Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the webinar. You have entered as an organizer and may now speak to any other organizers or panelists on the line. When you are ready to begin the presentation, press the start broadcast button on the go to webinar control panel to allow all attendees to hear you. This system will notify you once you begin your broadcast. The broadcast is now starting. All attendees are in listen only mode.

Good evening, my clock says 6 o'clock. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Roll call.

Huggins. Here. Lane. Here. Templin. Here. Martin. Milburn. Here. Medoc. Here. Schultz. Here. Mr. Chairman, it looks like Commissioner Martin is absent today, and he did send us an email.

Thank you. Item 3A, approve planning commission agenda. Any changes, corrections, or modifications to make the agenda? Motions?

Make a motion to approve the agenda as written.

Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, same sign. Agenda is approved. Item 3B, approve the minutes the Planning Commission held May 26, 2026. Changes, additions, or corrections to be made to the minutes. Motion.

I make a motion we approve the minutes for the May 26th meeting. Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. That's approved. Item 3C, disclosure of conflicts of interest. Anyone need to disclose anything tonight?

Oh, yeah, I need to excuse myself from item 7C. Okay.

Everyone else okay? Moving to item 3D, disclosure of outside communications regarding commission business. Anything you want to report? Very good. Item 4, 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. There's a four-minute time limit. Anyone like to address the Planning Commission tonight? Just a note for all those people on Facebook out there who want to say something for the Planning Commission, this is a great time to do it. I invite them to the next meeting. I'll close the call to the public. Item 5A, public hearing. Is this a rezoning at 33255 Lexington from R1 to C2?

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What you have is a rezoning application from R1 to C2. It's kind of a sliver of a piece of property. The owner of the property actually had the has purchased the JT's building in that area there and also the trailer park. They wish to expand the building, which is part of the site plan, the next item on the agenda, but it is actually zoned R1. It's one of these kind of rezoning districts that have probably been around for 40, 50 years that even though Lexington Avenue has gotten more commercialized over the years, things like that, this tract has not had any Revisions actions or anything over the last several years or less many years And so at this point they would like to expand that building and that's what we'll be talking about next in the site plan first step in that process is to Get it rezoned appropriately for a commercial district, so I will run through zoning compatibility factors. It's pretty straightforward as Lexington Avenue has turned into more of a commercial corridor, but you can see this piece is this is a that's how the actual piece looks like when you get the legal description of what was in the application itself. So just character of the neighborhood as I've kind of alluded to it's Zoned R1, it's a commercial corridor. There is a housing development, a trailer park behind it, so that is actually zoned R1. The compatibility zoning for the competitive, the proposed zoning seems to be in line with everything that we've looked at happening on Lexington Avenue. It's all changing from a mix of uses to heavy commercial, suitability of the property for which it's been restricted under zoning. Hasn't been restricted, but there haven't been any applications or any kind of consideration to change it to anything else. Property's been R1 for as long as I can remember, plus looking at the old DeSoto plates that we used to have, it was R1 back in the 50s or 60s when we adopted zoning. extent in the need which there is a For this use we do have a lot of commercial property. It's very small So it's really not gonna make a whole lot of difference But nonetheless we have to go through the same process if we are rezoning a thousand acres the same same manner as far as availability and adequacy of Utilities it has sanitary sewer water mains public service accommodations police fire parks will see very little change to this rezoning as far as road network. There'll be no additional curb cuts. Parking will all be on site. And we'll get to some of those issues with the site plan itself. And of course, electricity is available on that location as well. I did jump ahead a little bit. All parking would be required on site. There's gonna be no real changes to the street network due to this rezoning. Environmental impacts don't see that there be any environmental impacts once against quarter acre of property that's being rezoned from R1 to C2. Economic impact also not going to be a huge impact, but nonetheless part of the criteria that we look at. Could it detrimentally affect the nearby property? I don't see that any change to a C2 would make a difference. Once again, the lexicon corridor is changing from a mixed use kind of situation that we had 10, 15 years ago to primarily a commercial district. And that's the direction we've been going. It's also what shows up on the comprehensive plan as well. So I don't see any benefits or detrimental issues for nearby properties for this change as I mentioned the comprehensive plan and The future land use plan showed this area as being a commercial corridor We've done studies as far as improving the road network to three lanes with a center turn lane which is all to accommodate additional traffic and potential commercial uses in this area and So therefore, recommendation of professional staff is to approve this rezoning request from R1 to C2. So at this point, Mr. Chairman, I'll stand for any questions you may have. Questions for Brad?

The only thing I had was in G where it talked about the extent of the allowed, uses allowed in the zoning. The last phrase there said the two access points to the trailer point should remain.

And they will remain.

They will be improved. Yeah, the thing... You didn't say, like, maybe they will remain?

Oh, yeah, I... Just...

Well, that's an interesting point, John, because it's actually the kind of thing that I'm thinking about too. So this piece of property was previously owned by the same folks that owned the trailer, right?

No, they were on separate ownership. The JT's building, the Marquette Therapy, and the trailer park were all under different ownerships. I remember Monty Bowers used to own the trailer park.

This sliver wasn't owned by the folks that owned the trailer park?

It was not, but it has now been all purchased by a similar owner.

So was there an easement or some sort of recorded right that gave them access there?

Not that I've seen. The trailer park had been there well before it was. I mean, there used to be a lagoon back there. It was part of Johnson County. So the trailer park has preceded the JT's building by.

They never had recorded access to the right away.

Probably not.

Okay. Well, that's good.

Yeah, because the trailer park's unplatted.

As long as I can remember, it's been down there.

Yeah.

I didn't even know it was back there for years.

Certainly longer than I've been here. Certainly longer than I've been here, and I've only been here 34 years, so. All right, so, you know, I could, it's obviously going to come up again when we talk about the site plan, what they're going to do with it, and what sort of dedications there are. But, you know, as far as the rezoning of it goes, I guess the only reason I think it could possibly make an argument of why it ought to stay in R1 is if that's the only, if that's the access that R1 has, we're changing that and making them go across C2 to get access. But, you know, I don't know that's a big enough deal to make it something we need to be worried about in terms of the rezoning of that. It's going to become an issue, I think, when we talk about it for the site plan. Mike, thinking about it wrong.

Is that something we could cover by going ahead and saying the two access points would be grandfathered in, or is that a possibility?

Well, once again, we always have this issue. The site plan is a separate discussion from just the land use and the rezoning itself. I will say that the site plan does show an improved access point, so it's already been determined through the site plan that they're not going to change that access point and actually be somewhat improved.

I guess I question the wisdom perpetuating the trailer park in what has become a commercial area. By that same token, it's there, and I don't think we can just ignore that. But I don't think it's necessarily a rezoning question. I think it's... To me, it's appropriate for C2 zoning for everything else around it.

I'm just looking for if there is a private access even on the platform.

Yeah, and I think we need to make sure we've got that covered. Okay, any other questions for Brad? Thank you, Brad. This is a public hearing. Any members of the public who'd like to be heard on this matter, please approach the podium. Give us your name and address. I'm assuming no one online wants to speak up?

Correct.

I'll close the public hearing. Matters then before the Planning Commission.

I just have a clarifying question. Is the up in arms building right there, is that in existing R1? Yes, it is. Okay. And so we're allowing the business to operate under R1, I suppose? Yes.

Yeah, it was, once again, it's grandfathered in. It's a non-conforming legal use. And I did ask the applicant's engineer if they wanted to just go ahead and rezone that whole piece.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at.

But they chose just to do the one triangular-shaped property.

I forgot to ask, was it, you had any calls on this?

No.

Okay. Besides the access issues that the chairman brought up, I think it's in line with being adjacent to Lexington and follows a future land use plan. So I'd generally be in support of it.

Agree. Any other comments, motions?

I'll make a motion that we recommend approval. to the City Council for the Planning Commission to change the zoning for this 0.25 acres to C2 by Lexington Avenue.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Roll call. Templin. Yes. Lane. Yes. Huggins. Yes. Schultz. Yes. Medoc. Yes. Milburn. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Item 7B, oh, sorry, 7A, consider site plan for Lexington Center. Loves liquor.

Okay, thank you, Chairman, as we've kind of jumped ahead, and we always struggle with a little bit of time, so I just want to get to the site plan while we talk about the zoning, but nonetheless, this is the plan for that little piece that was just recommended for rezoning. They're going to expand the building and... Ultimately hopefully if everything goes well they want to have expanded liquor store at this location So the site plan has 5,780 square feet with associated parking They do meet our parking requirements they do have some landscaping and that they've added on the On the west side of the building and we talked about the access point has been improved or that site plan does show that that access way is Improved with curbs and gutters and a little bit wider road. So it is a benefit To the residents. I mean not a huge one because they still have access but nonetheless for any kind of fire apparatus or something like that a Better point of access for this location as well Sidewalk already exists along Lexington Avenue They have access to storm Sanitary sewer all those things electric electricity site drains directly into Kill Creek so storm water is not an issue. It gets into the creek and is into the Kansas River before any kind of heavy downstream or upstream types of runoff could potentially be an issue. It's really, once again, pretty straightforward. The only concern that I had was the architectural standard. They did submit a elevation. I did request a little bit later that they do some sort of colored rendering so we could see a little bit better. Now they did, on the site plan, it does call out the glass areas, the stone areas, the finish. They're going to use ephus, which is kind of like a stucco type thing. finish on the building so it meets our standards, but I was a little concerned about the transition from the existing structure to how the new one might look and Didn't get any kind of colored sort of drawings to help confirm or feel a little bit more that this isn't going to be just such a juxtaposed kind of transition between the existing structure and the existing building itself. But if you just look at the building, the new structure itself, it does meet our criteria as far as the types of the glass areas, the colors that they've talked about, the stone work, all those types of things will meet our criteria. one sort of missing piece is how do you kind of put this new or modern type structure next to one that was built 20 years ago. So that's my concern. I don't know if the applicant said the architect was going to be here to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have.

Thank you, Brad. Any questions? I'll just leave it to that, Mr. Chairman. Questions for Brad?

I've got, so this site plan, if approved, will not go to the council? Correct.

It's a Planning Commission decision only.

So we'd be approving it before it's zoned?

Yes, technically.

If it's subject to zoning approval.

Yeah, but if it doesn't, yeah, you're right. If Planning Commissioner approves it, And the council turns down the rezoning request and site plan motion.

So our motion would have to make it subject to the council's approval of the zoning.

Yes.

And the filing of the plat. Because the access won't be granted until the plat's filed.

That is correct as well. Now, obviously, there's a longstanding access point, so that's not going to... I mean, if everything got turned down, nothing would change out there. There would still be two access points and...

So they will have a second access for the trailer court while this new access is under construction?

Yes, there is. And actually, per our fire code, we've talked about this before, it's 30 units per access. You need to have two when you exceed 30 units. And there's, I think, 15 or 16 trailers back there. So one access point is adequate for that, but... They've had historically two access points for as long as I can remember.

Thank you. Other questions for Brad?

I guess, will the color of the building match the existing one?

Is that the intent? Well, I really can't answer that question particularly well. So I know where the applicant has built some other buildings in But they're standalone. They're not trying to attach to anything. So that was my concern. I don't know.

That's what I want to make sure. It blends in. It doesn't just stick out. This looks more like it would be out there by Hark's where all those other buildings were. So I don't have a problem with it itself. I just want to make sure that it blends appropriately with the neighboring businesses.

I mean... It sounds like you're wanting to see a color rendering to make sure, so we could, could we make a motion to like, say for instance, approve it with assuming the applicants provides a color drawing that matches, that meets the criteria that satisfies you?

Yeah, and that's what I put in my motion is that we, I have a detailed colored elevation as part of the building permits, Bill, that we could look at. But once again, that's a planning commission call. Now, once again, the architect's here. So if you've got any specific questions, if the chairman wants to recognize them, they can.

Oh, okay. Would you like to hear from the architect? Yeah, yeah, wouldn't mind. Maybe he's got some colored drawings with him.

Mike? What's my deal? I got the request on Wednesday, and I was traveling to Detroit Thursday, so... Can you have it done by Friday? I'm like, no, I just can't. So we can get colored elevations if that's something you guys want. It just usually takes a week to do. So I just didn't have enough time at the request. So, yeah, the colors aren't intended to match. Materials will be different. And the reason we're not matching that roof is because we're going to have a lot of equipment that will go on the roof. There's just not enough room on the site to put it out. You know, connectors for the coolers and freezers and things, so. That's why it's slightly different design, and we're basically building out in front of the existing slightly, so that existing roof will die into the side of this building. So it should tie together nicely, more like an encamp anchor, if you think of it that way, versus trying to match something that we can't really match exactly.

Did you think of putting a gabled roof over the entrance door where it actually ties the building, something that would actually kind of make a transition? No.

I didn't just because the way that would transition would be a little more difficult because you're taking one gable rough, trying to another one in where this one, you got a flat wall that that dies into and you just flash right on top of it. So it's a smoother transition. Um, but yeah, so that's, we did think about a gable rough. It just would cause more issues with where do we put stuff? How do we make it all work? So that's where it came to the design we did. Um, so, But yeah, I mean, we call out the colors on the schedule to match existing, even though it's EFIS versus the hardy siding and stuff.

My problem is I don't know what match existing means.

The colors to match existing.

So we're matching the color of the rooftop or the buildings painted?

No, the hardy board siding.

Okay.

And we can do hardy board. It just... It's a cheaper material. We'd rather use something like Ephus that gives us an art value that is a little more durable. Okay.

Other questions for the architect?

Okay.

Thank you. Did we get your name for the record? I'm sorry.

Sorry, David Escove, David Escove Architecture. Thank you very much. Yep.

So I mean, to me, it looks like JT's is kind of like a stucco, like a beige color with some brick flashing around it. And so you're going to match that, but you're going to basically put flat walls, is what you're saying.

Okay, well, this is not a public hearing, so it's managed by the Planning Commission. What do you think?

The only issue that I had was it says on letter A of the architectural standards. Where did it go? It says there are several mature trees on site to the south that will remain to provide screening to the trailer park. Going farther down, I believe it's the first picture that's a drawing, there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven trees that are going to be eliminated and three of those are looks like pretty mature trees on the south side. Actually, there's nine total. So there's five of them on the south side that looks like they're gonna be coming out. I just wanted to make sure there was adequate screening left.

Commissioner, yes, behind the building itself is, and they did note on the site plan that those trees will be coming out, but there is a fair amount of thick, dense vegetation back there so and they're all pretty much volunteer kind of trees but so it's not going to be a you know more ornamental it's just going to be native trees that have grown up in this area over the course of time but there will be enough buffering at least my opinion i have gone back there a few times and and looked at it but yeah you're correct there are some larger trees that will be removed And if you prefer, you can make a condition in the site plan approval that some additional trees are planted back there.

I don't think that would be a... There's one house that's relatively close to that new property line there. I just kind of wanted to make sure that they weren't looking into the backside of the building.

I'd certainly be open to a motion with that type of language and then they can submit a revised drawing as part of their building package that I'll coordinate with our building department and make sure additional trees are shown in that area or planted.

That's a good comment. Anybody else? Well, summarizing, we've heard that some of the architectural details, the color, for example, would be perhaps if we approve it, it's subject to approval of city staff as to the adequate color scheme, or do you want to see it again? I guess those are your choices. And then John's comment about the screening. Maintain adequate tree coverage that provides some buffer. Any other comments or?

I'm good with staff reviewing it myself because he's already brought it up first, so I'm sure .

Plus we could blame him if it didn't look very good. Thinking about a motion.

It's too scrambly. I don't know where to start.

Well, I'll give it a shot. I think we make a motion to approve item 7A, contingent upon a resubmittal of the site plan inclusive of colors. that match staff's requirements to blend in with the existing building, as well as inclusive of a site plan that addresses any potential vegetation shortfalls based on the removal of the nine trees that we're having to pull to get the building to sit.

I guess with the condition of approval of the resume.

With the condition of approval for rezoning that is on the city council agenda. Second.

Did you get that, Edgar?

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

Yes. Medoff. Yes. Milburn. Yes. Templin. Yes. Lane. Yes. Huggins. Yes. Wilson-Carris.

If anybody's interested, I did look up whether there was any sort of state statute about the proximity to a gun shop for a liquor store. Churches and schools, yes. Gun shops, not a problem.

Welcome to Kansas.

All we needed is the vape shop in the middle.

There you go.

Well, you need a pawn shop in there somewhere.

That would be good, too.

Item 7C. Commissioner Milburn is taking his leave. Oh, sorry, 7B. Final plat. My bad. Jumped ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Final plat for this property just shows the area to be potentially rezoned, and also I'm glad Commissioner Milburn noted the access easement is now official on the plat itself. So it's pretty straightforward. Once again, it's a quarter acre. It's just squaring off the JT's property and allowing for determination of side yard setbacks, all the things that we'd require for a commercial property because it's unplatted. Commercial properties need to be platted before they can be issued a building permit.

So I am not opposed to improving the access to that trailer park. I think it's great. I think the fact that we had nothing recorded before, this is a huge step in the right direction. I do have a question, though, as to whether this is wise for us to be doing as a city, as a matter of policy, and that I don't believe we have any other arrangements in town where we have multiple users using a private drive that includes commercial property. At least I can't think of one. And normally we would require a street dedication for that if you have multiple users using that. Maybe I'm thinking incorrectly of what our policy is. I wouldn't mind making an exception for this because it's an existing use. It's been there, but I think maybe we want to make sure we're not setting a precedent here that would otherwise have separate tracks that are served by a private drive this way, certainly in terms of different uses like this. It seems troubling to me. I'm thinking of the developments we're going to have. We're going to have a commercial up front, and then you're going to have a residential in the back or whatever it may be. Normally, you have a dedicated street that would actually give those people right of access as opposed to a private drive left at the whim of the commercial user at the front. That seems to be a problem to me, and I'm hoping we have regulations that otherwise would restrict that. but I'm looking at you because I don't know.

Well, thanks.

Of course, in a new construction scenario, this clearly would not be allowed, right? We wouldn't allow this access easement to a property that's behind. I mean, there is the element of it having been there since the 50s or 40s, however long that was. But then also, if you look at the unplatted, my understanding of the unplatted property just west of this west property line is owned by... the trailer park. Correct. So that does not require an access easement to get to a public road. And it's, it's been that way for, you know, forever. Yeah. Uh, and, and also, yeah, prior to this action, um, the East drive was the same way, you know, they had that. Yeah. So your point is well taken.

I just want to make sure we're not setting a precedent here. Yeah.

We're not, I think there's plenty of, um, the grandfathering aspect of it. But I think, you know, you're right to point that out. This wouldn't be something we would allow in a new developed greenfield type scenario. Correct. That's my soapbox.

Good one.

What else you got? It's up for discussion with the Planning Commission. Not that I want to belabor the point, but can you expand on some of the reasons why that's not a good idea? I'm assuming it's because who's maintaining the road, all of the things that come along with.

Yeah.

I mean, if you, if you look at the only thing we've been presented with is a dotted line on a plat.

Okay. It says that there is an access easement there, but in terms of who's maintaining that easement and what rights the parties have, none of those are in the plat. It would typically be some sort of a, an easement agreement between the parties, which you know, the city doesn't necessarily deal with, but normally when you have multiple users using a right-of-way in this manner, you typically would have a requirement that it be a dedicated street. as opposed to allowing it to proliferate by private drives because they could fall into disrepair, and who's responsible for it? They end up in a fight with all that, and then the city ends up having to take it. So generally, we don't encourage that. This is an unusual case, and I just want to make sure that we're clear that this is unusual as opposed to, oh, yeah, it's not a problem.

To expand, so does that, would there... Should we be suggesting some sort of somebody's got to take care of the baby kind of a line in there?

Well, it's a good question of what is our responsibility. I don't know if that's our job. Okay.

Yeah, I think what we've done, we've established that the single access point for purposes of public safety and general welfare is sufficient, right? It's not what historically has been at the property. So the provision of the access easement, I think, meets our standard of care for a new development like this, especially since there isn't one now.

Yeah, it's a huge step in the right direction.

Yeah, yeah. But yeah, I think Roger articulated very well the reasons why you don't necessarily want that to proliferate. Usually it's at least the second generation after that's sometimes problematic.

And there's, am I reading this right? There's sewer underneath the current access road.

Or does it run along? That's that force main it's on the east side. Okay.

There's a utility easement with the private drive, but it's not.

Okay.

So does this have to go to city council for acceptance of easements?

Yes, it does.

Other comments, motions?

Make a motion we approve the final plat for item 7B, Lexington Center, second plat, and move forward the plat to City Council for acceptance of.

Second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Medoc? Yes. Milburn? Yes. Schultz? Yes. Huggins? Yes. Lane? Yes. Templin? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you.

Now, Item 7C. Justin has excused himself. Brad, you have the floor.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Milburn Civil Engineering submitted an revised site plan for the Rio. As you recall, this has been here for... I was here a couple years ago. Dustin Baker is the developer. He's in the audience tonight. If you have any specific questions for him, he's available. It is the former DeSoto Street Shop. They have done some grading work. They did get a grading permit, hauled in some dirt, smoothed out some sites, cleaned up some things, tore down the old buildings, things like that. And then upon the process of starting to really get this thing going, The three buildings that were initially presented were cost prohibitive, especially the, remember it had covered parking or underground parking under the buildings, which really was a pricey item. So the applicant had come back and revised the plan. The buildings are bigger now. So there's the same amount of units, same amount of parking. Everything is really very similar except the underground parking has been removed. There's still rooftop access to view the river, things like that, but all the parking now is surface parking. So there isn't any, I guess, weather secure areas for auto parking. The number of units, as I mentioned, are the same. The south building, is that correct, has the elevators to the access points and the ADA Apartments that we talked about quite a while ago And you've got the architectural features They're very good job with the renderings And it's really you know pictures worth a thousand words, so I think it'd be a wonderful Upgrade and from what was there which was you know the former street shop building itself, so it's gonna vastly improved Sidewalk access is in place So all the things that we typically require in a site plan, which were approved in the previous version, are on this site plan itself. But like I said, the only real difference is the reduction in the number of buildings, even though the two buildings have gotten larger. So the number of units is the same, but all the parking is adequate, landscaping, and it's really a very efficient use of this property itself. So I'll stand for any questions you may have. And once again, the applicant's in the audience tonight.

One thing that popped up in my mind is looking at the final drawing that's, or not the final drawing, but the drawing that shows both buildings, building two, the farthest north building. In these buildings, there's apartments in the front half and then in the back half, correct?

Yes.

Okay. I see no access road to the back half of that building in case there was a fire to get a piece of equipment back there.

Well, I guess looking at that, and maybe, Dustin, you can address this, but, you know, we don't require that every building is based on the size, because remember we talked about this with the Mobile Infrastructure Data Center and also Merck, where they had to have a fire access road behind the building. I mean, I can confirm that with Cameron if there's some issue with that, but it certainly hasn't come up yet.

Looking at the drawing of that building, it looks like there's going to be four stories. I would think we would want to have something back there so that they could get a piece of equipment in there because I know we've got the new aerial ladder, but there's no way you can get it down. It's just the years of being on the fire department that kicked that in on me. I see an issue there.

I'm assuming the fire department's seen these?

Well, they've seen the initial plan. And the building, the third building, was pretty much in the same spot as, I guess, building two. So there were no comments made about fire access on that other one. And it wasn't four stories then, was it? I don't remember. Well, I think the building that was in there, they're the same. There's three. It's three and three. So really, yeah, it's... kind of three and a half stories because the first level is a little bit higher because of the grade separation.

Other questions for Brad?

Is that something we can put in that? I would think if you want to. Final approval from the fire department for access?

Yeah, it will get evaluated for that with the when I submit for a building permit anyway. But yeah, I certainly can do that.

That's a good point.

That may not seem like a big point to the developer, but if you're one of them living in one of those apartments. Mr. Chairman.

And these are sprinkled, right? The applicant would like to address the planning committee. Would you like to hear from the applicant?

If you would.

If you mind. Sorry.

Dustin Baker with Alcove Development. So the buildings are fully sprinkled. They're essentially like the residents at Lexington. I mean, it's pretty much. I mean, you have access to the same size of the buildings as residents at Lexington, and the fire department has approved those.

But we're... There's no back road behind those?

No.

You'll probably be all right.

But, I mean, obviously the fire department will have a chance to review them, and we'll do whatever we need to do to be compliant with the fire department.

I think this is a vast improvement over the last one, just in the context of the underground parking made those kind of weird sight lines where people were potentially walking across the parking lot on elevations.

Yeah.

I actually think it's probably a better design.

We would agree, yeah. And it should help us with our budgetary constraints, too. Are you going to put basketball goals in the goal? We may, if we have enough parking.

As long as the fire department signs off, I'm good.

So am I. It looks nice. It's going to be a nice addition.

Questions? Management for the Planning Commission? Comments? If there's a chance, Mark.

Charlie, you good?

Yeah, I'm good. Motion? Make a motion to approve item 7C, the revised site plan for the Rio apartment complex subject to fire department approval based on egress and access and all those fun things.

Seconded. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Schultz. Yes. Templin.

Yes. Lane.

Yes. Huggins. Yes. Maddock.

Yes. Motion carries. Okay, that concludes our agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Justin has re-entered the party. Our next meeting is July 28th. Any other business to bring before the Planning Commission? Second. Seconded. We're adjourned. Thank you.