficient?

It wouldn't be for me just because I am extremely uncomfortable with the substation being as visible as it is and out there in front. And until you have an opportunity to kind of explain that and get your your plan together so that we can address that issue, I'm a no. So if you want to take a vote, we can do that, but I would love to give you the chance to do it and prove me wrong. But right now, I'm seeing a giant substation on the curb of our our our city, and I don't like it. So, I to me, I think that's well within our regulations that says this is electrical and mechanical equipment adjacent to the building. You can talk about how this is actually ever stuff, but this is for you. C

um can I just quiz the EverGy team? Will this only ever only serve our site?

Add in there. You got it. Don't forget your name. Yeah, Kale levels speak Kansas um energy obviously. Uh no, this uh the substation is designed to serve be. But additionally, we have space for um existing or future improvements, expansion inside the fence to uh accommodate future utilities, industry, uh transformer space, anything that comes along. And and where would those serve other than this particular property? Could be a 12KV circuit that comes out and feeds the grid. Could be 34 KV. Could be more customers that come along in the future. Anything.

But as of now, that is not part of your plan. That is what we have included inside of our footprint. The initial buildout is to serve what is critical with space to build out for the future. And the future use is for something outside of this property. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Well, that's news to me. Thank you.

I might just add something as well, and I'm not sure exactly what the power facility does, but in our international building code, we indicate that, and this is section 105.2, to a permit shall not be required for the installation, alteration or repair of generation, transmission, distribution or metering or equipment that is under the ownership and and control of public service agencies by established right. So, um and then of course our site plan approval is that's for things you need a building permit for. So, um just wonder if the whole concern is the power station, you know, the fact that they don't need a building permit. I know they need it for the fence, but um just a little bit concerned that that uh with that definition in the building code because it I mean it's a little surprising but it seems like they just get a pass if I mean I assume this facility would be for generation, transmission, distribution or metering equipment. You are correct. Yes.

Can I help? Sure. Uh, good evening. My name is Paul Kelly. I'm the project senior project architect with HDR. I live at 440 North 61st Street in Omaha, Nebraska. um what you're referring to in the code being in chapter one way at the beginning, they're trying to exclude the building official from having to review utilities like that. I mean, it's really more of a there are other codes to to dictate that. So, the building code really isn't the right one to be looking at for that.

Well, but our zoning our site plan process is prefaced with buildings that need a building permit. So that what my point I'm making is the site plan process is prefaced on whatever is the subject of the site plan is something that you need a building permit for. Oh, correct. Yeah. And just like any other zoning ordinance, you know, the project needs to meet your statutes, you know, your requirements, you know, before any building code would be offered. So, no, I agree.

Yeah. So you're you're correct on your we're exempt from IBC because we have critical infrastructure exemptments and all that fun stuff. The site plan technically should just be for the wall and the screening that goes along with it and not the infrastructure on the inside. That's why we don't show the actual infrastructure on the inside. It's a security thing. We don't get permits for it. So yeah, it is the wall and the screening that goes along with it. Yeah, you're correct. So, if it if it were I'm just asking if it was delayed a month, I mean, are you guys out there moving dirt right now? I mean, you should be able to get a permit to move dirt.

That's correct. So, we are out there moving dirt. I think we already have our land disturbance permit through the city. Um, but we're wanting to move forward with some of our initial um plan reviews on footings and foundations, things like that. And so, um, we we're on critical path basically. I'll add to that, too.

In addition, since we need a building permit for the wall, um, and we have to secure our substation site, we want to have the wall or we need to have the wall at the latest by October. So, getting the time frame in there to get the pad done and let it settle and all the fun stuff that goes along with it and then get the wall in. That's that's why every on time crunch, I think I tried to explain that last time. I don't know if I explained it well or not, but it's it's our timing to get the wall and get the materials ordered and then get the building permit that goes along with it, too. So, they're on a time crunch. We are as well to try to make it all work at the same time. Well, it doesn't sound to me like you're going to move that location. So, that's not going to happen in my opinion. What they're saying, they're not willing to move it.

I'd love to be convinced that it's not going to be an albatross in the doorstep of these. I totally agree with you. I don't like that either, but you know, I don't know that I necessarily think we have to just kick it to Brad to figure it out. I don't think that's right, but you know, it's up to you guys.

What stipulations can we cause to have them to move back? Hey chairman, if I just to suggest an idea, I don't know how much baby splitting we can really do, but if the applicant might be comfortable if the buffering and screening review comes back to the planning commission rather than just being left with stat, I don't know if that'd give any there'd probably be some apprehension on their side, too. So, it's just an idea. That's a stipulation you could make bring that landscaping buffering plant back here rather than

Yeah, Mike. And as you recall, I think memory serves on the Panasonic, we did a we did a staged approval with that and allowed the applicant for Panasonic to proceed with foundations footings and and start that process and we had architectural review and then landscape review after that. So I don't know if that's once again going to be hard to split all those hairs with the right words. I think I kind of agree with Linda. I think the substation is where it's at where it's at. I I agree. I mean, I wish it would have been laid out. No, then that's fine. I mean, if we don't want to do it, I'm just one vote.

But then I guess if we if we did split it out and bring the the landscaping and and buffering and screening back next month, is that can you make significant changes to you think do that? I know you've talked about where the trees can be and you can only have so many. So, I mean, realistically, how much can you hide this thing and make it more appealing as they're entering our city?

As far as what we could accomplish in the next month if we were to hold back and and come back with um a refreshed landscaping and buffering plan. Um, I assume we'd be able to look at more optimal locations for some of that landscaping. We'd be able to look at whether a burm is feasible given the right of way and the storm water detention basins. Um, I am not a landscape engineer, but uh I imagine we'd be able to come up with at least a couple of options um or uh to really truth out that um there's no additional screening possible. Um so I I appreciate that idea and I think we'd be very open to um bringing back the landscaping and screening. Thank you. Thank you. So we have three items before us. We probably need to do separate votes on all of them. My recommendation is tableabling. I understand there are reasons not to. So if anyone wants to make a motion, feel free. Probably first if we're ready to do that, you want to have some more discussion, we can do that, too. But we have probably item 7 A first and then I would say item 7B and then item 7 C. So

Mike, just to clarify, were you suggested approve with the condition that these items come back to the planning commission? Yeah. Approve the site plan.

Yeah. uh with make with the staff recommendations on the architecture and an additional uh condition that the landscaping buffering that addresses the substation area come back uh at the next council meeting. I'm sorry planning commission. That was my idea in general. That would address the substation and the site plan landscape.

Yeah, since they're kind of two separate, probably put that condition on both of them. Well, I guess one more little thought before we move on to a vote. I'm a little bit concerned, more concerned after this discussion about the location of the substation being so close to to the road and what energy would even allow for landscaping between the road and the wall. I don't I I'm I'm wondering how much you're going to be able to do with that substation in the position it's in and if the only way to get significant buffering from landscaping between the wall and the road is to move shift the substation a little bit.

Then maybe we shouldn't be doing the approval of the site plan. Can you give me any comfort that you're going to we're going to be able to put significant trees out there between the substation and the street? The lines are coming south no matter what. Right. Okay. So, no matter where we put the substation, the transmission lines are going to go south. So where there's transmission line corridors, there can't be trees. We can put trees that are outside this transmission line corridors, but no matter where you put that substation,

our transmission lines coming south. I'll I'll accept that that there will be some lines out of the substation that won't be fully landscape. But I'm talking about a tree and would be actually able to screen that facility between the street and the wall.

So, we've had quite a bit of luck with some smaller shrubs to help break up the screening. Um, I understand what you're saying and this is where I'm going to hopefully compromise and not get yelled at by my team. Um, outside of our transmission line corridors on the south side. If we can put trees that are outside of our transmission line that's not going to interfere with it, we are willing to do that. In between where we have the transmission line, we can put the shorter brush bushes or some trees that I think get 10 feet or lowerish, 10 to 15 feet inside our corridor, but they can't get taller than that. So, yes, we can do some stuff to help to help break it up and then put stuff outside of where actually transmission line corridor is going to be. Does that make sense?

Yeah. I'm I'm more concerned with the type of tree that would have a drip line that could get to the wall, you know, drip line on the tree. You mean the to cover like to cover? So if you want a a evergreen or something along that you can't I don't think an evergreen's gonna do Yeah. gonna screen this facility. So if you have a you know an oak an elm blackberry those trees get fairly significant in height.

They do. They do. And they have a a pretty wide drip line. That's what I'm concerned about that EverGy won't let a tree that'll truly screen the facility be put between the street. It's probably safe to assume they won't. Yeah. Not not not not an oak or anything like that. No, that that can't go where it's going to be. I mean, it'll be there and then it'll get trimmed up in 10 years. That's kind of Well, you know, that wouldn't be the end of the world. But on the west side where there's not correct there's not there's not lines on the west side

which I get I understand is not along the road there's probably not there I don't think there's lines on the east side as well. We can put trees there and that will help and along the front we can put some br bushes. You're not going to hide a substation no matter where you put it but we can make it more visually aesthetic and make it look better. Yeah. I, you know, screening doesn't always hide everything, right? But a lot of times it detracts, you know, you you got a you got something to see there besides the substation and that if that were significant trees along the road,

then I would be pretty happy with it. But if EverGy won't allow it in his current position those types of trees, then I could see an option, you know, not change this whole site, but maybe shift the thing 20 foot north the substation. And in doing that, if that would allow for some significant a few significant trees to be put in there, that would give you something else to look at besides substation. I I'd be comfortable with that.

Does this whole project depend on the substation? Do you have to have the substation? Yes. But I can see every you know you got to you got to take care of your facility. I understand that. So what's I I'm curious if that has been taken into consideration.

I'm not talking about shrubs. But with with the wall, I mean, with the wall being 9 foot tall, if you're driving by or if you're walking by, if you have trees, if you have some shrubs and some shorter trees, that's going to break up your the visual side of the substation. And honestly, putting our shrubs underneath our transmission line is something we don't normally do. So, this is a this is a big exception that we're willing to work with the city because we understand we understand what what you're what you're striving for. So, we're trying to we're trying to work with you to make it visually aesthetic and and make it work with what's going on here.

I mean, so that's that's what we can do. Even if we pushed it back 20 foot, you're still going to you're still going to have those corridors. And I don't see a tree being able to be planted, a tall tree like you're asking for. That's going to work even if you push it back 20 foot. The corridors are that close together. How many of them do we have, Kale? Mr. Kale, how many corridors do we have coming out south? uh ultimately three and they're with room for more in the future. So that's 300 foot. Yeah, 300 foot corridors. So yeah, they're pretty substantial, but those are going to be going out to the south. Yes, correct. Because those aren't shown anywhere on this stuff. See any of that. That's

I get it. So you have transmission lines down the transmission lines are not regulated by the the governing body. And if we show them on a site plan and we're not final 100% on where the infrastructure is going on the inside of the sub, if we show our transmission line, it gets put into public record and if it shifts and it moves and it looks different, it puts us in a spot that we don't ever want to be in. So, so are you saying 300T for the three lines that you have planned now or 300 foot per line for the lines planned now? Total. Total. Yes. 100 foot corridors and that's all going out to the south. Correct.

But the stuff on the west, there's nothing on that would be stopping us putting landscaping on the west side of correct. And that's why that's why on the west we'll make it as pretty as we can. Okay. Okay. Then my thoughts on the west are that the best way to have effective landscaping is to take you the top of your fill and move it far enough west to uh allow the trees to be planted on top of that at the same elevation as the as the bottom of the wall. And that's where coordination with be going to have to come into play because it's outside of our easement. But

not Yeah. I'm sorry. I wasn't asking you. Yeah. Yep.

Can I double check? Yeah. Uh just checking my understanding there. So on the west side, you want um additional fill. This is on the west of the utility substation. Uh you want fill to the same elevation for the outside of the bottom of the wall. Did I hear that right? Yeah. Where the where the landscaping is planted.

Okay. I think I follow that and I think that's that's something that we can work toward as long as the grading plans can make that work. Um I think um I apologize. I don't know which commissioner brought up having something I think it was um you Commissioner Huggin having something else to look at. Um maybe not even just being about blocking things, but something else to look at. Um, one of the things we could also look at, especially if we're breaking out the landscaping and screening and bringing it back, we could look at making one of those detention basins retention and putting some kind of fountain feature in it. Um, additionally, something that we've ideated but not really vetted is if there's enough space on um, that western portion, so west of the utility substation, potentially dedicating a space for the city to use for a future monument sign. Give something for folks to latch on to instead of what's in the background.

I like both of those ideas because that is going to distract the eye. Good points. I mean, it's not perfect, but they're doing everything they can to work with this. And they're not going to move it. So, you got to make a bigger band-aid or not prune it or not. Well, regardless of what trees they use, there's only so big of a tree that they can transplant. I get And there's only so many feet it's going to grow a year, right? So, it's going to be a while. even if they come up with the ideal plan before this thing is fully screened. But I mean they're not gonna move it.

If they're not gonna move it, they've got to do something.

Mr. Chairman, if I could, Court Maxwell Pulsonelli firm representing Beal. Pleasure to be with you guys all again. Um, one of the things that I would add to this discussion about sort of the point and I think why we've all latched on to that component of coming back to work on just the burming and the other ideas that we've ideated that could help is while this is the site plan process, we really have looked at both with the Flint pro project and this project that that would have been the site for heavy utilities and as part of it's of not part of this planning process, the quasi judicial process we're in, but part of the development agreement process we went through. We actually had a site plan included in that of a very conceptual nature, but it was always where we showed the utilities to be in that corner. Part of the thinking that went in not just with all these discussions we've had and I absolutely understand the chairman's point that this is a gateway to the city is this is also sort of the furthest point from the residential we were most thinking about when we started the Flint project. Basically when you go across the street there that we start moving into residential. We've built a million square foot industrial building. We're talking about other significant uh architecturally impressive buildings. We are putting this on the corner. Our biggest neighbor will be Astra that as that comes forward will have a industrial character as well. This is not going to be where neighbors are most likely to be where there is going to be a residential. So I think all the things that Everg has said and others have said are absolutely true. We're not going to be able to screen it, but we can come up ways for the driving public as they're looking at it that it still looks classy

while still protecting our Dodto residents that are further up to the north and the east in this process was another reason that we're looking to that component. So, I absolutely understand the point, Mr. Chairman. I just thought I would offer that as another sort of planning process we've been through over the several years of why did it come to that area beyond all the safety reasons and others. But we're committed to working with this commission and this council in good faith as we have through all of this process. And I would also say we're happy to come back in front of this commission to the burming and landscaping and ideiating process. We are by no means done with the city of Dodto. This has been an iterative process with you all for years on this site. We expect that will continue to happen. And so when we make these commitments that we want to work and make Brad happy and Mike happy and Patrick happy, but also the chairman happy, there's something behind that that we've got a lot of more approvals to work through with you over the years and decades on this site. So

thanks for Thank you. do appreciate the context. My viewpoint is still the same. I'd like to see it before we approve it. If you guys want to approve it and have it come back, that's your vote. But for me, I'd like to see it together. And I'd like to see it because I think this is a significant it it'll have a significant impact on how this is going to what what people see when they get to this town. And I think it's it's critical. But that's just me. So,

so do I understand you to say that you want to proceed with A and B and put the site plan to come back next month for our approval? Is that what I understand? Well, my suggestion was to table it. Um,

yeah, but I I think that probably my guess is that we could certainly take up the plaque because I don't think anybody has probably any objections to that. Um, but I think the two site plans to me, they're they're they're together and I would table both of them until we had that addressed. I mean, the the the buffering and the screening is not part of Everg's site plan, but the screen's EverG's site plan. So, I mean, it's like they're all intertwined. And so I to me I would like to see it in a way that I could face my neighbors when they're driving down K10 and say why did you approve that? I'd kind of like to be able to tell them why. But you know that's good.

So with it pulled out that way you all can still go ahead and proceed with what you need to do until the next meeting. Would that be correct? If pulled out, sorry, seeking uh clarification. If platt is pulled and still voted on tonight, plans come back in their entirety or plans come back bifurcated as uh city manager Brart suggested. I think you want council or plan commission. My recommendation is to table the site plan until we have it comfortable. If we want to approve the site plan with conditions, that's your choice.

Okay. Okay. So, if we go with that route and we prove it with conditions at night with the bufferings and or the the burming and landscaping coming back, what do we have to hold these guys to if they don't like we don't like it in a month? Certificate of occupancy. Okay. Okay. We're really That's why I'm saying I think we should table. But I think you're Mike, you were saying condition the approval. So you're you're essentially not approving until these conditions are. So

well I think essentially if you condition the landscaping buffering part if you bifurcate that out condition it then they would have approval to build the buildings with the architecture where they are and the and the land and the grading and everything else associated. They would not have approval on the landscaping and buffering plans until they satisfy us and and that's that's before they get an occupancy permit. The question is um and I I think what chairman is advocating and and Mr. Huggin pro mentioned it to the degree as well. What if there's just no way to satisfy our buffering itch uh with this particular layout? That's that's the question. Staff's review um of the overall site plan in general is that it meets the spirit and intent of our regulations as we read them as we interpret them. Planet Commission obviously doesn't have to uh agree with that. Um but u in terms of the overall so so my concept was there is an approval that gives them by right the ability to go and and build this thing in its general mass and form and function just like it is while we work out details to put a bigger band-aid on uh you know what is essentially the substation uh as well as you know let's don't forget the architectural stuff along the south side of that big building. So,

but I guess where I was going, if we don't like what we see next month, what's going to stop them from the final step? Is it getting that occupancy permit? No computers allowed to be turned on. Yeah, it's getting that occupancy permit. But I think our our VFW hall about 25 years ago, we did the same thing and they never did. I mean, it's like Yeah. Your your ability to say no next month would then be limited. just landscaping operating essentially.

I guess there would be another option we haven't discussed and that's if schedule is paramount. We could recommend denial to the c to the council and then council could um so to that uh this is the body that approves there's this doesn't go forward to the council. right that there is a a provision in the code where the applicant can appeal a decision of the planning commission to council. There's that provision. It's never happened. I don't know what the time frame for that would be. I don't know the conditions under which that appeal would have to be made.

Well, I'm not trying to make things more difficult for anybody, but I do think that this is a big enough and an important enough project that we ought to have it approved in a condition that we're comfortable with. Not the least of which is the screening and the buffering associated with the with the substation and certainly all the other elements that we talked about having the south elevation completed and you know I I think that's those are you know the north elevation is going to be visible. Those are two things that I got out of the report. I think it's important enough for us to table, but it's up to you. Well, I I would generally be in support of uh Mike's suggestion of uh you know approving the site plan with uh approval of the landscaping in Birming if we have some type of condition that they can't get the occupancy permit if we don't approve it. Are you all good with that?

Uh, Bill's Bill would accept that as a as a condition to approval for sure. Ever would as well. That's all right. Chris.

Well, I think knowing these conditions and what we have asked for, I think they'll certainly strive to try to meet those. And I see what you're saying. I don't like it there either. But if it's got to go in for this thing and it's don't know how to get around it other than try to make it as nice as we can with the we could put a pier you said for the city sign or something like that up there and I know it's a band-aid but I don't know what to do if they've met all of our other requirements. I don't know how we can

I've argued ahead. But I'm on voice. I get you. So I'm going to ask this question. If you make this recommendation and it gets denied,

what what happens? Well, then I think you just the approval would fail and you could take up another motion. Okay. Oh, okay. Yeah,

I'm not making a motion to deny. I'm making a motion to table. But I haven't made a motion and I don't intend to. So, I'll let you guys decide what you want to do. Make a motion we approve the site plan um as presented uh agenda item 7A consider site plan for bill infrastructure uh per the staff conditions with the additional condition they're going to come back next month with a birming and landscape plan for planning commission approval uh prior to receiving a occupancy permit.

Second that moved and seconded. Any further discussion. And just to clarify that would be any temporary or permanent. So any no occupancy permit at all. Yes. Further discussion. Roll call. Schultz, yes. Melbourne, yes. Huggin, no. Templan, no. Lane, yes. Martin, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Would you like to address 7B?

Oh. Uh, I make them. Let's see. One sec. Sorry, I didn't mean to put on the spot. Oh, I can. That's fine. Just want to make sure I'm reading the right thing here. Sorry. Make a motion we approve the final plat for project pilot phase one agenda item 7 B as presented. Um I don't think we have to pass it on to council those easements. So make a motion we approve it as presented with staff recommendations.

With stack Yeah. With staff recommendations second it second. Any further discussion on 7B? Roll call. Martin. Yes. Templan. Yes. Lane. Yes. Huggin. No. Milver. Yes. Schultz.

Yes. Motion carries. Item 7 C for consistency. I think you probably want to have a similar motion that would be subject to the conditions because that's the 7C would be the Evergy substation. Make a motion we approve agenda item 7C U site plan for EverGy Blackbird substation with uh staff's recommended conditions along with uh resubmitt of a landscape and birming plan uh for the planning commission review and approval prior to any occupancy permits.

Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion on item 7 C? Roll call. Melbourne, yes. Schultz, yes. Huggin, no. Lane, yes. Templan, no. Martin, yes. Motion carries. Believe that concludes our agenda for tonight. Thanks everybody for being here and we have our next planning commission meeting that is set for What did I do with it? 26. May 26. May 26. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second.

Moved and seconded. We're adjourned. Thank you.