Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. I'm sure Oh, okay. Yeah, that's right. Yeah.

Oh, that's right. Yeah. Find some place next week.

This is weird. Yeah. All right.

. . .

Thank you, sir.

My clock says 6 o'clock.

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Roll call.

Martin? Yeah. Templin? Yes. Lane?

Here.

Huggins?

Here.

Meddock? Schultz? Here. Miller? Here. Mr. Chairman, it looks like Commissioner Meddock is absent today.

Thank you. Item 3A, approve the Planning Commission agenda. Any changes, corrections, modifications made at this time?

Make a motion. We approve the agenda as presented.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Agenda is approved. Item 3B, approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held April 28, 2006. Any changes, corrections, or modifications to be made to the minutes? Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Very good. And it's approved. Item 3C, Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest. Anyone have anything to disclose tonight?

Chairman, I'll have to excuse myself from items 5A, 5B, and 7D.

Why did you come? Glad to see you. Anybody else?

Thanks.

I'm here for you. Item 3D, disclosure of outside communications regarding commission business. Anything to disclose? Okay. Item 4, call 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 presentation is for information purposes only. No action will be taken. There's a four-minute time limit. Anyone like to address the planning commission tonight? Seeing no one leap up. one online correct i will close the call to the public brings us to public hearing items 5a consider rezoning arbor ridge 5 at 89th and kill creek to r1a commissioner milburn has left the room all right thank you mr chairman i'm going to do one staff report because essentially 5a and 5b are the same except for the one designation of uh

R2 that will be in Arbor Ridge 5 subdivision. So I will go through the staff report but we will still need two separate motions on on the items. First application is to rezone R1 residential 22 acres to R1A as you recall we've gone through the R1A process. It's a narrower lot but it's single family residential. So to do the perfunctory Notifications, newspapers, send out letters, put up the sign, things like that. At this time, I've not heard any kind of disagreement or questions from nearby residents on this rezoning request. Basically, what we have is an R1, which is our low density residential district. We are changing it to R1A, which is what we call a moderate density district.

Brett, would you remind us, what's the significant difference between those two?

Well, it's 90 feet plot width frontage for R1, and it's 50 feet minimum for R1A. So the setbacks are smaller. Minimum lot size is about half in the R1A, so we are reducing it quite a bit. Thank you. So this is on 89th Street, just a little bit east of Kill Creek Road. also the arbor ridge 5 will tie into valley springs drive on the south so it will have a connection through you know we we do on this one have a preliminary platz we'll get into some of that discussion on the road network but right now we're just talking about the rezoning request only the two before you for arbor ridge 5. so you can see on the map there's an r1a which is the majority of the rezoning request and then the proposed R2, which is in the northeast corner of the zoning request area. And then the PD area is Arbor Ridge phases one through four. And then on the next slide, you can see the area of the area, which does show the Arbor Ridge subdivision and then also the large lot R1 zoning districts all around this particular location. Review of the zoning compatibility factors. The first is character of the neighborhood. The surrounding areas we've talked about is single-family residential, and there is a subdivision, even though it's PD, it is a residential smaller lot subdivision, not as small as the potential R1As, but very similar in its size and location as far as relative size of lots. Compatibility with proposed zoning. staff feels it is compatible, it's residential, just not quite as big homes that'll be going in there. And then of course the suitability of the uses where the properties are restricted on the existing zoning. No, it has not been restricted. A long time ago, Don Parr at one point did suggest doing R1A, or pardon me, R1 in this area, but there weren't that many lots and so with the development of the sanitary sewer that's coming through there that made this this development possible with more single family homes property's been vacant as long as i've been here which is 10 years like so we've had no formal applications there have been some discussions and chatter from other developers on this lot but nothing has been before our formal application not been presented and certainly nothing has come to the planning commission prior to this application We talked about the need in the community. That's part of the criteria. Again, we've talked about this at length at different topics, different times, providing different sized lots. We've got 10, 12 acre lots, and we have now the R1A lots, and there's also very small ones in the old town of DeSoto. We have a varying size of rezoning staff thinks this is healthy to have different sizes and different types of living arrangements for people. in the SOTO. Availability of adequacy of required utilities. Sewer line is being built or not being built. There's still a benefit district that's been formed so there is a plan for extending sewer all the way up to the interchange at Gill Creek and K-10 and it will run through the draw that's just to the east of this district and then of course development typically follows sewer lines and that's what we're seeing here police fire schools will see or may see some sort of increase the more people you have you'll just have more ems police fire potential issues but don't see anything significant just because of this rezoning request road improvements are something that we've had a lot of talk with a developer about and then something you've heard before where We've got a lot of old county roads that are just chip sealed, but we have a development agreement where 89th Street will be improved, and the design of these improvements has begun. Don't see any environmental impacts from an R1 to an R1A change. Same with the R2A. You can substitute basically when I say R1A to the R2. Don't see anything significant. Economic impacts, certainly more rooftops, more people will bring more business to town. But once again, sales tax, property tax, it's not really significant. You've got a town of almost 7,000. We'll be adding potentially about 120 units. So it'll be good, but it's not going to be a huge major impact. I don't see that there will be any detrimental effects to the residents nearby. And that's sort of reflected in the fact that I haven't got any calls. Nobody's contacted me directly about their concerns with the rezoning and Is there anything to benefit from those residents that are nearby denying this request? I don't see any. And then ultimately, both of these rezonings are consistent with our comprehensive plan where we show a medium density residential. It's something we might also want to talk about when we get the comp plan about our designations and the land use plan because medium density residential is pretty broad. And we probably ought to break it up a little bit more. But once again, discussion for another day. A recommendation of professional staff is to approve both these rezoning requests. That is also subject to any input that you may receive at the public hearing. So with that, I'll stand for any questions you have. But once again, I'd just like to do one staff report. They're pretty much very similar in their nature as far as the staff reports. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn the floor over to you.

Thank you. Questions for Brad?

Fred, are the future land uses for the surrounding properties consistent with existing?

Really the only changes are basically what's going to happen at the corner of K-10 and Kill Creek Road and then this potential subdivision here because they have direct access to the sanitary sewer line. I don't see any receivable changes to any of the lots nearby. And I've not had even any informal discussions from developers. These lots are vacant. All the others pretty much are owner-occupied units. Yeah.

I was thinking if there's been any investigation into that property.

You're talking about that bigger one that's kind of vacant, has a small little neck or a small little piece that goes back behind. I haven't had any discussions about that track. And it's a pretty difficult site back there. And you can kind of see that's where the R1 is in that corner, I believe, up there, just right there. But no, not had any discussion on that property.

You know, is that property going to be tributary to the sewer that's being constructed?

Let's see. That will... Mike, if you can remember where that is exactly, where that line comes down.

A little. I would say that vast majority of what is being proposed to rezone will flow by gravity into a different watershed than the one that they're building to connect up to K-10, that interchange area. It's really kind of one, there's one ridge line over. And so there's a small portion actually of the, pd part that's north of here in arbor ridge that's low pd that could flow to that new line and maybe the small northwest corner of this proposed r1a could fall that way but in mostly i would say the vast majority of what's here will actually go down that separate tributary that's that's east of of this of the line you're talking about

Other questions for Brad? I've got one. So we're not privy to the development agreement, so we don't know what's been proposed on 89th Street. 89th Street has been a huge problem. I'm assuming at some point the one lane bridge at 89th Street is going to be replaced. Is that covered the development agreement? I mean, what comfort can we have that if this is approved, in fact, those this developer's doing something with it or, you know, because obviously without these, and improving 89th Street, this is a huge problem because you have people that are going to come out of our bridge.

Yeah, in regards to the bridge, we've received funding from Johnson County's school owner management program. And so we're just entering a contract for final design for that. We probably anticipate doing construction next year. Part of the development agreement talks about that. But yeah, so we'll be improving the culvert about 800 feet of the roadway. And then beyond that, we'll look at improving the roadway from Kill Creek to the eastern limits of this development.

Okay, great. Thank you. It's obviously something that's been bugging me. What are we going to do with 89th Street?

So it's being addressed through work we're doing and with the development.

Great. Thank you very much.

Other questions for Brad? So there are two different results here. And we did talk about the difference between R1 and R1A, which is basically the front foot and setback, which before we made those changes, any of our future land use maps predate all that. So this concept of the proliferation of the A1A that's now taken off and apparently the hottest thing going where we didn't have any before is the latest and greatest. So it's something to think about in terms of the future land use map, but that's probably why we didn't really talk. The difference between R1A and R2 is what?

R2 has a 60 foot wide minimum front, so it's wider obviously for two lots, and it also has a 7,500 square foot minimum requirement.

But it's multiple.

But it allows duplexes. Correct.

It allows for duplexes. So the difference between A1, 1A, and 2 is 2 allows for duplexes. Correct. I think that does pose at least a question that's worthy of discussing of whether or not that's an appropriate place for duplex housing.

I guess if I would, Mr. Chairman, when you look at the Arbor Ridge development, there is a significant amount of duplexes lead into the single family area as well. I guess you can kind of see the very bottom of them up there, but there's also a multifamily development in there as well. So one thing that it's kind of, it's this, neighborhood, if you will, Arbor Ridge from phase one all the way now to potentially phase five does have a mix of R1, R2, and multifamily. So I think it's appropriate to sort of continue that. And that's a trend that I've seen a lot more planning around metro areas, interspersed mixes and not just have hardcore. My gosh, it's going to be R1A and that's it. So I've seen that happen much more. in the last five, 10 years.

This is a matter for public hearing, so if we don't have any more questions for Brad, I suppose we should open up for public hearing.

Any objections?

All right. We will now take comments from the public with respect to this proposed rezoning of Arbor Ridge 5 at 89th and Kill Creek from R1A. I'd invite anyone who'd like to discuss R2 at the same time, might as well combine our public hearings and combine our report. Anyone like to address the Planning Commission with regard to this matter before at this moment? Come on up, give us your name and address for the record.

Adam Perkins, 31850 West 89th. I'm on that Southwest 4 there. The few concerns I had were basically my driveway at the bridge. I don't know exactly how that's gonna work with a bigger road, sidewalk potentially on one side or the other. And then the other few things I had was, you probably don't have the plot plan, do you? We actually do. Okay.

I love some mapping. Looking at the preliminary plot,

Yeah, preliminary, yeah. So my only questions were mainly my driveway. If you can extend that, I don't know how it's going to work. And then specifically how the plot plan is laid out now, I didn't know if there was any way on the lots that are in my open area, like 20, 21, 11, 12, 13, maybe to put some sort of green space, like a green space C. Because like on the bottom, you have the green space track A, or track B, and then track A on the right. I didn't know if that was potentially a possibility, just so I, you know, we're not staring at each other. And mainly that was it. so but the the driveway may depend on how the bridge road sidewalk all that works i i don't know how that's going to work we may have to butt into that that southern oh southwest lot to get the driveway in there i'm not sure well thank you for your comments the

They're absolutely appropriate when it comes to the plat. And it all ties together. I get that. And the weird thing about this is that we have to ask ourselves a zoning question whether it's appropriate land use. That's what we have to talk about here. And that's the public hearing part. We get the plat, it's not a public hearing, which is really weird, but that's the way that the statute works. So I appreciate the comments and certainly we'll take that into advisement when we get to the plat.

So there'll be another meeting about the plat? No, it's actually, we're on time here for today. Okay. All right. Well, spoke too soon then.

No, no, you didn't speak too soon because it's not for a public hearing, which is really odd, right?

Okay.

So anyhow, I appreciate the conversation. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the planning commission on this matter? Anybody online, Mike?

Hold on. Just let me check one second.

Now, we do have Brianna and Hunter are both online. I don't know if they want to have them raise their hands. It has to be on you to participate. OK. Maybe we'll give just a moment for either one of them to do that.

okay well I'll close the public hearing yeah at this point the matters then before the Planning Commission comments issues to discuss motion I would say this is

This looks like an appropriate use for the site, assuming that. Is there a benefit district? It's. Established and constructed and 89 straight. Is brought up to a safe standard, so I'd support this.

Definitely 89 street is definitely gonna have to be improved. Hopefully before this gets too far.

Second, we need to add in for this reselling of the 22 acres or is that? You have all the wording, Edgar, off the air.

So you are making a motion, I guess.

Well, I was making a comment, but... Who's making the motion? I'd be glad to make a motion.

That's why I was amending it.

I would make a motion that we recommend Approval of agenda item 5A in accordance with the staff report.

So we're doing that, probably two separate motions here. One's for the R1A.

And that would be for item 5A? Yep.

Okay. Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Schultz?

Yes. Martin?

Yes.

Templin? Yes.

Lane?

Yes.

Huggins?

Yes.

Washington-Pierce?

Very good. Now we're looking for a motion with regard to item 5b. For further discussion.

Dave Kuntz, Further discussion i'd make a motion that we recommend approval of the agenda item five be as presented by staff.

Dave Kuntz, Before we go to the just one thing to think about, and while I do understand we have. Dave Kuntz, Within the arbor Ridge subdivision different kinds of uses, we are this particular. Dave Kuntz, zoning to our to. is not on the thoroughfare it's kind of tucked back in the subdivision it's a little different than maybe what we've seen before i'm not i don't think it's inappropriate but i think it's important to note that as we certainly see the proliferation of these 1a's which seems to be the hot topic because obviously they can make them a lot closer together think about a little bit where we're putting our twos in connection with that and certainly when we're talking about threes but it's it's a different kind of use so We should probably keep it in mind. I am not opposed to that. I'm not opposed to this, but I do think it's important. So we got a motion.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Huggins? Yes. Lane? Yes. Templin? Yes. Martin? Yes. Schultz?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Commissioner Milburn. Welcome back. I believe that brings us to item 7A to consider the landscape plan for Panasonic.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought about actually putting this under old business or could be actually really old business. Because the last time you addressed this was 2023. So we're now three years since the landscape plan was approved initially. And upon review of some changing circumstances, mostly the relocation of the water line along Astor Parkway, also some more investigation on site conditions, the applicant has requested a revision to the landscape plan. And it is significant changes. Mike and Joe and I met with them. actually last November, and they presented some alternatives, and we went through some dialogue with them back and forth. And now they've come up with this plan now to change from essentially a much more forested approach at the Panasonic site to more of a prairie, dry, zero scape approach to the landscaping. So one thing I want to be clear, there's no changes to the building, no changes to parking, no changes to lighting, no photometrics or anything like that are being considered as just the landscaping that the applicant has requested to be changed. And as I summarized, there were literally thousands of trees being planted on the proposed landscape, one that was approved in 2023. And basically, the logistics of trying to get those many trees to site and the different types of species and the soil conditions out there just weren't conducive to that type of approach. And so they went back to the drawing board, submitted an upgraded plan, which does lean heavily on native prairie grasses and wildflowers. Sometimes those are difficult to establish as well, and it does take at least two or three years to get the wildflowers and all those things blooming. So it's going to be a challenge, but did go through all these iterations with the applicant. I've also had them submit a maintenance program and establishment and maintenance program that I've reviewed several times and feel like it's appropriate for this. Now it's once again going to be challenging, but they are going to, they're not going to have permanent irrigation, but they will use temporary irrigation so the pipes and things will be laying on top of the property and then when the landscape materials are established they'll then they'll remove those but still as i mentioned it's going to take a couple years at least before the native grasses and wildflowers begin begin to start looking good with that there's still Nearly 600 trees are being planted. I didn't count all the shrubs. There are just too many. Well, I guess I could have, but I didn't want to spend two days counting all the shrubs on the plants. But overall, there's 90 acres of landscape area. So that didn't reduce either. What really would change is the fact that the areas up in tan, primarily along the front, I guess the along 103rd Street, now Energy Way, and Astro Parkway have changed from a very densely treed area to the landscape, more of a prairie scene, if you will, which is suitable for, obviously, for Kansas. But nonetheless, because of this significant issue, Pelagia did need to come back to the Planning Commission for discussion and approval. With that, I will stand for any questions you may have, but do feel like the species that they propose with the oak, the hackberries, sycamores, willows, all those are appropriate to Kansas. They're native. They're much more able to withstand the conditions that we get here. Obviously, hot, dry summers, very high humidity at times, dry conditions, and then also some pretty strong cold snaps as well. So with that, I will stand for any questions you may have. It will be a challenge for staff to stay on them about the establishment. There's no doubt about that. And the maintenance part of this. We don't want to turn into a bunch of weeds. But on the other hand.

That's going to be my point. Who's going to monitor this when all these seedlings are growing? Because you've got to keep that weeded out. Otherwise, the weeds will take it out.

Well, you're correct. And I guess the one thing that I feel confident can be done is Johnson County Parks does a really good job of maintaining and taking care of their native prairie grass areas. So I know it can be done in some of these climates. It can be done. And we've been clear with the applicant that it needs to establish and take because we don't want thistle and all sorts of other noxious weeds growing.

So we do have preventative measures in there to make sure that it is maintained.

Well, I mean, that's part of our overall zoning regulations. They don't have to maintain those areas. And we'll just have to monitor as, and once again, it's going to be over season. So that also makes it a bit of a challenge as well. They have done a good job with their maintenance and establishment program.

find any place where i mean obviously the scale of this is hard to guess what hard to match up with anything else but do we have an example of other sort of industrial parks that have this type of vegetation plan in johnson county because i'm trying to think of anybody that has i guess that game was south south lake yeah i don't i can't think of anything chairman said

is of that size. And that's why I referred to Johnson County Parks. They take care of a lot more of these native areas. And they do burn them. And that was one of the things that was one thing that we said, you're going to have to burn this. And that's when they said, well, we're going to go to our experts and come back with a different plan. Because when we contacted the fire chief, Maxton, he was like, I don't think that's such a good idea.

Yeah.

when this original landscape plan came up to us. I remember the presentation and stuff. There was a lot of skepticism about them being able to do it at that massive scale.

Yeah, you're correct. I recall that conversation as well.

It sounded really good then, but I was very skeptical and I'm still skeptical of this.

So Brad, are the number of trees on the perimeter the same? As the previous one? No. Scaled that considerably. OK. So when would this stuff be planted? Is it this fall?

Yeah, if approved, they try to get the trees and everything up and everything going this fall.

So why are the number of trees on the perimeter less?

Well, on the perimeter, I guess if you want to call that the perimeter, but what they had Initially, it was the trees farther up closer to the road. There are more street trees, and they had larger trees along the road, and it really slopes off pretty quickly. And then also power lines, and then also DeSoto's water line, main water line. I think it's a 24-inch main, if I'm not mistaken, that just can't have any issues. I mean, that supplies the entire city.

So if you look at page 303 of the report, That is kind of a visual depiction of what they were going to do with the trees. And you compare that to what they're proposing. Basically, they pushed them all out to the perimeter. So whatever trees they had in the interior, they pushed them out to the perimeter, and then everything else behind it's going to be grass.

So screen to the best of their ability.

Yeah, one row of screen.

fault, but it falls off towards the Panasonic. Yep.

A little disappointed because I thought they could scale back some of the trees in that respect. Because

I guess part of it is that they dug down so far there's just no topsoil there, right? Yes. So they're planting on top of rocks.

Do we know what the actual depth of the soil remaining is? Because that's going to make a big difference as to what survives and what doesn't.

I guess I don't know that for sure, Commissioner.

Sitting on a big rock shelf.

The building there can have something there.

So is there going to be any issue in getting these trees?

I guess I didn't specifically ask that, but they're reducing probably by 75%. So obviously 600 trees is easier to get than 2,400.

So have they had an expert go out and look at that with The land that's there now, can they sustain those trees? I guess that's a good question before we approve this.

Yeah, well, that's what the maintenance and establishment plan addressed. And I know they did coordinate with the state and then also the preservation office. Conservation office, thank you. I suppose it may be a worst case if it doesn't take, then we'll have to come back to the planning commission for another round of approval and maybe.

I guess I'm disappointed that they didn't check that out beforehand before they presented it. I think it should have been explored a little bit further before they presented that. And now we've got a second plan before it's.

Yeah, I can understand your frustration. I don't know if we just got caught up in a design that we're going to create an urban forest around this big battery plant or what. But maybe we should have been a little bit more proactive to push back on them, saying, I don't know if this is going to work. But as Commissioner Schultz, we did talk about the logistics of getting all those trees there. And there was skepticism, both raised by staff and planning commission.

I guess my disappointment comes from, while on one hand, building a forest there where there wasn't a forest before probably didn't make any sense, coming back and putting screen trees at the street level and leaving the rest as grass really is kind of disappointing to me. I would like to see something else. And I don't know if it's maybe instead of just simply all trees along the street and the perimeter, do something to at least create a couple of layers of that or something where you actually had a chance that if one of those dies, we don't just end up having dead street trees. It's such a huge area to just say, hey, let's just put it all on the grass and especially this grass that you can't burn off because we know what happens around here when you don't burn. I mean, it's just going to happen.

Well, one thing maybe we could do is, you know, when I think about when you go through the Flint Hills, especially when you get south of Emporia, The trees are down the draw. I mean, it's still just prairie and rolling grasses. Maybe we can get them to create some interest farther, maybe even create some sort of drainage way that could gather some water to allow some trees to sort of mimic what you see on the Flint Hills.

Just a giant field of grass. That's disappointing to me.

I also want to bring up was a fencing issue. The first approved landscape plan, there wasn't any fencing. All the fencing was going to be more security around the building itself. Apparently, Panasonic, I'm not exactly sure, but our Cameron building official told me today that we've got a fencing permit that's been submitted. And I think one thing that ought to be done, regardless of where we go with the landscaping, is that we want to make sure at least what's on long Astra in Energy Way as a rod iron or some sort of decorative fence. It wasn't specifically addressed at the approval in 2023 because it wasn't requested at that time. So I just want to make sure the Planning Commission has an opportunity to think about that, but we probably ought to get that into a motion at some level.

What if we tabled this and asked them to bring it back with the fence We can certainly do that. We do have some time.

This is not such an urgent matter, especially when things are going to get.

I mean, can we get another couple of rows or another, at least another row like the chairman was talking about?

Yeah, we did talk about a lot of things, you know, as far as, you know, maybe they'll just have to haul in some dirt and amend this. We're going to definitely haul in some dirt because it's all rocked out.

That's what they've done. I get it.

And are those, I can't tell, are those trees deciduous or are they evergreen? They're primarily deciduous.

There are a few cedars in there, but it shows a mix.

So, I mean, from October 15th until April, there's going to be no leaves on there.

And a lot of brown grass. It's gold. I love the golden grass. Sorry. Gold grass. Wichita State's showing.

along Astropark, are those primarily bushes or are those trees?

No, those are trees along the Astropark way. So the trees are on the edges, so to speak, but far enough off. They're not street trees. I guess that was another thing I need to clarify. They really couldn't plant stuff in the right of way like we would expect, so they had to move it over because of utilities. And then, of course, the other trees are more clustered around the entry area with a lot of the shrub work. But the tan area is primarily native grasses and wildflowers.

They're going to save a lot of money not planting all those trees. So even if they did put in two or three rows of some mixed trees, I think it would still be bringing in some dirt and getting those established.

Then creating some feature in those vast fields that those are gonna be. Something that, other than just a field of grass. But I'm no horticulturist, so.

Yeah, that's just gonna be all.

If you don't burn it, it's definitely gonna be .

Yeah, there will be some truck traffic out there for sure. Yeah, I feel like we need a motion.

Motion to table. Motion is moved and seconded. Any further discussion about that? Roll call.

Schultz.

Yes.

Milburn? Yes. Martin? Yes. Templin? Yes. Lane? Yes. Huggins?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Just out of curiosity, Brad, do you have information what the original tree total was?

Actually, yeah, I think I do, at least the tree totals. Once again, there's a lot of shrubs, but I can go back and get that for you. I'd like to just carry out some of the difference. But I'm pretty sure it was around 2,500 trees. 2,500, 2,400, 2,500 trees.

Memory serves. It was huge. It was tons. But it's a huge space. I mean, it's like.

I very vividly remember that first picture. We had never seen a building because of how far down and all the trees they were putting in.

Like, okay.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Not buying it, but.

Thank you.

Brad, you did get the fencing on there too, right? I'm going to include that.

yes if you yeah we will speak to them about that thank you we're ready for item 7b consider landscape screening and buffering plan for build data center all right thank you mr chairman as this is tonight we're bringing back to you for approval of uh can you guys check

yeah we're having some bandwidth issues we're not going to be able to solve this tonight we are recording the other live meeting and if we need to we'll post that one tomorrow yeah thank you all right thank you mr chairman we did have this fairly lengthy discussion last time about the data center um well beale infrastructure it really came down to

The building, especially the facade on 103rd Street, which requests to have the parapets be varying and some increased glazing to meet our 15% requirement. Then also talked about the landscaping around the perimeter of the building to increase that and also to help hide the visibility. There's also some discussion of a water feature and a monument sign. I will say that the applicant did include that and they didn't provide any details, but they do have a location on the site plan itself where it does show a potential water feature and then also the inclusion of a monument sign. But really the things we needed to focus on are the landscaping and the glazing and the varying heights of the parapets. Now we've gone through and there are significant, I want to mention that John Michael Handling the infrastructure is here tonight. He does have a short presentation if you'd like to hear it after the staff report, but I think we've got a lot of these things covered in the staff report itself. First of all, the additional tree plantings along K-10, those are shown on sheets L001, L004, L006. So you can see that those have been beefed up, especially around the Evening Star interchange area. And I guess one thing I wanted to point out to the planning commissioners is I drove that several times, and then actually on the west or eastbound, pulled over on the shoulder and kind of crept along. And you really don't see a lot. Once you get past the Evening Star interchange, the site will be kind of up high, and the highway is lower. And then the nearest point of the buildings are about 250 feet. So there's a fair distance between the edge of the road and the, I guess, the northwest corner of the building and the potential private substation. So there'll be some just the nature of the land and things like that. will make it difficult to see and then the tree additional tree plantings that are included as I mentioned last time was there are some larger trees that once again it takes 20 years for a sycamore and some other trees to get to the point where they're starting to reach their full maturity and providing that visual buffer but once again you know the old nursery saying the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is right now. So that's where we're at with that. So the other thing about the berms, I don't think they're particularly necessary based on the height of the differential and the height of the roadway itself. The other thing that this is just more of a personal observation of when you put in berms and then they go in and they plant the trees in the berms, I mean, The berms themselves, as the bulldozers and graders are making them, I mean, they really compact that soil and it's extremely difficult to get them to grow. So I was thinking based on the height differential that we don't require berms to be put in there and just allow it on the being planted in the native grass or the native soil that's there now, I guess, virgin soil, if you will. So that's just staff's recommendation. Let's take it for what you want to do with it. So that's our thoughts on the tree plantings. There are, and then the area that is probably the most concerned is the Evening Star Interchange, that area there where it is, where you'll see a lot more of the building itself and also the substation. So you can see there's a significant amount of trees that have been added along energy way and then the evening star roundabout all on the applicant's properties you can see that there you can see that that red hatched areas areas that they added or emphasize or increase the amount of tree areas so there's been a significant change in the additional tree areas itself and then if i would mr chairman would like to go into the building number two we talked about the varying heights of the parapets that hide the Rooftop equipment, those have been changed and they do show some varying degrees as there's the view from the highway on K-10. And I believe you're crossing over Evening Star with that view right there. So you can see the building through there. And of course, those are shown at a more mature height for the trees themselves. Initially, when it's built, you see a lot more of the building. But once again, over time, it will slowly start to blend into not being able to see it very well at all. As far as the architectural features, Parabits have been varied, as you can see on the bottom one there. That is the south side of the building, building B. And you can tell that it obviously does the things that we asked them to do, is to vary that height. And then also the glazing requirement. It doesn't show particularly well. The renderings show up quite a bit better as far as some of the locations, as far as the glazing. But they've been added. in many instances. See that panel? That was one thing I, once again, when you can put it on a screen and zoom in quickly, you can see that they did add a lot of the glazing and then provide the exact amount. It's about 16% of additional glazing they added, and our requirements require 15%. So staff is confident in the revisions that the applicant has made to meet the requirements. One thing I also wanted to bring up also is just, and this was triggered by the Panasonic comment. We did talk with the applicant about fencing, and it was going to be a wrought iron decorative fence, but that never got specifically into our discussion last time. So I'd also like to make it clear that the wrought iron fence is going to be part of, yeah, you can see the areas with the glazing, those panels that I put in the staff report, and then also the varying heights of the, of the parapet on the south side of the building. So with that, I'll stand for any questions you have, and once again, the applicant is here, and they do have a brief presentation if you would.

Questions for Brent? Did they indicate that right iron fencing would provide sufficient security for this site?

Well, yeah, we did talk about that briefly, but if you recall, like Merck, They've got that. And maybe it's not actual iron fencing, but it's more of a decorative fence. And that's what Merck has in front of their building. So that's kind of what we're expecting.

So that'll go along 103rd Street? Is that where that fencing is going?

Yes. OK. 103rd Street and portions probably of the west area of the site.

Is there gonna be issue on getting these trees?

I'm just asking. Good question.

It's a good question, but once again, they've got a potential plan. It's our job to enforce it. If they can't get the trees, we just need to keep pushing them on it. I think one thing I would, I mentioned Commissioner Milburn. So when I do talk to the Building and Fish Department, they're the ones that actually enforce that. They're the ones that actually are going out and counting the trees. And they're pretty good about saying, hey, they've got 10 cedars instead of eight cedars and two pines. Is that OK? So they're pretty diligent about doing those types of checks and balances. And they do count the trees. So we'll stay after them. assure you that.

If they do have some that die, whose responsibility is that to make sure that they're replaced?

It is the applicant's responsibility. We typically will send them a letter saying, these trees of path are no longer alive, you need to replace them. Generally speaking, most of our applicants have been thinking about replacing them.

And those volunteer trees that you're talking about, is that on their property or on KDOT right away?

They're kind of mixed, but they're mostly on the applicant's properties because KDOT just mows and blasts everything out of the way. So the ones that are there are primarily on the applicant's side of the fence.

Other questions for Brad? Are these detention basins going to have water in them?

No, they're purely detention. Now the water feature, once again, we've not talked about any specifics whether or not they're going to have to make a pond or something like that, or they're going to have a floating fountain where they'll just build basically a smaller water feature, but they did but they did allow that to remain and included it on the site plan. So that's sort of to be determined what it's exactly going to be.

Is now the time to get that established or is it just up to them when they're going to? I don't want to leave a little blank spot that says someday we might do that.

No, I think it's clear they're going to do a water feature. Now, what type of water feature, really didn't have enough time to go through that whole design process and evaluate where the water is going to come from whether it's going to be like set up a built-in pond or something along those lines and then that monument sign are they going to present a plan back to planning commission on that well i'll let you if you want to talk about the water feature and what your thoughts were on it i'll let you go

Thank you, Chairman, members of Planning Commission. John Michael Hanley, 14422 West 86th Terrace, Lenexa, Kansas, Senior Project Manager for the Developer Field Infrastructure. So answering the question first about retention versus detention, right now, at minimum, the stormwater facility that the fountain would be in would have to be a wet water retention facility. The rest of them, I think, are up to the stormwater plan. So I'm not full up to which ones would be wet or dry And I think that's something that probably has to come through at final design As far as the fountain goes though, I think I'd echo what Brad said we just mainly verified that it was feasible made the choice to go through with that because that was something that the Planning Commission expressed interest in Especially as a kind of distraction for folks entering the city and then on the sign. So we have not proposed what that sign would look like since it would be a city of DeSoto monument sign. That's something that we wanted the city to either ask us to design or provide us with what they were going to do. My understanding is the latest CIP that the city approved had a line item in there for a monument sign. That's not to say that you have to use this or that has to be used in this location, just that we're open to that and we dedicate the easement for the city. Mike, if you would, would you skip to maybe slide 12, the first of our renderings? I take it back. Let's go to 14 or 15. That shows us kind of dead on. Yeah, so here you can kind of see a little bit of white there right in front of the vehicle. That is the fountain. I think what we would propose for design as we go forward now that we've ensured that it's feasible. I think the intent when we were speaking last month was to provide a distraction from the utility and private substation that's right there. What we would propose is basically to ensure that whatever jet or spray height we go for is about at the level of the screening when we plant it so that it does serve as that distraction. Once that landscaping does grow in, and bear in mind that the deciduous trees are getting planted at, I think, 10 to 12 feet tall when they're planted. The evergreens are planted at, I think, six to eight feet. once the trees start to g the intent would not be t still be hey look at me p then you might be looking instead. So really we we s it's got to come up above be something that will be which sounds awful when you're talking about a highway. But it is initially intended to be a distraction from what's behind it, right? So that's really the intent behind those two offerings.

Now is this the mature trees, though? Is that the rendering there? 10 or 15 years, is that what?

I think this is closer to a range of five to 10 years of vegetation growth. And obviously all three of these renderings are taken at about car level. They're taken basically as though you are driving on K-10 to provide what that experience would look like.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, how long is it going to take to build the building and put the substation in? What's the timeline on that?

Yeah, my understanding is the latest completion date for building one, so the smaller of the two, is intended for the first half of 2028. That's assuming everything goes according to plan. Building two, my understanding is that intended completion date is somewhere in second half of 2028. The substations would be completed along the same duration.

And when would your envision installing landscaping? Could that be?

I don't have the answer to that, but I either have a landscape architect in the room or I have our construction director. Landscaping, maybe once final grading is established. Fall of 27. Fall of 27. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Matters before the Planning Commission.

Pretty well met everything we asked them to do.

I mean, the renderings look good. I mean, they're five to 10 years out. I guess that's why I was asking when the landscape was going to be planted. I mean, if it can be planted sooner than later, you know, during construction, then we get a jump on growing of the vegetation. But I understand, you know, you've got to move dirt. You can't plant landscaping while you move dirt.

For me, you know, from my perspective on this, I think I was clear last time is that I think that the placement of the substation at the front of this development to me makes this just a hard no. I appreciate all the work that was done to try to screen it, to build those trees, and to make the argument that the screening is going to be adequate. I personally don't believe that. I think about Panasonic and the giant substation we built for that. We didn't put that out on 103rd Street. We put it tucked behind the building. I can't think of another development that comes to mind where the focal point of the development when somebody comes into the development is the substation. And I just think that's the wrong place for this. And despite the fact that I appreciate the effort of trying to do better job screening, I don't think I could ever support this. But that's me. I do appreciate the building changes. I think that that was helpful and certainly tried to meet our requirements. That's a nice step forward, and I do appreciate that. And while I think the fountain's a nice idea, I don't think that's necessarily going to address my concern, which is basically the placement of this. And I'm sorry that it's gone there, because I do think we're going to regret it. But that's me. For the discussions or motions?

I have a little bit of reservations on that. Similar to you? I don't know. Is it the lines that are coming in to the substation dedicating where this thing goes?

Right. So the location of the utility substation is to minimize the amount of lines coming in from other directions.

Where exactly would this be fed from?

I think initially it's fed from the south. And I think we even show some of those Mr. do you mind switching again to some of those renderings? Yeah, so you do see some of those and the intent really was since this is. you know, necessary infrastructure, I think not just for us, but for the rest of the industrial park. That location was what would be the least visually impactful on the whole site.

So those lines are coming up south from along Evening Star Road.

I think those go through private land, but I might grab Jessica for this.

Jessica Keck. Evergy, 818 South Kansas Avenue, Kansas. Hi. Yeah, the transmission lines come from the industrial part to the south, and then they head up north to the facility. So no matter where you put your substation, you're going to have more transmission lines if it goes inside, and then you can't put trees where transmission lines are.

So they'll be coming up from the second substation out by Panasonic, going down up on 19th?

Yes. Yep.

So essentially, the lines are coming straight into the substation from the south. Correct. And straight across. So I mean, I hear your reason that you don't like it there. But logistically, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the place to put it because you don't want to put bends in the lines. You want those lines to go straight. Correct.

Okay. Yeah, I'm not saying the alignment of that line could go other places. And I don't know that I'm speaking out of school on that. But I do think that I don't believe that is the only place you could bring those lines up. It may be the only place that doesn't impede other plans on Astra. But I don't think that's true. But I get it. I mean, that's what they want to do. And I publicly stated that I don't like it. So that's me.

So, I mean, I guess the landscaping plan that they've submitted can only like, we've got deciduous and evergreens, got them mixed in there. A little disappointed not having some berms, but I understand with the renderings they do screen with the change in elevation from K-10 to the building. I mean, my concern is I don't want to have another Panasonic where we're back here in three years trying to look at different landscape. So I hope we can get these trees that are on the plan. And I would like to expedite the planning of this tree so we can get them growing while they're under construction.

Understood. I mean, I think the options are, I think they're mostly fall plantings. And so fall 26 is probably not feasible. And so we're left with 27 or later, right?

So with that, I mean, I understand the alignment of the substation. I understand Chairman's concern. That's where they want to put it.

We already approved it, so I get it.

So I noticed that on the landscaping plan, I think I'm jumping ahead here a little bit. But since this is the item we're discussing, in front of the Evergy site.

Gotcha. Yeah. Brad, Jessica, how do we want to handle having these both up at once?

Well, I guess, Commissioner Huggins, if you want to talk about the Evergy or the Blackbird substation, because it really as we've talked about, go hand in glove on this project. You can see that there is a before and after original submission that really just shows some significant changes. The area where the driveway is is where they added more of the trees because it's a little bit more on the western, pardon me, the eastern side of the substation is where the power lines will be crossing over 103rd Street Energy Way into the site. There are some renderings that were also included so it is a much improved plan but as we've talked about you're not going to make it disappear but in conjunction with the improvements that that BL infrastructure has made to their landscaping plan plus the improvements to what Avergy has proposed I feel like it's an appropriate use to me once again this tract is zoned light industrial and substations large box buildings are permitted by right in these areas so i feel like we've done about as good as we can do without trying to put ourselves in a situation where we're sort of stepping out of bounds of what our authority is i noticed that uh for the

overall site we had some perspectives of what the site would look like with the landscaping in place we've got a new landscaping plan here that apparently shows more trees but we don't have any kind of perspective i guess jessica we do have a i did get an email today edgar if you could queue that up that'd be great thanks we have a rendering that shows um what it proposed what

What it's supposed to look like. Holistically, we would like to have gotten one with the whole site, but technologies don't talk well with each other, and they use different design software, and we use different design software in order to get it all together into one. It was impossible to meet this deadline, so we do have a rendering showing our proposed landscape. I think it's like 11, maybe, slide? Right there. So we have a couple of the bigger trees and this isn't shown at full height either. This is shown probably 10-ish years. So we have some of the bigger trees on the western portion and then we have some crabapples in there and then some evergreens as well. On the eastern end where the transmission lines are coming in, we have some of the bushes and smaller landscaping on that side just because, like I've told you guys a lot, trees and power lines don't match or don't go together. So we have done what we can to help hide it. So that's what it's going to look like. Keep in mind, there's new buildings and other trees around. Like I said, we couldn't get the softwares to talk to each other, so we didn't make one that showed the whole site together.

And I even know there's a pretty good view of the west side of this substation from 103rd Street. I don't see any landscaping.

So the landscaping is going to be on the Beale property. If you look at their, that's part of the problem. If you look at their plan, they have trees coming all the way around the corner of the west side. We don't have trees coming right down the west side of our substation. We have a drainage ditch and some other stuff going in there that would make trees kind of unfeasible. But Beale has them all around the edge in the corner of that substation or the site.

So do you have any perspective of how much higher this substation is going to be than the highway at this point?

Do we have that?

You mean the highway or the street? Highway.

I think we're below it. Yeah. I think we're below the elevation of the highway. It's going to be above Energy Way Street. Yeah. And then we'll obviously have the decorative wall behind it too, but that hasn't changed.

Yeah, I don't have a good feel for what the elevations are out there. I just see the steep slope on the west side.

Sorry, what was that last part?

Your landscape plan shows a steep slope on the west side of the substation.

Oh.

I believe it's going down 9 or 10 feet according to your contours.

That would be for the drainage side of it, yeah.

And then it goes down further for the detention basin.

And that's, yeah, I don't know how far it goes down and where it ends up on the street side either.

But the landscape plans go to 914, 916.

So actually, your contour shotgun down 20 feet on the slope next to the substation.

I didn't hear what that was, the 942. What was that?

916.

On where our substation pad sits?

Yeah.

I can't see that, that one. Sorry.

I really can't. I can't see it on my notes either.

The last contour that's labeled there on the west side, the substations. Okay. 896.

And I don't know what your elevations are. 20 feet below.

Okay. I can see why they don't want to plant anything on it.

I'm just curious. It's hard to imagine the best if you get that big a hole for the detention basin, that this substation would be below the highway. Maybe it is, I don't know.

It is. I wish . For context, though, this is three football fields by a football field, right? It's huge. Everything's just sort of dwarfed.

But you can't actually screen the west side

And what was the reason for that? The drainage and stuff on the west. So the drainage on the west side. Drainage being what? For the substation to go into the retention basin. So we have a drainage channel on that side.

On that side slope? Yeah.

I don't understand how that... Well, you're draining three football fields into that drainage ditch, right? So you're going to have to have a lot of water that's going to flow through that way.

Right. And we're not going to put vegetation on there. And then... We don't own outside of the substation site. So we own where our fence is.

But you're doing the landscaping between 103rd Street and your fence.

We're doing the landscaping between, is that Energy Way, 103rd Street and the fence? Yes. We're doing it because we own that property. Well, we will own that property. We won't own outside the fence on the west side.

Just on the west side.

And the east side. And I believe the north side. Yeah. So we're doing the landscaping where we can. Yes.

As far as the view from Evening Star, I don't have a rendering for you. Since it is so much lower and those trees are going to be planted for evergreen 6 to 8 feet, for deciduous 10 to 12 feet, within the first several years from that roundabout, you're really not going to be able to see anything. You're going to be looking up at tree, not at substation.

okay can we go back to your perspective of the landscaping sure for the substation oh yeah sure so that shows a pretty clear view of that wall around the substation on the west side of the substation

Right, so this does not show any of the Beale landscaping. What Jessica was saying earlier is that our softwares don't talk well to each other. So with the timeline between the April 28 meeting and this meeting, we weren't able to combine our renderings. Yeah, so our trees stop. It looks, well, I don't have a good scale on my, drawing here, but our trees stop pretty close to the substation.

And they weren't included in ours because we don't want to represent something that, so I know it's hard to look at and we tried, but we could make it work.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicants? This has turned into a discussion of both items, so I guess that puts us at seven, B and C together. I don't have any opposition. I'm not opposed to discussing them both together. You guys aren't?

I think we have been.

I think you have been. Thank you, matters before the planning commission then. Other comments?

I guess I would, agree with the chairman seems like more effort could have been put into not putting the substation out there on 103rd street or figuring out a way to hide it better just shifting it off of 103rd street a little further like as far back as the building sits and then using the space immediately adjacent to 103rd for landscaping.

I guess, Commissioner Huggins, one thing I just wanted to point out is, I mean, the site plan has been approved. We're just really talking about the landscaping, the parapets, and the glazing. And then I brought up the decorative fence.

And out of fairness, it was approved condition upon coming back with screening to address this issue. If your point is that you don't think the screening was adequately addressed, That's my point, I appreciate it, but I don't think there's anything we can do to fix it from my point, so I get you.

Patrick Reed, the city attorney. We talked about this last time, but I think we need to be careful about not focusing the substation because by state statute they're allowed to put that equipment anywhere they want and we don't have local control over that so I just want to be cautious about that and I get it you're right about the landscaping that's what we're here to talk about and whether that's sufficient to you know to your liking but as far as where the substation is located I think we need to be cautious about that.

Patrick, you and I can disagree on this. I believe this is a campus. I believe this is presented as a campus. I believe that the screening and the landscape plan and all of this was done in connection with this particular use for this particular project. And while I certainly understand that the utility has the right to put their substation where the heck they want to, this is designed for a campus to serve a particular need. I'll tell you, in only 15 years of doing this, I don't think I've ever seen a project I dislike as much as this one in terms of the way it appears. So all of that has to do with site plan review, and I think that all the comments we have made here are legally appropriate in that context.

Now, I totally understand that somebody may disagree with me on that, but... Yeah, and I just feel, you know, obviously as city attorney, I need to, you know, be my... And I agree. You... view it that way i just it is concerning i mean if we think about you know no one can deny this electric equipment substation is not desirable anywhere and that's the whole purpose of the state statute is to say that we're not going to give local jurisdictions uh control over where this equipment goes because if you think about it if if that did happen they wouldn't be able to build out the network. But I understand, Roger, and I don't want to argue with you. It's a concern that I have.

I just can't let that lay. It's one thing if you're building a association with a public good and it's part of your network and we're explaining the purpose behind that statute. This is the service of a particular customer. That, to me, is something very different. And that's why I've taken the approach I've taken on this, which I don't think is improper.

Fair enough. Just something to keep in mind. Thank you.

Other discussions or motions?

Mr. Chairman, if I may. Kevin Lee with Postale Law.

Actually, I don't think so. Unless we have, do people want to hear from their applicant's attorney? It's up to you. It's your choice. I've got no problem with it.

Okay.

Yeah, so.

Very good. Thank you. And I appreciate that. Not to beat a dead horse, but I do want to reiterate Patrick's point in that we are here today with an approved site plan. You all asked us to come back. So that site plan has the need to get a revised landscape plan approved as part of that. So I would submit that the review, scope review before you tonight is have we brought back a revised landscape plan that seeks to address your concerns on on screen i hear your point uh we appreciate it mr chairman that um it may not ever get to a point where you're in favor of it that said we believe this is absolutely fitting with the character of the neighborhood as an industrial park we did go to great lengths to try to protect the public the excuse me the traveling public views from k-10 to your point about that being a gateway into the city um and so if we go back all the way this has always been an industrial site it'll be across from from an industrial site so we do believe that when we're looking at the golden factors the the zoning parameters that it absolutely is is fitting with that and and it's right for the area um and and we have done what we've we can to address your concern. Same time at the end of the day, it has to ultimately serve its function. And so with respect to the substation, it is doing just that, it's serving its function, but we have tried to mitigate and address your concerns in the only way that we can in this particular instance. Thanks for your comment.

For the discussion, motions.

Make a motion. We approve the landscape site plan as submitted for agenda item 7B.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Martin. Yes. Templin. No. Lane.

Yes.

Huggins.

No.

Miller. Yes. Schultz. Yes. Motion carries.

Anyone like to make a motion on 7C?

Make a motion we approve the site plan for the Evergy-Blackbird Substations as presented for agenda item 7C.

Second. Seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Schultz.

Yes.

Melbourne. Yes. Martin. Yes. Templin. No. Lane. Yes. Huggins. No. Motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you for your efforts. Really do appreciate it. I know that took some work to get that together, so I appreciate that. Item 7E, no, 7D, consider preliminary plat for Arbor Ridge 5.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to Arbor Ridge 5th, this preliminary plat. A final plat will be forthcoming probably at the next meeting, but this is their opportunity to look at the layout and design of the street network, utility plans, You'd mentioned the development agreement and what's going to be improved on 98th, pardon me, 89th Street. I guess real quick, I want to jump to that because the street layout, that is actually Valley Springs that winds us all the way through. So there are duplexes on the 83rd Street, part of Valley Springs, and then also a little access point. John Potter, Takes you up to the multifamily more up on the hills. So a third or Valley Spring does include basically with the proposed landscape. Pardon me, the John Potter, Duplex area, the R2 does. It's all on Valley Spring Drive, except that you're correct. It does have its does from the cold sack areas on off of Valley Spring. Anyway, as far as 89th Street, I'm going to have 28 feet of curb and gutter from the east edge of the development to 80 to Kill Creek Road. And then from, and Mike, Joe, correct me if I'm wrong, but then moving from the edge of the development to, I guess that would be Waverly, City Improved overlay on that stretch of road. sidewalk will be on the north side of 89th street and that will connect to kill creek road so it isn't just a sidewalk to nowhere that'll be along the frontage of the development itself so you can see in the staff report there'll be 63 single family units and 49 two family units however there's only 24 actually that doesn't that math doesn't quite add up there must be a typo but there will be uh 24 duplexes So that would be 48, two units. We did go through all the items as far as preliminary plant requires. Now we didn't do a drain, or pardon me, a traffic study because we really focused, because we knew it was just gonna fail if we didn't do the improvements that were necessary to 89th Street. So that's where the development agreement really sort of takes place of any kind of traffic analysis. There is a drainage report that does that is included and basically something that says no detention is necessary. It does split as Mike mentioned earlier, there's two different draws that go down this area and the water that would go into either draw because we want to, once again, I'm not an engineer, so I'll let engineers figure talk more specifically about it, but the water will drain. We want to get off the subdivision into the draw and into the Kansas River ultimately before the surge of all the more upstream flows get to this site. So the drainage report says no specific detention areas are necessary for this location. It really is pretty basic. There is a landscaping plan that shows our street trees that we fixed as far as every 40 feet along frontage within the subdivision themselves. Individual lots certainly will be up to homeowners to improve and landscape as well. We didn't require any additional buffering, especially for the R2 areas, because you can see that open space tract is pretty much a thicket of trees. And our code does allow our zoning regulations to allow for existing vegetation to count towards those buffering requirements. And then between the R1A and the R1, there really isn't any kind of buffering requirement. But you can also see that that property over there has a fairly significant amount of naked wooded areas along the west edge of the property. So landscape requirements are met for the preliminary layout and length cul-de-sacs design of the properties. They all meet our standards for the minimum widths in the building areas that are allowed in the R1A and the R2. So we're really looking at this ultimately as the zoning is approved, even though technically it is not, it doesn't have to go to the city council, or I'll say so on the approval of the rezoning, but preliminary plat is as presented. Now, if the zoning, for whatever reason, council level is turned down, then the preliminary plat obviously goes away with that same denial potentially in the rezoning. This also does show the sewer lines, the water lines, all the grading and drainage. It's not an engineered document, but those items do show that it does fit within the confines of what reality and actual constructability will, that they will work. There'll be several walkout lots in some of the locations. There might be a nice subdivision that I don't think you'll see a lot of change between the Arbor Ridge, If you remember this, the PUD in Arbor Ridge did reduce their side yard setbacks, I think, to seven feet. So those are actually fairly narrow lots as well in the existing phases of Arbor Ridge. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll stand for any questions that you may have.

Questions for Brad? Brad, I may have misunderstood when you were talking about 89th Street. How wide will that street be?

28 feet, right? I'll let Joe. He worked out a lot of the details.

So across the frontage and then west through the SMAC project, it'll be 37 feet back and back. As we transition from our SMAC project, it'll narrow down as we tie into Kill Creek. And then I think that's a southbound left turn line off of Kill Creek to 89th Street.

And will that be construction of that improvement be done with the subdivision?

We'll do the SMAP project, yeah. The intent is to try to do the SMAP project in the street all at the same time.

Thank you. Hey, Joey here. I'm just looking at Justin's work here on the storm drainage. So is it Is it likely that the storm water drainage is not going to go across Mr. Perkins' property here? How does that work? Because I'm looking at the contours. I'm not quite seeing the little niche that's not part of this. Is it draining that way?

Well, some of it will drain to back to the west, and then some will drain to the east. I don't know if there's a plan that shows how the storm sewer outlets are.

Oh, on the plumeria plant itself?

Yeah. And then to try to address the gentleman's comments earlier, he has the property on the north side. I assume it's on the north side, just east of it. We will be relocating his drive entrance, and as we get final plans, we can show you how that's going to be. But yes, we understand that that has to be relocated. So where do you construct that drive?

So mainly this is showing, so Valley Springs is essentially on the ridge Correct me if I'm making a mistake here, Joe. Valley Spring Drive is on the ridge and everything west of it falls toward the west. Yeah. So there's a storm sewer pipe. There's actually two of them. One of them here that picks up what falls on 87th Terrace and probably these lots leading up to it and drains off to this location here.

Okay. So the flow will go back to that access point

up in the northeast northwest corner of the property and there's a similar one for the southern part that captures the majority and there's still going to be these lots here lots 32 33 34 50 51 49 that will probably also the back half at least will drain unreleased you know they're going to change onto the adjacent property but that's not uncommon um the majority of the runoff will be caught by this storm drain that'll tie into the one along the united states So, in essence, kind of the sheet flow runoff that the neighbor might see seems like it would be less after this subdivision is built than it might be today.

Yeah, because that's a pretty steep hill there.

It's not that bad right now.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff? Okay, that is for the Planning Commission. Any discussion?

Motion.

Motion, we approve the recommended approval for Arbor Ridge 5 and the preliminary flatbed.

Could I make an amendment? Brad, correct me if I'm wrong. There are 69 single family homes.

Yeah, some of the drawing itself, part of it says 63, part of it says 69.

Yeah, I think the cover sheet of the report says 63, so.

Okay, yeah, yes, I think that'd be appropriate.

So as opposed to as presented, as presented with the amendment to identify the correct number of units.

Yes. Got it. Page eight says 69 single family homes. Page one says 63 single family homes.

I think it's 69.

This plan here shows one through 69 in red. This table shows 69. Duplex lots 20.

Agreed. You okay with the amendment? So the motion stands. Anyone want to second it? Second. Second. Any further discussion? roll call template yes late yes huggins yes martin yes schultz yes motion carries thank you item 7e oh free justin thank you item 70 consider replat for flint meadows east all right thank you mr chairman uh we've seen before not exactly like this but we did

through a platting process and a preliminary plat and then also site plan review for the multi-family tracks or the townhome tracks that are part of this initially when the applicant submitted the plat the final plat we had to plant the multi-family in one big piece and they were going to be rentals at that time so that's why they had to come back or after site plan approval There had been a change of heart, and they're looking at selling these as individual units. So what you have before you is that decision to divide those townhome units into individual lots. And one thing about our regs is even though they're individual lots, setbacks for townhomes and multifamily are subject to the site plan approval process, so that's been approved. as far as, because we've got some four plexes and three plexes that are long, actually even some two plexes, some of the lots themselves. So what you have before you is really just dividing those up into individual lots that the applicant can sell to homeowners versus having rental units, which was the initial plan and why we just won bigger tracts. for the final plat. So really the final plat is just showing property easements in the division of land. So it's really no change. The preliminary plat doesn't change. The site plan doesn't change. Any of the architectural features or anything like that are remaining the same. Actually, there's no easements and rights away to be dedicated as well. Those have already been included in the final plat. The only change is the addition of the property lines, interior property lines. within the final plan itself.

Brad, I'm sorry. I just don't remember the site plan on this very well. These were a series of multifamily buildings?

Yes.

So like, for example, lot E2, 3, and 4 were all one building or something like that?

Yeah, I wish. Yeah, I should have probably.

So the idea is to condo these, basically?

That's essentially what's going to happen, is they'll be condoed. And we talked about different approaches. You know, after they get them built, they can resurvey and then come back with the flat. But the applicant felt as far as the marketing part of it and selling, they'd like to have them divvied up, divided up as individual units so people can buy them.

Do we have a requirement that if you are condoing a single building and we're splitting it up, requirements to the condo declarations be part of that or do we have anything on that or we just let them do it?

I don't even know. We've just let, I mean, for instance, Don Parr did something similar at Arbor Ridge where he built duplexes and then split them. That's kind of what we're doing in a different step, a different process, but then the result is the exact same.

I'm just thinking you have potential issues trying to do it after the fact. That's why it's normally you do it up front when you're condoing.

Yeah, but essentially these are condos like when we think about the carriage houses because there's all this common space with the carriage houses. These are just really just shooting that property line.

I don't think the intent is to have any shared maintenance or shared access space. It really is just kind of a loss by now.

Okay. If you're good with it, I understand. I just make sure that we're following the rules we have.

The only risk we're taking here is that, you know, because when we do a condo, we wait until the foundations are in and then they go survey it and they make sure these lines are right. There's some risk that they might get a line wrong in here and have to come back and do some adjustments.

Yeah, and we explained all that to the applicant and they felt confident that They'll get their buildings in the right spot. But yeah, there is that risk that Mike talked about. If they get off by a couple feet somewhere, they'll have to come back and do an adjustment or replat.

And on the site plan, these were all just two and four plexes, right?

Yeah, I know there's two plexes, and I know there's some, I thought there was a few three plexes. Maybe three plexes. We have the applicants here tonight. How many? Two plexes and three plexes there are.

Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission, I appreciate you all having us. I've never done this before, so forgive me if I address you all wrong. Can we get your name? Tyler Patterson, DR Horton. We have a couple different ones. So we have a couple five plexes, three plexes, two plexes, and a four plex.

I thought there was a mix, if I remember the site plan.

It is. I was going to say I can happily send you all one after the fact, but I just have a paper copy with me now.

I'm sure we haven't. My only concern was, quite frankly, that when you do this, to the extent that you do have some sort of condo declarations that are important to you, sometimes it's easier to do that up front than it is after the fact. And so oftentimes when we see this, and I'm not sure what other cities have for this rule, but it might be worth looking to make sure we have this because condos may very well be And normally what happens, I believe, is that you have your condo decks squared away before you split it into condos like that. But I understand the idea here is that you want to allow different people to own separate buildings.

Correct. We want feasible units coming into the homeowners.

Could I ask you why you want to file this plat before the party walls are established?

To me, I was told that this was going to be the best motion, but I can find out if it's not. You just get to do it again if it's not right. Well, so we do come in. We actually do a foundation survey to make sure that these truly are on the property lines and have the shared foundation walls.

Well, I guess that's why I asked the question, because it's a heck of a lot to do this document after that's done. I don't know.

Unless you have different people that want to build them. So you want to sell them off and have different builders.

I don't know. I don't know why it would matter.

Dad, I was going to say we plan on building every single one. That's not it.

Well, do you want us to go ahead and do this? I would love to.

There you go. You've been bored.

With that, I'll make a motion that we approve the final plan.

Any further discussion? Second? Seconded? Roll call.

Martin? Yes. Templin? Yes. Lane? Yes. Huggins? Yes. Schultz?

Yes.

Milburn?

Yes.

Motion carries.

That completes our agenda. Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. I just got some questions.

Couple of questions, actually. Since we've got this data center coming in, in the last three weeks, I've had well over 50 people ask me about the second data center that's coming in by the fire station. I had three people ask me tonight while I was eating tacos, same question, and I don't I have not heard anything about it, and they look at me, and you're giving me a full face lie.

Sure. Yeah, so it was reported in the business journal several weeks ago that a company called Digital Realty purchased that acreage around the fire state of 300 acres or so. They also purchased a larger than 40. Sorry, let me turn my mic on.

I thought maybe it was just me. I was having a hard time hearing it.

Yeah, so they also purchased a larger portion of property in the middle, kind of interior to the Astro Enterprise. Our expectations, they will come forward with a community announcement of some sort regarding that project around the fire station and also their interest in the other property as well. We don't have any formal applications on file from that entity, but we do expect We know that's what they do. We know it's likely. So expect some sort of a community introduction soon.

Gary, I'd really like to see how this first one turns out before we start diving in beat first with another one. I also had questions about that second piece of property. There was an automobile manufacturer coming in. I don't know if there's just a really bad grapevine in DeSoto or a really bad secret keeper somewhere.

Yeah, we continue to pursue large scale advanced manufacturing projects in Asprey Enterprise Park.

When I tell them I've not heard anything about it, they say, yeah, right. That's all I had.

Thanks. Anyone else? We have a motion to adjourn. Looking for a second. Second. Moved and seconded, adjourned.