Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

My neighbor's daughter has a dog and she like comes into town, drops her dog off with her parents and she just goes goes off and travels for like six months and then she comes back and then she This is

Brad those chairs. is now starting. All attending audio listen only mode. Charles,

this is I didn't.

Yeah. All right.

That is a very fortunate trip. We're not going back. Yeah. No.

Yeah. A little surprise last night, right? You're making part of your meal. That's it.

Yes. You need to have some bushes.

Yeah. Charlie said a delay.

We mark Hey Bob, remember they made it through Christmas. They get out of Christmas very bad. For some reason,

I mean the council Don't be scared.

Yeah, whatever. You're just Is that water?

Oh gosh. There you go. That's all. You mean

Patrick, can you hear us online? Just do a little sound check here. Yes. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Charles, I see you're online. I don't know if you're ready.

Okay, real good. I need to turn sound down in the room a little bit. Thanks, It doesn't sound How you doing? Well, good evening. My clock says 6:00 despite the fact the one on the wall says 559.

Like to call this meeting to order. Roll call, please. Martin, here. Templan, yes. Lane, here. Huggin. Milbour. Mock here. Schultz here. Uh, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Milbourne is absent today. Thank you. Item 3A, general business. A, uh, approve the planning commission agenda. Any changes, requested, modifications, motions? We approve the second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Charlie, you have any objection to that? I do not.

Item 3B, approve the minutes of the planning commission meeting held for November 25th, 2025. Any changes, corrections, additions to be made to the minutes? Motions. Motion to accept the minutes as presented. Moved and seconded. All in favor say I.

No. Okay. Item 3D, disclosure of outside communications regarding commission business. I received an email this last week from Bonnie Oreli and Doug McGahi. It's not a matter having to do with this particular anything on the agenda tonight, but I did get an email from them. I did not respond to it.

So, other than that communication, I guess the general chatter on Facebook, that's about all I know. Anybody else? Okay. Item four, call to the public. Members of the public who wish to address the planning commission regarding items not on the agenda tonight may do so at this time. Any presentations for information purpose? Seeing none. Anyone online? No one online.

I'll close the call of the public, which brings us to item 5A. Reszoning of approximately, 1200 acres at Astra Parkway and Energy Way from RUR to M1 Light Industrial. Brad. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What you have before you is the second resoning request for Astra Development. It's approximately 1100 acres. Actually, it's a little bit more than that, but this is primarily south of Energy Way and west of Astra Parkway. So, it's really on the other side of Panasonic and it does go all the way to Evening Star. So, it's a fairly goodized chunk of property. But, uh, this is the process that we've been going through that they've gone, uh, been doing diligently on the cleanup work and this, uh, property is now available for development and potentially site plans and moving through the, uh, system as we review this for the city of Dodto. So, we've done all the appropriate notifications, send out property or letters to residents nearby. There aren't very many since most of the property is on Astra's site. Johnson County Parks has been notified as well about the uh reszoning as well. Uh as you know right now this property zoned rur from the county's designation. We haven't reszoned it yet. So uh before development can occur needs to be reszoned to an appropriate dodto zoning district. And according to our site or pardon me, our land use plan and previous resonings for this area, it's M1 is the requested zoning district. So you can see on page one, this is the aerial of the area, but it is the it's actually like I said a little bit over,00 acres that is now being proposed for M1 and the Panasonic as you can see

is in the M1 on the upper right. Flint development is M1 to the north and then the C2 zoning is we did that that's on the corner of Evening Star where the Geer batch plants is going to be. So it looks it is consistent with the future land use plans and all the plans that have been going on for over 20 years for uh hopefully future development on this site. Just going to go through the zoning compatibility factors, character of the neighborhood. I mean, this is very similar to the resoning we did the initial one, and it's almost pretty consistent with the same size. It was about uh 1,200 acres on that first resoning, maybe maybe closer to 13. Uh but there's commercial, multif family, light industrial, a lot of different types of tracks in this area, but we are focusing on the Astra development. And it is, as I had mentioned, previous comp plans, land use plans have all shown this as M1 development in this area, but we are waiting for the clearances for the cleanup before anything could be pursued on this location. So the propo compatibility proposed uses something that we've looked at for a long time. I've covered that under land use plan and the existing zoning suitability which it's been restricted under its existing zoning. It's RUR which is really agriculture that was just a placeholder for the time being until a more specific use could be identified and the applicants are asking for M1 zoning. Length of time the property has remained vacant as zoned. Well, as we know, it was a previously a very heavy industrial site with an ammunition plant. And then during the cleanup, it shifted to RUR, which is agriculture, while this process was being taking place. And now we're basically repurposing this whole area for M1 light industrial

need within the community for these these uses. As we've talked about many times, this property was a significant employment center. And when the uh ammunition plant closed, it it ceased being that and went through the cleanup process. So there is a desire within Dota to develop this property into a into an economic area and also a job creator for the city as well. Something that has stopped or kept this area from being considered earlier is the required utilities. But now the city has expanded the water treatment plant, expanded the wastewater plant. Utilities have been extended to these locations. Roadway network has been developed and fire safety is improved now with a new fire station nearby. So this is certainly uh an area that has the utilities, the roadway network and the public safety facilities in place to move forward. Extent which the uses allowed of the proposed zoning would adversely affect the the area. I mean there are some apartment complexes. There is development housing development going across the street on Aster Parkway. There's also Clear View City. However, once again, this is an area that's going to be on the south side. Those are all on the north side of the track. We've got a fairly significant arterial road with buffering and landscaping. And there's a a lot of property there that we can use when we go through the site plan process to significantly buffer and not cause any harm to any of these developments. Staff believes that this is a appropriate use for this property as well. environmental impacts. We will be having storm water studies done, traffic studies done, all the things as you've typically seen us do as proposals

come in for this property, lighting a sack, etc. And also landscaping will be a big part of what we look at before we bring and and bring these to the planning commission. Uh economic impact, this is something that city's been looking forward to for a long time. It does develop revenue for the city which also can be used and is being used for quality of life issues for the residents of Dodto. And ultimately I'm just going to skip to the consistency with comp comprehensive plan the land use plan. There's been this process has been gearing up for probably 25 years to come to a point where there is actual concern and processes and development and thought going into these areas. And now with the utilities, expanded water, water, wastewater, roadway network, all the things in that have been going on for the last four or five years, this property is now or these tracks are now ready to be reszoned for uh use and the applicant is requesting M1. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will stand for any questions that you all may have, but uh this is something that staff is positive on this request to the planning commission.

Thank you, Brad. Any questions from the commission? Uh Brad, what would be the southernmost edge of this? I believe it's 119th Street right down there. And it does I think Mike if you go up to the previous slide it does have the road network maybe thought I put those on there. Well, as I recall, it butts up to the northern edge of the solar area, which was 119th Street. Okay.

And the area in the northwest corner that's also owned by the same entity as well, a lot of that is owned by the board of regents. And then there are some tracks in there that have some issues, some concrete, some other things that are just not part of this request at this time. There's also going to be some potential property transfer sunflower roads going be coming down this way. So thank you. The questions that Kansas University land is that what is that up there? Is that just what that is that used for right up there in the corner?

Yeah, I don't know if it's labeled here. No, but you're I think it's the same parcel Mr. Huggin was asking about this quadrant. Yes, about 500 acre. I'm not exact. Don't quote me on the acres. That is either land that already is or is or will be deed to Kansas University. Okay.

Um they don't have any long range vision for that property at this time. I know the applicant and the ownership group of the rest of Astra has had discussions with them about a joint possibilities on that, but it seems like at least on the university side a little bit of a longer term uh effort for them um at this time. I guess um I know that we it's been planned that that be developed and that we're going that direction, but I would just like to see some of our land preserved and protected. I just hate to see everything everything around us, all communities are just filling up everywhere. And I'd like to see part of our agricultural areas preserved. And if Kansas University is going to keep part of that up there and keep that 500 acres, that's good. But geez, I hate to just see everything build up into everything into commercial just because there's a blank space. I hate to see it filled. Well, I I can agree with you, Commissioner, on a lot of those sentiments, but this was a heavy industrial use for,

you know, since empty and it was cattle were running on it and things like that, so now that it's turned over by this other company, that's probably not going to happen. But like I said, I just don't want to see every square inch of land we've got turned into commercial. Yeah. But you also realize there is a lot of parkland that's been dedicated at Johnson County. True. Thousands of acres. So it's and they're actually working on the the land swap to u make some of Johnson Countyy's master planning efforts a little more fruitful. So how current is this one picture that shows the buildings and stuff still inside there are?

Well, that came off of Johnson County as they update their photos roughly every year. So I I don't know when this was taken. John is that remediation in that area is complete. Yeah, we did get letters part of the application I know was quite long but there's assurances that those areas had been cleaned and are ready for development. Other questions for Brad? Thank you Brad. This matter is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to be heard on this matter, please approach the podium. Give us your name and address for the record. Anyone online?

Don't see anyone online. No. Well, I'll close the public hearing. So, the matters before the planning commission. Thoughts? Obviously, Lind has given some thoughts. Any other thoughts? I'd have to say this looks very appropriate to me for this area. I understand. My thoughts? Yeah, I I'd agree with Commissioner Huggin on that side of it. Have M1. I would just assume it'd be there. Seems like the most appropriate place for me. I don't know. I mean, it was 9,000 acres of brownfield is what this was when I moved out here 33 years ago.

And we've talked about what to do with this thing. And yeah, maybe there were cattle running on it, but you call this agricultural property to start with. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the army took care of that back in the 40s. Yeah. So, we're dealing with what I think is probably naturally a good manufacturing site or something would qualify for M1, which is better than M2. And to me, it seems appropriate. Further discussion, motions. I'd move that we approve agenda item 5A as presented by staff and we're recommending approval of the city council. City council moved and seconded. Charlie, did I hear you?

Yeah. Yeah. Second from uh any further discussion? Roll call. Schultz. Yes. Huggin. Yes. Lane. Yes. Templan. Yes. Martin. Yes. Met. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Item 6A, consider Merc site plan approved.

All right, Mr. Chairman. This is carryover from our previous meeting. Uh we do have GBA representatives in the audience tonight. Derry or O orander is here available to answer your questions. But your your concerns were about fire lane marking and parking, potential employee parking on some of those fire lane areas and also potential parking where the trucks and traffic might co-mingle and had concerns about that. my understanding if they're talking to the the engineers that Merc's pretty regimented and where they allow employees to park and so there wouldn't be any service vehicles or employee vehicles near the truck stop or truck docks or anything like that. And then of course I did talk to uh Cameron who is our building official, fire marshall and that's something that they take care of to make sure that those lines and are are placed on the document are placed in the field as they're supposed to be. And he did a pretty extensive review on the fire lanes on this project. So I appreciate his hard work on that. But I I know that uh GBA would like to address the uh commission and just kind of clarify any questions you may have.

Certainly I have no objection. You guys just for background I think the conversation last time largely focused upon the fact that we have a number of interior buildings that have no parking indicated anywhere. And then the second is that the uh construction site parking um and and questioning whether or not that's got access onto 87th Street, whether 87th Street's going to become a thorough affair for this during construction. Those were the two things that stuck out to me. Anyhow, I don't know if others may have other thoughts, but

yeah, quick question. Um, so if we can zoom out a little bit, I'll just give you some context here and maybe that'll help um your understanding of what we're proposing here. So on the very south side of the site, we have employee parking um which is the large paved parking lot. Um all employees coming onto the merk site will park there. They will not go any further north than that parking lot. Um so that sort of alleviates pointer. Absolutely. It will show up on that screen but not the others. Turn it around. There you go.

Thanks, Mike. Yep. So, right there is the employee parking lot. And what you're also seeing is there's two access drives off of 91st here. Trucks will enter into the far east drive and continue north at the stopping at the guard shack getting security clearance to then allow them to enter onto the larger development site. All other traffic visitors and employees alike will enter into the west drive and then proceed to park in this parking lot. So to your question of employees necessarily parking on the fire lanes interior to the site or blocking hydrants will not be likely. um to further talk about traffic flows. Once the development goes live, all employees and traffic that is coming onto the site will traverse across 91st Street. The bigger concern with regard to traffic is probably the ramp up of construction. And so taking into account Brad and and the planning team's comments and suggestions, what we are planning for via our trip generation memo is to direct construction traffic across along 91st to the west and then onto Sunflower north on Sunflower up to 87th Street and then east to a construction entrance right about there. So, the bulk of construction traffic or even construction work traffic will enter off of 87th and then enter into the site and

generally will park here during the construction period services or period of the development. So, I hope that gives you a little bit more context on how we're sort of mitigating construction traffic and then on to employee traffic once the buildings go live. The other thing that they are also considering that we will document and reflect in our trip generation memo is that construction traffic will avoid peak hours of school not to interfere with drop offs in the morning at the high school to the east and not to interfere with pickups in the afternoon for the high school to the east. And so mitigating those peak hours hopefully will not cause too much of an impact to traffic as they exit off of K10 going north to the roundabout circle um on Lexington and everybody else that's sort of impacted by this. And so that is our plan to mitigate conflicts with traffics there at the interchange um and to help direct construction traffic around those those constraints. Any questions regarding that information?

I will say that's very helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. I guess my concern was that if you had a need for emergency vehicles, if you have employees who are disabled for whatever reason, at least temporarily, need access to any of these buildings, there literally is not a single parking spot close to them. Yeah, I understand that able-bodied employees are going to park on the other side of the fence and walk across, but if there's somebody who's on crutches, what is he going to do? And it just struck me odd that there's not a single parking space for for anyone who might need an access issue.

Yeah. Um, working with Merc um on this project, they are very sensitive to those issues and topics. The entire campus itself will be ADA accessible. So, we will be providing ADA routes from the employee parking back to any entry point of the building. What does that mean? Because there's no parking spots. True. So, ADA parking is provided in the employee parking lot. Okay.

To get someone of that condition into the campus, they would enter just like anyone else into the security guard there. Once they pass that checkpoint, it will then be upon Merk's ability to then make sure those folks have ways to get to where they need to get to. So even if they had a golf cart, there isn't a place to park a golf cart, which is why it's a little weird. Yeah. Well, this probably has to go in and have regard with Merc. Okay. Um they do not want employees or public in the interior of their campus.

Understand? And so they they've got measures to asssure that that doesn't happen. For someone that is employed by Merc or needs to enter onto Mercus that has those disabilities, I'm sure MC will be very accommodating to make sure that those folks can get where they need to get. I I trust you. It just seemed weird.

The other issue is is the obviously the construction traffic. And I do understand that the memo details that all traffic should go down 91st Street, go up Sunflower Road. What if it doesn't? What do we have to enforce that? If it's just a memo that that says that's what we intend to do, I don't have I don't know that you're going to necessarily have control over all those contractors who come and do your work and if they want to take a right, go out 87th Street to Penner because it's easier for them. That is a bit concerning. The other point, too, is that this isn't just a high school. We have the elementary school immediately to the west and then we have the middle school at Penner and 87th Street. So we got three schools right there that we've going to have construction traffic that we have to deal with. And so those were the reasons for the questions. I'm appreciate the response, but if the response is only that we have a a parking a traffic memo, I'm a little concerned that that addresses the issue, but I'll defer to city staff if they're comfortable with that. I don't know how we'd ever enforce it. Yeah, I think you know we've had a lot of conversations internally about this and and I we do believe that Merk's intent Jay Dunn being the general contractor their intent is to abide by all the city suggestions. Um I do feel like they are prepared to meet that condition if it is stated in in their approval and at any given point if they're not meeting that condition we can stop work. So I I think that's the leverage and and sort of checks of compliance that we need to approach as we kick off our construction. I would love for the city to be present at that meeting to voice that concern and we will continue to voice that concern throughout the process.

So will you be monitoring that then? I mean we don't want to wait until there's a critical incident that brings it to somebody's attention. We want it monitored before Yes. I think us on the design side team, we will be monitoring that. We are going to ask the general contract to monitor that. And I think what we can obviously do is have some regular periodical check-ins. Yes. To provide a report that we are abiding by what we say we are going to do. That would be good. Thank you.

Maybe at least give some legal teeth to this. Should we add an additional condition with regard to that traffic flow that they will abide by the terms of the traffic memo or something like that? I think that would be appropriate. Chairman, submit reports.

Okay. Um, one other thing just maybe not to nitpick the report that we have in front of us, but there's a reference there to the Rio Apartments. So I'm guessing that was probably wrong. Yes. That should be Merc, right? Yes.

Okay. So I I would propose at least two modifications to the report if we're going to approve this would be obviously the the name and then second to add a condition that the applicant will abide by the terms of the traffic memo and submit periodic reports as to traffic flow or traffic issues. during construction. It's really all I'm worried about. I have no reason to believe that people go in there during a regular workday are not going to follow the rules. I'm worried about the contractors that are may not necessarily understand.

Sure. So during construction, other comments, concerns, objections, protests? Thank you very much. Thank you commission. M for the planning commission. Any further comment

motions? I make a motion that we um approve the submittal with the stated recommendations, modifications the city council for approval. Actually, I think we just approved this one. Did we just approve this one? The site plan. Yeah, that's correct. Okay. So, motions for approval with the modifications. Second. There's a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mock. Yes. Martin, yes. Templan, yes. Lane, yes. Huggin, yes.

Schultz, yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate you taking the time to do that.

Okay. Item 7A, consider preliminary plat for Cedar Valley Estates. Before we get too far into this, um there was some discussion that I participated in with Patrick earlier today about this this particular u preliminary plat and final plat that are before you today is for a piece of property that we did a resoning for. That resoning is going to go before city council this week. The way the timing worked out because we moved our meeting, this may be a bit premature for that reason. Um, but I think the idea was let's go ahead and and do the presentation and so everybody knows what we're talking about, but it may be appropriate for us to consider to table this until at least that's done and certainly to give folks an opportunity to take a look at

a bit of concern about that myself. Right. So just with that background.

All right. Thank you, chairman. Went through the process for evaluating the preliminary and the final plat. I'll just present like we're going through this and um but most of our effort tonight really will be on the preliminary plat. That's where we get into a lot of the details for the drainage study, the culde-sacs, the sidewalks, the road alignment, the lot sizes, and of course the items surrounding the drainage and the flood plane are utmost concern to the residents that have been communicated myself. One thing also it's important to note on this when the applicant's asking for a rural subdivision which we do have provisions in our code for that and I put those in the staff report that um they're shown on this city's future land use map. Now we don't have a rural subdivision overlay area. However, we do show this area as large single family ultimate in our development plan. So my opinion was that sort of met that requirement. Also it cannot have sanitary sewer or anything like that. It's not available and we do not show any kind of improvements in our master plan for sanitary sewers in this area. So it's septic only. Must be in the RO or R1 zoning district which is going to be on the city council's agenda on the 18th just a couple days from now. And then all it must be in an area where rural patterns are already established, which is pretty much what eastern Dodto is, is all large rural subdivisions or homesteads. The other thing that's interesting about the culde-sacs, the applica is asking for a culde-sac a little bit a little bit longer than 2,000 ft. As you can see, as it as it meanders through the site, it really just solid follow just sort of splits the property so they could get an

appropriate sized lots and and staff is okay with that because the low nature and low density of this project. We don't feel like there's going to be any kind of issues with this. What basically what allows them is to do a a ditch section instead of curb and gutters. they just have a street and and ditches for for drainage. And then all of course the average lot size must be two acres and the minimum size of lots of 1.5. These all well exceed those criteria. So I guess the first thing in this in the uh wanted to clarify is staff believes that it does meet the rural subdivision criteria and ultimately planning commission makes that decision but is our recommendation planning commission and that's what we've worked with the applicant on is that it would be considered a rural subdivision and that's what they have proposed. So, uh, moving on to the sidewalks is something else we've had a discussion with the applicant about. Planning Commission may allow alternate sidewalks. And once again, you think about this area being very rural, quite a ways from any sidewalks anywhere, but at some point, Cedar Creek or pardon me, 83rd Street could be improved between Lanexa and Dotto. We do have a plan to study. There very likely will be a trail along it at some point. And so conceivably sometime in the future there could be a loop, a connection down Cedar Creek back to 95th and then ultimately heading to the west. May not be in any of our lifetimes, but it's something that could happen. And I think it's important that we think about those things. That's why we talked about having sidewalks internally, which is part of our criteria for a preliminary plat. And so we do have sidewalks shown on the

preliminary plat. However, the applicant has asked me to at least bring up the topic of not having sidewalks. You know, once again, there's 19 homes. It's going to be very low traffic. anybody that needs to walk probably could do just as well walking on the street and not have to worry about any kind of issues. But once again, Joe and I talked about it. We feel it's appropriate to have those sidewalks even though it's something that is a very long-term item and I know chairman you live in a large lot subdivision with no sidewalks and so I don't know if that's lots of people wandering the streets. It ain't real safe. if I

So, so that's that's part of the reason why we have asked that they be included, but the applicant has uh wanted you to at least consider the thought of having no sidewalks in the area. Then sidewalks you're talking about are ones that actually front Cedar Creek Road. No, they're on 88th Street. They're on 88th Street. The sidewalks are on 88th Street. Yes. Okay. And then ultimately I also have here in the the proposed culde-sac length is about 2200 feet which is longer than we have but it's uh once again a very low dense area and feel like the the density of the

development would not hinder or be a problem for safety vehicles coming and going as needed. And then finally, the drainage issues as well. A couple things I'd like to point out. Actually, Mike, if you go to the next screen, it shows the buildable lots on this area. It also shows that well, there's the grading development plan. So, the the road is going to be raised up and the applicant has also indicated that they will be wanting to raise up the heights of the pads for the homes themselves. And then also on that map you can see the uh there's a bank. We have 120 foot stream corridor. I think Mike if you go

one more

one more. That's the this is the buildable lot area. And those areas are outlined in the light green. The dash line there is the 120 ft from the edge of the bank which is we have a stream protection or part of our ordinance is to have protecting the bank of the stream and that actually if you recall came up with the carriage houses when they were putting their buildings along Cedar Creek that they had to respect that as well and that's something that the applicant has shown on this just to give you an idea of where potentially where the flood plane is where that stream corridor is as well. Then also we do have a fairly significant drainage report and I was going to let the applicant take you through that. Joe's also reviewed that and uh worked with them on that process to make sure it meets our criteria. So if you have any questions so far probably be a good stopping point to uh

you mentioned the possibility of future trail system. Would that is does Johnson County or Dodto have any plans for a trail through along this stream? Well, I'm not aware where our parks board hasn't taken that up as far as going up along Cedar Creek Road, but certainly along 83rd Street all the way into Lanexa. So, it's really my thinking is it's not inconceivable that at some point Cedar Creek might have a trail system that loops all the way around on 95th and back to Kill Creek, but not along the creek itself.

No, this would be along the road road and then actually I think it goes actually into tha. Is that right, Mike? For a little bit when it goes underneath K10, I think that's Yeah. Yeah. Right. So, we've got some jurisdictional things we'd have to work out, but uh that's that's our thoughts on that. A couple thoughts, Brad. Uh go ahead.

I I definitely would have to agree with you on the uh the sidewalk. Uh just being a resident of uh Waverly and 98th here, that development uh that went in right across the street from us put in a really nice white sidewalk. I got to tell you, there's there's not a day gone by in the last 3 months that I haven't seen it. At least two or three people walking on that thing. And to uh the commissioner um uh to the comment was made earlier about um people not being on the street being on the sidewalk and and making it safer. That I 100% agree with that. I think that these larger lot developments, this is a really nice addition. Uh and I agree with staff. probably recommendation.

Yeah, I guess I'm glad you brought that up, Commissioner, because the only previous large lot development we have was the Arcadian Estates, and that's also one that we've had them put sidewalks in. So, to be consistent, it was also important that we I I totally agree with that. I guess the question I would have is we have in the past done these where we've had as a requirement that they give a covenant not to protest about at some point later. And if that's a timing issue, then so be it. But I I have no problem making a good idea. Okay.

Um the other question I have, at least one of the lots that's called out here is straight 1.0 acres. Can we even do septic in one acre? Thought it had the acre plus. It needs to have a oneacre buildable area, meaning no easements right away. I'm not sure. I thought I was certain all of them were much larger than an acre. You know, they got some here that are 1.1 and 1.0. That might be the buildable area, but I believe the whole lots themselves are larger. I don't know. Okay. Yeah, whole lots are larger. So, those are just the buildable area. Yeah, that's for the se, you know, to allow like the acreage needed for the septic. So, is 1.0 buildable area sufficient or does it have to be more than one for a septic?

Yeah, it it excludes the easement. So, it meets their requirement. our our stand is one one acre for our set one plus but maybe I'm wrong. I just don't want you to do this and not be able to build on it. Well, we can we can talk. We can discuss. Well, I think the recommendation is going to be ultimately that we table this so you have some time to maybe look at that. But that's one of the things to suck at. You don't want to end up with lots you can't put a septic on because that's the only thing you Yeah. I think the one acre Well, the reason we say oneacre plus because it has it cannot include utility easements.

And I think the way this is drawn, if you look at the green box and I'm I'm just I've got my cursor over the 1.0. I think the 1.0 does not include the easements and and the setback. It's not my land, so make sure make sure it works for you. Yeah. Okay. So, septics would be in that green box area. They wouldn't be down in the foot plane. Correct.

So, we have this microtorm study which I have not read in detail. I would love to have somebody kind of help explain it a little bit of what you guys looked at. I don't know what you guys think.

Okay. You indicated we have somebody here that might be able to help us understand what this is.

Thank you. Give us your name and address for the record.

Todd Allen Brand. 102 Abby Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas, Renaissance Infrastructure Consulting. I'm here with the clients, the developers, Trent and Brad Teer. And then with me are a couple gentlemen from our staff that one of them can probably speak on the storm water report in much more detail than I will be able to, but I'd like to just address a few things if you may real quick. Um, one, the reason we don't want the sidewalks is for one thing, this size of lots, three acres or larger. I mean, it's not common to have sidewalks in those subdivisions this size in the county almost anywhere. Now, the developments that were brought up earlier, I think if you look at those, you'll notice that those are higher density lots and they're curbing gutter. This is a ditch section, so it's, you know, asphalt with the section to carry the water. We just don't feel like that it meets the surrounding neighborhoods, the characteristic of the surrounding neighborhoods. And also a lot of times, and I don't know how everybody's familiar with the larger lots like this, but I think a lot of people if they're wanting to go in between neighbors houses, I mean, I see them, you know, probably using like a side by side or a golf cart and just going across their gra their land to get to it. Um, and that was kind of the issue on the sidewalk. And plus there's obviously no sidewalk out on the Cedar Creek Road. We did dedicate an additional 20 feet for Cedar Creek Road in the future to accommodate curb and gutter and then a path on the direction of the city. Uh so that's kind of our main concern about the sidewalks and also it's just you know the cost for a sidewalk in these large lots is extremely high compared to smaller more dense subdivisions. So I think the big argument is this is a charact the road is a different characteristic than the other subdivisions. You know it has

smaller lots curb and gutter. These are just a ditch section. Then another item that I'd like to address a couple other items. Um staff wanted a street light at the end of the culde-sacs, which again we're trying to keep this more of like a what we see in larger lot subdivisions, not having street lights on the street, you know, allowing the homeowner to light up their property however they feel appropriate for them. Get a little more privacy. Now, we're not opposed to a street, excuse me, a street light at Cedar Creek Road and the new connection. That makes great sense in our opinion, just helping them get out on the traffic. So, you know, we were looking at reducing the street lights down to just one, eliminating the sidewalks. Um, and then also just to help out with the length of the culde-sac, we have the little short one in about midway, we've created this essentially a little turnaround for some relief for people if they realize, hey, this is a dead end and they don't have to drive all the way to the end of turnaround. I have an opportunity to turn around sooner. I'm trying to think if there's anything else that maybe I need to address with you guys. Probably not unless you have some specific questions on some of those items

we talked about. Most of people are worried about flooding.

Yeah, I I understand that. But those are just some stuff that I wanted to bring up. You know, see if we can get a waiver exception on those few items. And then the only other thing and talking with Brad, we're not sure, maybe we can get some help here, is if we're allowed to get a deviation from the street trees. What we had proposed initially to the staff was going with 80oot centers along the lots for street trees versus 40ft centers. And what we don't plant, if we go to the 80oot centers, the trees that are lost by going from 4080, they would just in their documents, covenants restrictions, they would require the homeowner to plant more front yard trees to offset the difference in the count. So, that was kind of one thing we wanted to look at as well. I don't know if you guys looked at the street tree plan, but it looks pretty, you know, soldiered up on big lots. looks a little

I don't know how to say it, a little bit crowded and kind of busy. So, that was that was the issue about going to 80 foot centers. And those are the only items. And um about the septic system, but I think it would be good if Brad came up. He's he's been talking to the city staff about septics, so he's got some information about it and then maybe we can have uh then Dusty can come up and talk about the flood plane, the flood setting. Right. Appreciate it. Thank you. Hi, how are you this evening? Thank you.

Brad Tiger, uh 19598 South Clear View Road. And I believe Brad, I met out there with the lead building inspector and the it would be the camera Dale out there.

Correct. Okay. So what we did is we dug tests on lots one, lots five, lots eight, 11 and 16 to give a a quite sporadic sample of of these uh soil profiles. So one being the best uh dirt that we found 3 ft down as is typical for their soil profiles. and we took pictures of every hole that we dug at three feet. We also dug uh build site locations. So, we had uh Renaissance GPS locate 100 ft back from the front property line for build site. I believe your guys's requirements 50, correct, Brad?

Yeah, 50. So, but we again we're trying to make this feel more open

and and more acreage. Um, I know we're taking it away from a cow field and putting houses here, but we're trying to create that urban field or that uh that feel of being still in the country even though you're developing it. So, that's why we're kind of cutting down on the trees and stuff like that, but 100 ft back and then I believe it was 50 feet back from the 100 foot build site. So, we did dig test holes on lots one, five, I'm sorry, five, eight, and 16. And we dug those as about as deep as the 300 excavator could go and found no water table, no no damp soil, uh sandy clay that would shine a little bit, but actually really good dirt and not one rock. So um but in all the soil samples that we took for the systems it was all uh prescribed as presby systems preliminary is what they said on site location. So a presby system would be a uh it would not be a sealed uh system. It would um are you guys familiar with raised drip systems? So the raised dri drip systems have uh they're they're sealed. Um so it's like one step up from gravity which means the soil is really conducive for a septic system. But as far as them being located in any of the flood plane that's not allowable. And as far as them, the height of them, uh, if you did have to raise them from recommendation from building, then it would turn into a mound system and that would still go through their jurisdiction on approval of the system.

Okay. Did you have any other questions for those test holes? No, I honestly the the septic is up to you. Yeah. So I I don't really Well, it was part of our due diligence to make sure that we could actually provide homes with with adequate and we were we were quite pleased with the test holes both for the building site locations and for the septic. Great.

All right. Thank you. Evening. Uh Dustin Burton also at 102 Abbey Road, Kansas City, Kansas with RIC. Um yeah, so uh trying to study out here. So we're not we're not filling in the the flood plane obviously and all the development is going to be outside the flood plane. Um and we're held to essentially staying 2 feet above the base flood elevation as has been mapped by FEMA. Um, so that's kind of the the first um defense I guess against flooding of the subdivision itself is is we're not we're not building within the flood plane itself. So that's uh that's a positive. Um to kind of address the storm water management as as staff indicated, we're we're complying with uh uh with city standards. Um, one of the biggest things that, uh, we're kind of taking advantage of, if you will, is is historically this has always been rorowcrop, which uh, rowcrop is is, you know, green vegetation, but it's not necessarily the best vegetation as uh, to slow down storm water itself. So, um, there is a little bit of a small, but there's a little bit of benefit going from row crop to um, standard turf, which we indicate that in the drainage study. And the other biggest part of that is the open ditch system. So the open dish system kind of um elongates the drainage way um and meanders the the water as it goes through from the road the impervious area of the roadway itself and brings it down. So it did actually um slows water down a little bit uh to where we're we're able to take advantage of that and we're not showing a peak runoff from the site. Um happy to answer any questions. That's really just high level. Any questions?

So just layman understanding these this building of when the development is built out you don't anticipate that creating any more pressure on the stream way that we already have. Yes, that's right. Thank you. Yeah, it's again, you know, it's a very low impact development. So you're able to take advantage of some some some of the smaller storm water management systems that uh a more dense development wouldn't be able to do. So we would need to provide detention for sure. Thank you. Yep.

Todd Allen Brand. Um, just to add on to what Dusty said, uh, it's in the staff report, but we did raise we did raise the road on an average about five feet and actually in the turnaround the little circle area, pork chop, whatever you call it, that actually is uh because that's our controlling factor, it's it's about seven or 8 foot of fill in that location. And one thing that we've been discussing with the developers is where they want to set the house. We're going to look at that elevation and then if that elevation is higher than the base flood elevation, we're going to set a MLO 2 ft above that elevation. But their intentions are on the houses.

Their intentions on on the houses sites is on a 9- FFT basement, you know, they'll meet that twoft of freeboard, let's call it that. We're going to set above the base flood elevation, but they're going to try to go between two and four on a nine foot basement, on a 10-ft basement, maybe two to five potentially, but they have to, you know, gets to be a little bit of a concern poking the basement any more than probably 4 feet outside the existing elevation. So, not only were are we setting MLOS's to exceed the base flood elevation, but the building the house is even higher, the foundations, top foundations. So, you know, we're trying to do everything we can to protect the homeowners. I mean, because at the end of the day, that's what we want to do, right? We want to protect them and and and be conscious of the down of the adjacent property owners as well.

Thank you. Thank you. So, um this is not a public hearing item, but for those who are interested in this, um I do direct you to city staff to make whatever comments you want to make. Um, I do recommend that we consider tableabling this until our next meeting. Um, that'll give you some time to deal with the issues that you identified about the sidewalks, the street light, the turnaround, the deviation of the street trees. Keep working with city staff. Come to us with whatever you think is acceptable and and we'll be happy to do that at the next meeting and talk about it.

All right. And and on those items, we did work with city staff and they were basically we were directed that it's your decision on waving those. So they can't from a I believe correct me if I'm wrong, Brad or Joe, but from their standpoint, I don't think that they can wave that. We have to I I'd really like to hear from staff as to whether they believe an alternative might be acceptable. And if if if there is, great. If not, then so be it. But okay, you know if you know if we're talking about what you're proposing for example for the street fe street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street street trees if there is some other alternative that's something that we should consider great but we have a rule subdivision rules

for a reason and so normally don't just wave those without some sort of a a tradeoff as to what that ultimately to be same goal so um you know I'd say the same thing with the street lights propose something I mean the idea is that to facilitate this kind of development We actually have rule subdivision regulations for that. So, we're not holding you to the standard of a highly dense development. That's that's the point of the rule subdivision. So, waving that is another step and I certainly wouldn't be comfortable doing it without some sort of a agreement with staff as to whether it's appropriate. Okay, that's for me. You guys may feel different.

And I know you're sorry, Mr. Huggin. I know you're talking about tableing it. Is there would there be an option to give us an approval or a recommendation or on the preliminary plat and then table the final plat? I'm not comfortable with it, but I'm only one voice. Okay, that's just a thought. Okay, sorry Mark. On the on the street trees, I don't know if I heard you right, but were you talking about having the number of trees that would equate to one every 40 feet? Yes. And would all those be where were you planning on those? Front yards of the those would all be in the front yard.

Yeah. So, you know, obviously at the discretion of the builder kind of where he'd want to put those. So, if we had if those frontage I don't know, I'm going pick a number had 12 trees and we wanted to go to six. So, six additional trees would be planted in the front yard of the houses. Doesn't seem unreasonable, but give us a proposal. Something like that. Okay. Suggest you Yeah. I mean it all this stuff would be you know in the deed restrictions so they would have something that they could enforce with with the homeowner.

Appreciate it further discussion regarding this or motions. Yes. So, is that a motion, John? I make a motion table 7 A. Might combine that with second B because we can't do B without A. Okay. 7 A and 7B. Second to the next meeting.

Movement seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call. Martin. Yes. Templan. Yes. Lane. Yes. Huggin. Yes. Schultz. Yes. Metal. Charlie, come back. Uh, yeah. Motion carries.

Very good. Thank you very much. Appreciate Appreciate you coming out. And certainly to any members of the public that were here for this issue, if you have specific things you're concerned about, the drainage study is is is available. I know it's on the website. If they have specific questions, I would just direct you to staff to to try to address those. And something we can certainly talk about when this comes up on our next agenda. That concludes our agenda. Chairman, that meeting will be January 27th. January 27th. I trust you. That concludes our agenda. Anything else to talk about tonight? Johnson. Motion.

Motion to adjourn. Move to ajourn and second. We're adjourned. Thank you very much. 10. Mhm.