Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to welcome everyone to the May 27th, 2025, City of Gardener Planning Commission. Would you all uh please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Start with Commissioner Roll call starting on my right. Commissioner Vers present. Commissioner Collins present. Commissioner Sza here. Commissioner Gunaman present. Commissioner Mayor here. Commissioner Cooper. Commissioner Cooper here. Commissioner Berg here. All right, we have a quorum. U moving into the consent agenda. All matters listed within the consent agenda have been distributed to each member of the planning commission for study. These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted on by one motion with no separate discussion. If separate discussion is desired, an item may be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda at the request of the planning commission or an applicant. And we have two items. Standing approval of the minutes and then also the tall grass final development plan and plat. Is there a member of the planning commission that would like to remove an item from the consent agenda? I'm hearing none. I will entertain a motion on this. I'll make that motion. I'll second the motion. Motion to approve approve the consent agenda by uh Commissioner Combmes with a second by Commissioner Bonner. All those in favor? I I opposed abstensions. Motion carries seven to zero.

Okay, moving on to the regular agenda. Uh we have item number one, Horizon Point Subdivision. This is a resoning from County Rural Residential to RP2 family planned residential. This is a preliminary development plan and preliminary plat. And this is a public hearing item. The applicant. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and make a presentation? Uh, please state your name and address for the public record. Yes. Good evening. My name is Matt Mab with Arise Homes. Um, address 26265 West 67th Street, Shauny, Kansas. Um, let me see if I got your clicker right here. There we go. Perfect. Okay. Very good. Thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to be here this evening. um bringing before you a single family residential community development for your consideration out off 175th Street just to the west of the airport uh next to uh the Lonear development which has been approved and is under development right now. So phasing uh further to the west with single family development there. So um let me tell you a little bit about myself um and our company. So Arise Homes, we're based out of Overland Park, Kansas. I'm a Shaunie resident born and raised graduated from Mid-American University. have done development here in Gardener before both commercial and residential um over the years. So happy to be back in Gardener. Uh presently we are developing in Lanexa, Kansas. We have 209 acres there where we have a community. We are the developer. We're the exclusive builder as well. Um with this community also we would be the developer and also the exclusive builder in the community. Uh we are building in Overland Park as well. Just finished up a large development up in Shaunie, Kansas. So, I'm excited to have the opportunity to come back down here to Gardener. Uh, this property that we're talking about out off 175th and Four

Corners Road um has had some some challenges. It's an interesting piece of property was owned by the Donovan family um currently has oil wells on it. We're working with the oil operator who is also operating on the Lonear property um to to vacate that as they did on the Lonear development there. So, um here's kind of an aerial of the location there off 175th and four corners there. um kind of an L-shaped piece of property that we've outlined. Like I said, again, it is all single family residential across that entire project there as we phase to the west. Um something about Arise Homes, we're a little bit different. We've got a little bit of a different product type that we'll be bringing. So, our homes are built with all real brick and all real stone with full four-sided architecture all the way around our houses. Um a little bit different. So, it's a little bit of a different product type for the area, not your traditional twotory with traditional siding. So, um here's a front elevation of one of our homes and I've got some other pictures in here as well. So, list out some features of our homes with all real brick, all real stone exteriors. I've got a layout of the plat staff will also be presenting as well, walking through that um project as well. A little bit more about us. Our regional home office is located in Overland Park. Legacy Crossing is our Shauny development. Stone Ridge is our 209 acres there in West Lanexa. Water Crest is a development that we're where we're building Cedar Crest and then also Stonebridge out in THAA. And then we're getting ready to start some homes down in Spring Hill as well. So we're kind of throughout the Johnson County metro area and then like I said looking to expand back down here into Gardener. uh a little bit about our team, just kind of a overview and aerial, just some of our groundbreings there, some aerials of some of our communities um that that we've done. So just excited to have the opportunity to come here with this project. Um again, with this project on the Lonear project, the city had approved and put in a temporary sanitary

lift station. I don't know if you guys remember when that came before you. Um, it's been a process to work with the city, but and also with uh Roman, the developer of that project, to help save the city money to take that temporary station and take it completely out of the mix. So, that actually will not be installed on their property. We'll actually be moving and putting a permanent lift station um onto our property, which will accommodate the sanitary sewer for that entire region. So, that way there's not dual competing systems and that temporary station never has to go in. So that was a process to work through with city engineering and planning just to kind of figure out how that would all work exactly in timing wise. So excited for that opportunity to help eliminate, you know, that that cost and expense with the city. So bringing that forward. Um there again, there's just some areas of our communities. Like I said, we will be the developer and the exclusive builder. So when we go in, we do build all of those homes ourselves. So we've got a lot of tight controls. Our goal is really sustainable housing. That's why we do real brick and real stone all the way around on our houses like what you would find in the hundred-y old homes over in Mission Hills in those areas. It's not really common for this area, but we're very proud of, you know, the exterior of our homes, the quality, and then also our interior finishes and products that we put on as well. So, I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys would have. I have my engineering staff here as well. And then I know city staff will be presenting also. I think say I think we'll hold off on questions for now. Okay. But thank you. Perfect. We have a city staff presentation. Good evening, commissioners. Arise Homes is requesting approval of a resoning and associated preliminary development plan and preliminary plat for residential development. The property is located at the southeast corner of 175th Street and Four Corners Road. It consists of two

parcels and was annexed earlier this year with ordinance 2836. There is a farming homestead in the northeast corner of the property, but most of the land is agricultural. In the southern third of the property, there is a stream corridor that flows to the southwest. There are a total of 23 oil wells spaced out on the property which will have to be removed and capped in accordance with the regulations set by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The property is currently zoned county rural residential and is also surrounded by county rural residential to the north, south, and west. To the east is Lonear Prairie, which was reszoned to the RP2 planned two family residential district in 2024. The City of Gardener 2014 comprehensive plan identifies this parcel for agriculture/ural residential, but it did not identify detailed future land use for the areas southwest of Gardener. The proposed use is considered low density residential which is not consistent with the future land use map. It is however consistent with the future land use of the property to the north and the adjacent Lonear Prairie RP2 zoning to the east. Here is the preliminary development plan. North is to the left on this slide. The proposal will reszone the property to RP2 plan 2 family residential. It includes 246 single family lots on 78.15 acres. The minimum lot width proposed is 55 ft. The open space is shown in green with tract E in the center having a proposed amenity area which the developer has said will be determined with the final development plan. The stream corridor shown in light blue will be preserved.

Shown in gray on both sides of it are two detention basins which will be built to handle the storm water and a lift station will also be built in this area. The sanitary sewer will have gravity flow to it and then will be pumped to the north and east. There is a third basin below the open space as well. The street lay layout is relatively gridlike and for traffic calming there are two speed bumps, one on Oak Valley Drive and one on Flor Street near the stream corridor. These will be further reviewed with the final development plan. If it is approved, this plan development will become the regulatory document for the property and will only allow single family homes to be built. Changing the plan to allow for something like duplexes would require a new plan to be submitted, which would require public notification and would appear again before the planning commission and governing body for approval. The preliminary plat is associated with the preliminary development plan and includes four phases. Phase one will include the entrance drive from West 175th Street and the lift station location. Phase two includes the western portion with the second access off of Four Corners Road. Phase three is the eastern portion and then phase four is the southern portion. Here are four proposed elevations. The buildings range from 1,600 to 2600 square f feet of floor area. Because the neighborhood building type is proposed, there are likely several deviations that will need to be requested with the final development plan and will be reviewed at that time. Further, there is one deviation request for this item. The plan shows five foot wide sidewalk on one side of the internal streets, but the code standard for the neighborhood street type is to have 5- foot wide sidewalks on both

sides of the street. With the limited open space and the smaller lot sizes, staff believes the code standard should be met and the streets should include sidewalks on both sides. Staff is not supportive of this deviation request. Staff finds that with the suggested conditions of approval, the plan meets the review criteria for a reasonzoning and development plan and plaque. The preliminary development plan will need to have the sidewalks revised and the final development plan if submitted will need to address the amenity areas, lift station screening, and traffic calling measures. There's one motion for this item. Staff recommends approval of the reszoning from county RUR to RP2 and the associated preliminary development plan and preliminary plat with the five conditions before you. Staff is available for questions. Thank you, Jesse. Um, since this is a public hearing item, I think it's good time to open that public hearing. Um so we'll now open it. If anyone would like to come forward and comment on this item, uh please come forward, state your name and address for the public record. Um individuals have a maximum sorry individuals are allotted three minutes and if you're an individual that is representing a group, you're allotted seven minutes. Max Terry Simpson, 17540 Four Corners Road on the southwest corner. I heard Matt saying the lot size was 55 wide, but I'm wondering how deep it is to get a 2600 foot house on it. Also, how many houses could can possibly go on

a 8 inch lift station? 8 inch pipe, sanitary pipe on a lift station. I'm just kind of curious about that. Like to see something on that on some preliminary pans plans. And um that's that's my main concerns where the sewer's going. Thank you. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Dr. Brandon Van. I'm a business owner here on Main Street in Gardener, and I live at 1785 Four Corners Road, directly neighboring the proposed Horizon Point development. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and many of the neighbors who will be significantly impacted by this project. In addition to the families already engaged, the Van, Willis, Simpson, Hubler, Hos, Smith, Gray, and Keithley uh families all share our concerns and supports um this collective opposition. While we understand and support thoughtful growth in Gardener, this plan, particularly as it's proposed uh at its proposed density, poses serious consequences for the rural character, safety, and livability of our neighborhood. Uh here are our primary concerns. Traffic impact. The current rural infrastructure, including four corners and 175th Street, is not equipped to safely handle the projected increase in traffic from 246 new homes. We've already seen safety issues arise on these roads, and this will only worsen. We strongly propose that all street expansion and safety upgrades recommended in the traffic impact studies be fully uh completed before any construction continues or concludes on this project. Loss of rural character. The families along Four Corners Road, including uh Van, Willis Simpson,

Hubler, Hos, Smith, Gray, and Keithley households, um built our lives here because of the peace, space, and agricultural feel of the area. This development would irreversibly um alter that. Property devaluation. The close proximity of highdensity housing threatens to reduce property values for longtime residents who have invested deeply into their land and homes. Uh many of which are family-owned and passed down through generations. Environmental and storm water concerns. Increased impermeable surfaces and land uh disruptions could lead to runoff and drainage issues on properties that currently have no such problems. These matters have not adequately been addressed and um were made clear in the own uh drainage studies. Lack of infrastructure for highdensity living. We are concerned that this plan u being rushed without proper infrastructure in place. Roads uh utilities and community services should be built in proportion uh to the scale of the development, not after the fact when it's too late to adjust. In light of these issues, we would like to formally request a joint meeting with developers to discuss adjustments to the plan, especially regarding adequate privacy buffers and further uh distancings of the home from our property lines. We ask that the city work with both parties to increase the abupment space be the new development and existing homes using natural and/or constructed buffers to uh preserve a reasonable sense of separation. Lastly, we ask for written assurance that development will be limited to single family homes only and that no duplexes or multifamily dwellings will be introduced now or in future phases under amended plans. We are not anti-growth. We are for wise and responsible development. Development that respects the people who already live here, the

roads we all use, and the values that drew our families to four corners in the first place. We appreciate your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration. Thank you. Commissioners, excers, my name is William Willis, 17795 four corners gardener. I have a few uh points just to bring out that Dr. Van uh had most of them, but I've got a couple of my own which are personal to me mostly. Uh the first is the uh when the grading starts if it passes here at uh meetings uh the silk fences should be maintained daily around this project. Uh so that the dirt and the dirty water don't doesn't leave the construction area. And the reason I say that is because that I've already had issues with the construction and I'm going to bring this up of the Lone Star development because that they did not maintain for a short period of time their silt fences. Now with that I will say that they when I approached them they redid them and did them properly and a couple of times when I came to the city that the s Mr. Hunter and some other people with the public works were very nice and took care of things for me very in a very expeditious manner. So that worked out really well. But I in the meantime that that being taken care of and before and even now I believe I'm getting dirty clay water into my pond. And with the problem with that is if you've ever owned a pond or whatever,

bass and crappie fish are sight feeders and they have a limited uh vision to feed and they won't grow and they become stunted and therefore are small and they don't have the big bass. So anyway, uh the water issues with them flowing into our pond, I'm wondering if it could be uh taken care of if the developers in Gardener, if they're not already following Mid America Regional Council's design criteria for retention and detention, could be using that uh program or policies that that Mark developers have that I think Gardner is a member of and I think hopefully follow that guidelines. I just learned that from KDH today that that's possible. And again, I don't know if y'all follow that or not or if engineers or or public works would know about that. Uh the other thing is with the uh well again with the destruction of the detention water coming out of the pu uh detention ponds, the fish population is going to be destroyed in numbers and size. And uh when these detention ponds are uh developed, much like the one at 183rd in Gardener or Center Street across from north side of Casey's there, that pond is taken care of all the time by professional. And I'm wondering if that couldn't be uh implemented by a city to take care of or the homeowners association if they have one after development that those ponds can be taken care of by a professional to get rid of and maintain the algae content that would be growing in there so it wouldn't be flooded down into my pond and creating more problems with my pond.

With uh so many homes and hard surfaces and lawns that's going to be created in this development, contaminants from the lawns, the driveways, the sidewalks, the roadways will rains and other sources will bring those contaminants into the streamways and into again my pond. Just as aam uh let you know my pond is about 10 to 15 feet away from the property line where this development is going to start at or stop at whichever you want to call it. So that's kind of what uh I'm looking at again with what Dr. Van has stated we all are on board with that also uh and behind everything that he has developed with that statements and stuff. So, thank you very much. Hello, council. I'm Ryan Hubler, 17915 Four Corners Road. I'm just going to follow along with what Bill just said. I am at Our land is at the bottom of where the creek runs through. So all of the runoff water from all the retention ponds, from all of the streets, all of that comes through my property. We already have problems with flooding as it is when it comes off the farm ground. So I don't know what can be addressed, what can be done, but all of that comes right up into my yard. You know, when when we get a big rain, it floods through there. It's not a normal stream that just runs all the time. So that being said, I would just like to know what what can be set to

help divert that so that it all doesn't just come down at one time and all of a sudden I start having problems because of all of this. So that's that's my you know what I have to go on. Um our land is right at the c corner of the southern property line. So I just get all the you know after effect. Thank you. Thank you. Evening. Chris Ash, 177254 Four Corners Road, Gardener, Kansas. Um we're right beside him. And what about um new fire station, new medic building? So, because you're putting all these people into little tiny buildings, houses, and I talked to Jesse and he said that property from the house to the property line's 5T. Are you guys taking in consideration of the two-ft overhangs on each house? That means it's only six feet from building to building. Ideally, we we don't mind it people coming in, but why you putting little houses in for people that want to come to Gardener to spend $450,000 to live in a apartments all spread out side by side. You need to have five acre

lots. We'd like that because our house is all worth more than theirs are. if you had um I don't know what the subdivision is up on 151st on the north side. They've got great big lots there and the house has got all three car garages and there are 500,000 million dollar homes now. Um, but runoffs wouldn't be as bad because you got more yards that kids can grow up in so they can play in yards like we used to do when we were kids. Um, so the water wouldn't be running off as fast, hurting everybody's ponds, yards, flooding their basement going through back of my yard. like you said, contaminants. It won't be as bad because you got less less people, less cars. And so now everyone's got at least two to four cars per unit. Just start adding up the numbers. There's a thousand cars in there now. Just like the doctor said when opening up and said that everything would that we don't like the contaminants running and everything. Um but to ease that I built houses for 20 years. The closest was is 12 foot to the house to the property line. So the houses are spread out. We when my wife and I drove here today, we looked at everybody's houses in town that you guys approved in the first place before I ever moved out there. And most of these

people didn't move out. Hadn't moved out there yet. But the yard houses are away from each other. Kids got rooms to play around, run around, and there's less cars, less people, less concrete, more grass. Things look better. Not and like Bill has said the or the first man said that um that corner the house is backed up to the road. Um there's no room to fix the infrastructure of the roads, but um I talked with Jesse and said that um it looks to be money for the city, money for the developer. If you guys going to do that, why don't you make them five acre lots? Um, I'm sure everybody else that lives by by me would rather see that done than you got a tiny house and you got a nice house put on a tiny yard. And if I was looking for a home to buy, I would not buy there. Anyone else? Seeing as no one else, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close public hearing. Second. We have a motion to close the public

hearing by Commissioner Mater. Uh second by Commissioner Cooper. All those in favor? I I opposed. All right. Moving to um Commissioner discussion. I'll start on my right. Um I guess my questions would be to the city as far as lots of people have been talking about water runoff, water retention, and that was the first thing that I noticed that I thought would be a concern. So what has the city been can you address that from the city's point of view of what we've worked with with the developer? I mean so the developer submits a storm water study and then it is reviewed by public works and then um it should meet the city's code in order to be approved. There is that condition five which specifically states um it's more of a generic condition specifically that was put in there because we wanted the public works wanted the stream corridor to be preserved and not all the trees torn out when they were grading. So I'll talk to a couple things and then we may want the developers engineer to also speak on this item. So, I I there's several components to the storm water runoff question that were brought up as part of the public hearing. Um, the first one I want to address is kind of during construction because that that is a component of this that doesn't have to do with the detention basins per se, but during that construction period, um, all developers are required to meet the city's standard for storm water control and erosion control for the site, but also if they get into individual property. So there's usually a perimeter aspect to this to the overall property and then each building site as the

project goes along also would require perimeter fencing and things like that as was described by the individual who came up. I think it was the first speaker now second speaker on that. Um when that was brought up during construction if there are violations we do send inspectors out routinely to look at these things to try to keep them up to uh snuff. Sometimes the fences get knocked over by construction equipment. Sometimes it's due to a rain event that was exceptional, whatever the reason was. Um, we try to be out there with the inspectors from public works to get that corrected. We also rely on those neighbor complaints. If something happens and we didn't catch it right away, a lot of times they catch it first and it comes to public works and then it's corrected. So, there is a sensitivity to storm water erosion control um during construction. The other piece that I want to bring up too is that the developer will be required not only to meet the um the uh standards that are brought up by the um mark guidelines and that that they also have to look at the quality standards. So they'll be required to follow best management practices um for establishing vegetation and other aspects to this. those those plans in detail usually don't arrive until the public improvements plans or um until we get into final plan even at that stage. So usually at this stage what we're looking for and that's what that condition number five that Jesse was referring to um is that they will have to meet those requirements and that'll have to be demonstrated through each step of the process they go through. So that's important to understand too. Um, I think I'm going to let if the developers engineer wants to talk a little bit more about storm water and what they're doing specifically, that may be a good good aspect to this. Good evening, commissioners. My name is

Matt Cross. I'm with Call Valley Engineering. Address is 840 North Oak Traffic Way, Kansas City, Missouri, 64118. Um, couple of things. Uh, David, you've touched on a couple uh on the erosion control plan and phased erosion. You know, we we'll have to go through KDHE for land disturbance, provide them with a phased erosion control plan. We've also included in our phase one um the two large detention ponds and the smaller one that's up to the north. So, all of those will go in at the beginning of construction and help eliminate some of the sediment and stuff as it works its way off of the site. uh all ponds are dry bottom and uh we have met APWA 5600 and the mark BMP manual for level of service. So we have accounted for both water quantity and quality. We've shown a reduction coming out of all three of the ponds. So um you know storm water runoff will be improved once this development goes in and water quality has also been met. And so as part of that treatment train, you know, we've actually uh released our two large ponds. U as you can see up here, they're uh I believe it's track A and tract K. Those will drain into the protected stream buffer which will uh as I said be a part of the treatment train will catch sediment in the each of the ponds and then as it releases it'll go into native vegetation which will also improve water quality. So, water quality and and water quantity have both been addressed in the storm water study. Um, I believe that answers all of the storm water questions. If uh if you'd like me to talk about the traffic study while I'm up here, I can do that, too. Could you just I know there was one comment on the maintenance of the basins. I don't think that's been talked about yet. No. And and u that should be under the uh development agreement as part of the HOA. um you know as an engineer I don't

have all the details of of that agreement but that will be on the HOA um what was the design year for the is it a 100redyear 110 and 100year storms will all analyze as part of our study just to the sorry to the HOA question so yes so there will be an HOA for the development and so in all their communities so Lanex Overland Park everywhere else we're developing so we have an established HOA we have to then maintain those best management practice on an annualized basis. We actually inspect those on an annualized basis with our engineer and certify those basins annually and provide those reports and make sure those are done. So that's how we do it in all other cities. I don't know if gardener requires that, but as an HOA as a developer, that's what we do to continue to maintain that. So in all other cities that we're working in, we actually have to have those certified. And so we we'll continue to do the same here because that's just how we continue to operate. So, and then I'll let Matt continue, but if there's other questions as it relates to I'm happy to also help, you know, answer or address um you know, any of the neighbor you know um comments or concerns. So, happy to do that if you'd like me to do so. Any other questions related to storm water? Yes, sir. So, um, though we appreciate like the inclusion of these detention, uh, retention basins, like in your guys' plan and study, you your own study uh, on the drainage study, the basins alone, it stated that the basins alone are not enough to protect adjacent land owners. That runoff will still increase post development even with the retention measures that are in place right now. And the existing downstream infrastructure is inadequate. And the study acknowledges that no drainage easements or agreements have been made with any of the affected downstream property owners, including those of us whose land lies directly across from that like my own. And there's no formal commitment or funding identified to upgrade upgrade the drainage system

beyond the borders of development. Meaning like our private land could become default drainage bas basins for Horizon Point. Um um I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to stop you there. We did we did close public hearing earlier. I appreciate you still have I think Okay, so the question is how they how are they going to address the future future drainage issues like their own studies acknowledging that this is insufficient. So and are they aware that all those people are collateral systems and you flood them out they won't work anymore? Understand? They say we have standards and complaints. I guess open it back up because your sewage issues. You guys can't even I I need you to please calm down and we're going to ask ask the questions. We'll get the answers you guys want. I had all the questions and all the comments you guys had written down. Okay. So, we're going to go through we're going to go through them in detail and make sure we get all the answers that we need. Sorry, we're not trying to be He just had asked if anybody had any questions. Okay. I apologize. It's okay. It's okay. Thank you. Sorry. Um, so getting back to the the drainage study. So, um, I guess I guess we weren't provided copies of of that drainage study, right? So, the drainage study that's submitted with these plans and again there'll be a a final drainage study that will also be required when final plan comes through if the project moves forward. The important thing to note on storm water drainage plans a lot there is increased volume of water that's produced by development. The idea of the basins though is that it captures that increased volume. The rate at which it's released is reduced. So you're what you're trying to do is to have no impact release as it goes off of the property. I know it's kind of an engineering kind of technical discussion, but the idea of the basins is is that it's gathering

that additional volume. So the reason the storm water study may indicate that there's a greater volume of water is because there is it it's no longer just in farmland but the basin designs and the way that they are to be implemented is intended to capture that volume and ensure that what comes off of the property does not increase the volume that's leaving the property at any given time. So it's it's you know basically dissipating that rate or there's a rate of dissipation from that standpoint. I don't know if you want to get into that a little bit further or not. No, I I think you said it well. I I basically what uh you know the stormwater study shows is that the increase is caused by the development. You've got you've got roofs, you've got inc uh you know streets, driveways, stuff like that. That's accounted for in that increase. That increase makes its way to the ponds which nothing that leaves the site is an increase. whatever leaves the site has actually been decreased and that's what we show in the study and and I think that's also the reference to the BMP manual or the APWA manual and mark standards those are requirements and standards that developer has that's what the city of gardener uh has traditionally enforced on the quantity side and then as of recent adoption is the quality side so um as he was talking about some of the streamway way elements are being preserved. The intent is even that water that's leaving those basins goes through that natural process of filtering till it hits the streamway and that helps to keep the quality up. So instead of removing trees like you might see in some other developments where they took the trees out of the streamway buffer, in this case that streamway buffer has to stay in its natural state to help clean that water as it's coming out of the base. And so just to build off of that, both the Mark manual and APWA5600, APWA5600 looks at quantity of

water. So you look at what this development is, how that is going to increase the quantity of water that's going to make its way downstream. You've got to mitigate that. And so and and that's what is addressed in the storm water study. The MarkB manual is for water quality. And so uh once again you look at what this uh development what the impact will be on storm water quality that is leaving the site. You've got to mitigate that and that's that's the treatment trains the dry detention basins. So in both cases it's being met. You know we're meeting water quality requirements and we're we're reducing the storm water runoff that will actually make its way downstream off of the site. And just for clarity, yes sir. Uh are those studies both do they take into account obviously the construction but then also post construction? Can you help me understand when you when you look at that study and water that you're talking about the drainage is that during construction or is that with No, the the study itself. the the study itself is post construction, but what we've done because we know that phase one is going to include the ponds is we've put these ponds in place to help mitigate some of the uh runoff during construction. So, I think Jesse during one of our meetings pointed out that, you know, you're concerned about water during construction. And so, we we made sure to include those ponds so we weren't having to build ponds twice in phase one of the construction to help to help both water quality and water quantity. And then uh the phased erosion control plan that'll go to KDHE and that that shows us the different phases of construction and how uh runoff from uh construction activities is is managed during construction and staff is there a chance to put an aerial shot versus Yes. Uh so just for clarification

I see you know when in the southern part of the upside down hill a pond on the left side of the property line. Yes. And then there is a series of trees is what looks like in this area a series of trees. Does that overlay with Yeah. Layout we just saw where there was a stream and then the two retention ponds on both sides. Yes sir. Yeah. as as Jesse pointed out the what was light blue in our that's the uh stream buffer and so that goes right along this area of trees and and that area 60 ft is uh off limits we're not touching that understand yes and I mean in fact that's the natural drainage point that you're talking about the tank that that's that's the main discharge point of our site so we've got two ponds that'll work its way into the creek we've actually placed the discharge far enough upstream that it's not right at the adjacent neighbor's property line. And so it will work its way through that u uh mature vegetation that's going to be left intact to help filter the water. Correct. And and ultimately and help me understand this directly into that pond. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And is there something I I believe uh that one of our community members residents spoke about that and there. Could you potentially address uh issues that might rose or could arise with what you're talking about using which is the natural drainage point directly into his body. Well, what I'm saying is that we've actually placed our release for the ponds well upstream of that and as we release, we're going through that that vegetation that's going to be maintained. And so, uh you know, I'm sure that he's concerned about water quantity coming into the pond and water quality. So both of those are addressed by these detention bonds. They'll actually see the same amount of

water ultimately going to but will not be rushing down from our site. The the quantity is is reduced. It be held on both the north and the south will be held in the ponds. Yeah. And really slowly over I think it's uh 40 to 72 hours it slowly comes down. Um as far as water quality that's a part of the treatment train. So, your sediment will come out in the the in the ponds upstream before it's released. Sediment will will, you know, settle into the bottom of the pond. Um, and then as it's released, it's going into this uh vegetation that that will be maintained to help filter the water even further as it makes its way into that existing well, I'll call it a creek. So, Commissioner Combmes, I'm going to add two points to that. One, as just described with the sediment falling into the ponds, you also heard the and indicate that they have uh in other developments had professional maintenance and things like that. So part of it is over time is they're watching to make sure that the basins stay within their design parameters and that capacity is kept within those basins. Um because as sedimentation occurs over time you can have that reduced area or reduced capacity. So that's the idea behind the maintenance side of this. That's that's important to understand. Um so when we look at these kinds of elements. I think the other part is the design aspect looking at the 110 and 100year that is a requirement that we have. Um, we have also, I would say in the last 12 months, I'm going to say last year or so, um, you're seeing more and more where we we are requiring that these basins be built as part of phase one in most developments because our concern, um, as you may note with other developments is sometimes these phases go a lot slower than people anticipate. So the idea is you better have this infrastructure in with phase one even

though it's really designed to handle more phases and more development but we want those things in place at the first stage and we want to built right because sometimes we don't know how that development will actually occur over time due to economic reasons or market uh thanks for the clarification that helps me at least at this point I do I'll have some questions later but not okay follow up on on the volume that we're talking. So I don't know what volume the basement are supposed to be designed at. Are you guys meeting that minimum standard? Are you going above that? And if so, how far beyond that? Are you going 10% above the minimum or? No. So uh the the minimum is based on the 100red-year storm and then freeboard uh both with your main u uh your main release for our pond which is controlled by a weir. Then you've got uh you've got to consider that that gets backed up or clogged. And so you consider backto-back 100-year storms with a clogged primary structure and you've still got to provide a foot of freeboard above that. And so that that's how that is determined. So what it is is it's it's a level of safety that that is included into the marking or I'm sorry the APWA design criteria. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I may suggest there was an offer also maybe to talk about the traffic issues since the engineers already up here. I'm assuming that you're prepared to maybe talk to some of those traffic issues as well. Yeah. What what sort of improvements, if any, are going to be needed as part of this development? So, the traffic study um one, it was shown in the traffic study that uh 175th and Four Corners the level of service uh depending on which direction is a level A or B, which is is good. You know, it's A B C D E F. F being, you know, just like you're in school, F is bad. And that's based on how long someone has to wait at that intersection. Yeah, that's that's correct. And so that intersection right

now is A and B. Um, even with this development and zero improvements, that intersection will stay at an A and B. In the study, it is suggested that we make that a four-way stop, which will improve it to A across the board at that intersection. Um the main concern is is traffic going east on 175th from the development and then coming uh west you know from I35. Uh it has also suggested that uh uh the developer petition the city to add a lefth hand turn lane into the development off 175th. Those are really the only uh recommendations in there. As part of this I will point out though we are planning to add 4ft shoulders along both the four corners and 175th on this side of the development. So uh at least you know as far as traffic is concerned there will be a forfeit shoulder that that's added as part of this. Also the developer is required to dedicate right ofway to the city um along both roadways to expand for future expansion potential. So it's required to have 60 ft on either side of the center line. So what's being asked here is 60 ft from center line to the property line on both 175th and on four corners and that would accommodate approximately a fourlane road. Yeah, four lane divided potentially. Now that's not what's required with this development though. The rightway is required but the actual construction of a road to that standard is not required of the developer. Is that 50 foot or 60 foot? It' be 60 feet. 60. Yeah. So, it's 120 ft total on the rightway. 60 feet center line. Um, while we're talking about traffic ID question, I guess with, you know, it seemed like there was kind of an interesting layout with the streets on which ones were kind of labeled as collectors and which ones were labeled

as um, you know, residential streets. Um, and I don't know it like kind of this this property area is kind of interesting because we got this kind of condition today, you know, and then this condition where this is developed, but there's nothing to the south and then there's kind of the future. What does it look like with all the development in there and what connects potentially to 56? Um, I would have thought that floor street or something like that would have been a collector classified as that and not kind of the side street. Um, I don't see the name of it on here, but you know to the to the right of the um of the streamway. It doesn't seem to me like intuitively like that is a collector. Can you explain why that is given that designation versus X or I I'm afraid I'm going to have to deflect a little bit to Tim and David here, but uh my understanding is that you know there's only one collector that's laid out and that ties into four corners. Um that's the our southern connection here. I believe it's 178th Terrace. Um 177th Street. Is that No, it's Oh, I'm sorry. 1807. Yeah. 178th Terrace. Yeah. Sure. I just wasn't sure. So, um, so the 178th terrace, I believe part of the reason on the neighborhood collector there is that it would tie into the Lonear development. So, it has a function that may go in there. I do believe, and I can't remember which road, and Tim, if you remember, let me know which road in in the Lonear development is serving as a collector going north and south. So, this kind of ties in. hits a north south road in one of the north south roads in Lonear that

becomes the collector for the area in that sense. Okay. Um so that's why the other north south roads here are local neighborhoods. You know we're trying to minimize the speed at which traffic is traveling through this area as well as the volumes if you will. I don't want to get too close to the uh yes, our collectors are typically in half mile and so a half mile would be like further east. We we've talked about doing some traffic measures because there's just long straight sections of road here. We typically see it all the time. We have that we end up with complaints. So to be proactive, we don't have details yet. Jesse, if you go back to the aerial real quick, help us here. So, if you see on the Lone Star property, which is just to the right of the property in red here, um that north south road that's kind of platted as part of those first couple phases there. Um that that's I think that's the collector that's going up to 175th Street. So, what you would have is this east west road that ties in going in there and then hooks into that Stop collector that goes through long.

Um I guess I'll keep going I guess. Um there was a question about um kind of the rural field and mentioned like is there any sort of proposed tree buffer for the properties or the detention basins that are ordering the uh existing homes today the existing properties? Um Matt, do you want to address that? Um yes, there are perimeter landscape plans that come in will be part of that final development plan. So there will be buffer area there. Um if you go back Jesse to the site plan as well. So also too on our southern property line. So you see we've got quite a long stretch there where there are no single family homes either. So, as far as directly abuing, so there's three property owners that directly abut this development directly to our west, but they're on our south edge on the north edge of that property there. There's quite a bit of green space there, but we do have perimeter landscape um buffer tree plan that does go all the way around for for screening. And then also for that, like I said, from the Lonear property, taking that temporary lift station down into a permanent, there's also screening um that we've got as far as landscape plan screening and fencing that goes around that as as well. And then looking um with the grading plan that's shown on this one um for the properties that are kind of near the streamway is are those properties going to be because it looks like kind of the back lots are kind of have some steep grading on them. Are those going to be elevated above like and then the back lots kind of drop down or is it vice versa? It's the what's what's the grading doing in that area? Yeah, that's that's correct. It is going to drop off. It You know, this is preliminary. We we've since worked on the grading. It it looks pretty drastic in this, but we've mitigated a lot of that. Uh but yes, the

the lots will still sit up above and then there will be some drop off uh to that that western line. is appropriate to talk about the 55 that particular deviation is not part of the zoning request and development plan. So it does lock it in. These are smaller width blocks. traditional suburban lot is about 70 ft wide technically. So that's what differentiates our suburban standards and our more neighborhood standards. So this is within that range of that zoning as part of that. The thing that I want to make sure that everybody understands Jesse mentioned this in his presentation since you have the letter in front of you talks a little bit about the reassurance of single family residential here. The development what becomes the regulatory plan for this property. So if the resoning is approved with the development plan that shows single family residential that is what's allowed to develop nothing else at that point. Okay. Now that doesn't mean that they can't come back at some point it would require another public process. would require another set of hearings and another evaluation where storm waters looked at again as well as traffic and other impacts if that were this point the given noation do anything but single family but I want to make

sure that that was out there because I know you had the letter to this as well on that David on your standard lot depth for a standard residential what's so 70 by what's your depth requirement probably 120 square footage requirement. It's not a depth requirement per Jesse. Yeah, it would be set by the lot area. So 8,000 square ft for the 70 foot your R2. So that would be minimum of 50 ft wide and 6,000. So to address that a little bit with our product type and what what we built and Terry asked a great great question. So I mean 2600 square foot home is is a nice size home. um by by any standards, you know, four bedroomedroom, three bath, 2600 square f feet. So, our average lot size in this community, the the minimum is of that 55, our average is 60. We have a lot that are actually over 60 ft on our width. So, so we do have some variation in there. The homes that we build, so traditionally what I've seen throughout Johnson County is 70 or 75 wide by 120 or 125 deep. Our lots are like 130 plus. So, we're narrower, but we're deeper. So, when we're building um we traditionally build ranch style homes, all brick, all stone, but we're deeper with our plan types. So, instead of taking up a lot of street frontage, it actually from a city maintenance and cost effectiveness, the amount of linear footage that you're maintaining because it becomes a public street, public curb, public sidewalk, public sewer, public water, right? um the actual linear linear foot across a lot frontage is actually much more affordable for a city to maintain. However, we actually run deeper on our lot sizes. So, when we go into communities, it's actually really hard for me to buy lots from other developers and we do that sometimes because generally their lots are not deep enough for because they're building, you know, traditionally, you know, building up or, you know, not going as deep. So, we have deeper

backyards. Our homes are running deeper as well. So, that is something that you'll see that's different with our plans, too. Our lots run deeper but a little bit narrower but our average is 60 feet. So 55 at the minimum 60 on our average and we actually go over 60 feet. So really transitioning from the Lonear development which they're all right about 50 foot if I'm not mistaken. So you know transitioning to you know larger lots and actually larger homes than what they're doing as we phase west. I'm just going to refer the commissioners to the third sheet in your plan sets that you had is the data sheet and it's a lot by lot data sheet. it's in the plan set. Um, and when you look at that, I believe the the smallest lots that I've seen are about 7,200 square feet. Um, and there are lots in here as large as 13,000 square ft. So, I mean, there's quite a variation on lot size um, from lot to lot again on where this is. So, that's where the the house size can be varied as much as it is. Um, and Mr. May was correct. As he mentioned with Lonear, that one was pretty much all 50 foot wide lots. You know, almost everything there was minimum size or close to the minimum size. So, their house size was pretty constrained as to what they can do. This gives this developer the affordability to go and look at this with multiple house plans. Can Can someone remind me how big is how many properties are in 186. 186. 186. Thank you. Yeah, I just uh have a question. So um during the presentation they mentioned

that there are 23 wells in that property. So how just kind of this the first time I have project that you know wells so how you guys feel those wells what's the what's the um so DNZ is the operator. They're actually operating wells on the Lonear property as well. So, as well, um, and they're the operator on the Donovan property. Um, so when they went in and kept all those, so I'm not an oil operator, so I'm not going to speak to the level of expertise here, but I know there are state regulations, guidelines. Also, the city um has standards and guidelines that have to follow. That all gets inspected and signed off on. um we have a contractual obligation with DNZ on the removal of those and the remediation and then final inspection and approval um by all the governing bodies that need to inspect you know both state and city. So, you know, following those processes. So, I I can't speak to the exact process. I know there is a process. There are standards. There's regulations that has been put set in place throughout Gardner. There's operating wells, I know, that have been, you know, removed. It's it's not an abnormal practice. Um, but I'm not an oil operator, so we're working, you know, with the professionals and then, you know, the governing bodies to inspect those to make sure it's done correctly. to to the point of you know runoff I mean if you go out to the property today and you walk around those wells you will see top of surface you know oil and things that are happening right with those wells with the operations with the mechanicals so when we're bringing in a residential community and we're you know retaining treating all the waters and things so that's going to really help I mean our goal is not to impact the downstream our goal is to take contain actually reduce and improve you know how that's all flowing today because right now Lonear does flow down. It just, you know, it just trucks on down through there. So, I have no doubt we've had a ton of rain this year that these residents have seen, you know, just a gully washer of a river coming down

through there. And so, with those development, as Matt's explained, it's to take that to contain it, to treat it, to process it, to slow that rate of release down, actually improving that, and then getting all those oil wells out of there, all that machinery, all that equipment, which should increase, you know, water quality um as it moves forward. Um yeah, just a a couple of couple of questions. The um the Lone Star development is 186 homes encompassing how many acres just for comparison? I think it it's like 17 acres. The the one 40 acres. They're about five homes per acre. I think it's 70 acres. That means visual please that one. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. Okay, so you have 31.2 acres and we're looking at 4750 like 80 acres. Okay, the density here is roughly 3.2 to 3 just about 32. So 3.2 unit roughly this depends on how you want to calculate right out that's gross was there no consideration to an R1 designation for zoning with the proposal with the zero lots R1 zoning require minimum width so layouts they have they would not be able to these and a lot of that's market decisions as you know by the developer when they're looking at the market their product and how they do that

and then the the phases the the lines are a little confusing to to See? So, so phase one, if I'm reading this right, phase one is the um Thank you. Um, so phase one is what's outlined in red hash. Is that correct? Yes. And and there's zero improvements planned for 175th as well as four corners. zero improvements. They would they would have to meet whatever the safety improvements are that are required by the traffic study. The traffic study will determine is that a turn? Yeah, left-hand turn lane off of 175th into development. We're also adding uh 4ft shoulders along both four corners and 175th. You are going to add curb and shoulders. Shoulders not just shoulders. Those are the only questions I have right now. Thank you. I don't have any questions. I just looking at the plans for the houses. These are going to be all slab houses, patio homes. Y go back just for a second. And I want to go back. Commissioner Bader's question about the phasing. It is the red area, but there's actually kind of two areas, if you will. You have the area that's coming off of 175th Street towards the south in that kind of middle part, and then you've got the detention area and the streamway there. So that's all part of phase one. Even though they're kind of disconnected, they'll through their platting in that it'll they'll be connected. So So that road then, Flur

Street is is included then as part of phase one. is how I there'll be and that'll be talked about as part of the final discussion, but there'll have to be an access back there because of the lift station, everything else. Now, whether it's built to the full street standard or it's built to some interim standard to allow access, that'll be discussed as part of the final development plan process, but access access will need to be provided there. So, thank you. I I don't Mr. Chairman, I was just going to bring up there were a couple things that maybe we want to hit on. Um, one, I do know that there was a question asked about the 8 inch lift station and the adequacy or the limits. The applicants engineer may want to address that. Yeah. So, we did look at we're we're catching everything both from Lonear uh a few lots from Lonear and then our development 8 inches of gravity line. It's got the capacity for uh this plus uh no issues there. We we meet the city's requirements as far as uh flow uh within that pipe and then the the actual force man will be sized appropriately to handle whatever is necessary there as well. The second one had to do with facilities, fire station, EMS, things like that. Fire fire district is part of the plan review process. They didn't have problems with this. Um they try to maintain their level of service based on their response times. At this point, they were not indicating that this was a stress on their system. Usually they will tell us that ahead of time. Um I don't believe they have a plan for a new

facility in this area at all, but I can check on that too. Um so that was the other item that came up. Um and then on setbacks in the R district, the R2 district, um we do allow for buildings to be as close as 5T to the property line on the sideyards. So, it's a five five foot distance from property line to the wall of the of the building for both buildings. That's a 10- foot separation requirement to meet fire code. Um, but the overhangs can go into that setback distance up to a certain amount. We kind of watch that. Um, with the sizes of the lots being the way they are and some configuration, it's not like the whole development is going to be within that five foot with the overhangs hanging there. But we also accommodate just so you know I don't know how many familiar but in the code we also accommodate things on the sideyard like if you have steps coming out of a side entry or something like that. So there are some elements that we don't count as the structural setback. It's usually those kinds of overhangs and elements. Those are things. Yeah, that's Yeah, I have that as well. All right. Thank you, commissioners. I know the like the tree buffer plan like that. They said that that's kind of like usually like a final development plan thing. Um, I don't know if we had anything in the recommended motion as far as requiring. Correct. You you could add a condition if you so choose. If this is a route that you want to go, you could certainly add a condition in your motion

if you wanted to to ensure that a tree buffer is addressed within the um the final development plan and the final PL Yeah. process. Um, one other item that did come up was the idea of a joint meeting with the developer and the adjacent land owners. Our code does not require any such meeting like that. If the developer chooses to do that, they're certainly welcome to do that, but we do not have a code or regulation requirement that they meet with adjacent property owners. Um back Commissioner Mater's point um with the consideration of R1 um I guess question for the developer. I mean is there did you consider buffering those properties with an R1 with some larger lot sizes there? Um as previously stated so an R1 it's 8,000 minimum square foot. So, I mean, technically, could we shrink all these down? Could we have lots going as large as 13,000 square feet? And so, we have a lot of lots that are at 8,000. And so, at our minimum, we're down around 72 7,300. So, just barely under. So, I think if you take the cumulative hole, we're not really gaining much with our product type and the way that we build as exclusive developer builder. Like I said, we do build a narrower home and so that's why we seek those narrower lots, but then we also go deeper on our lots. Um, like I said, it's very difficult for us to fit on a lot of lots that are approved in regular R1 zoning. Um, because we actually need more depth on our homes. And so from the setback, it is in the zoning where it talks about, you know, 5 foot on the property line. I can tell you based on our house sizes and and what we're doing, we will have a much greater distance between our homes where our homes are not maximizing out that footprint. That's just what the R2 zoning allows for. So to go from a 70 foot wide lot down to an average of a 60 foot, we had to within the city of

gardener in their code, excuse me, we had to go with that zoning type. Um it's still it's single family, residential. Um we're very specific with the product that we build. It is very different for Johnson County and it is very much uh needed in the area. We're in the top 25 builders um in the Kansas City metro area and I think that's for a reason. We're homegrown guys like I said. I mean was born and raised in Shaune and went to school in THA. Still live with my family in China. I built and developed and gardener before. So we're not out of state. I'm not coming in trying to develop and sell these lots off to somebody else, you know, blow and go. So we are part of the community have been part of the community for years. Um want to continue to bring in good development and good growth to the area. So for our product, for our type and our model, it it doesn't work um to to go straight to, you know, a shallower lot but a little bit wider. But if you take our cumulative totals, I think we're going to fall right within, you know, where gardener has at the 8,000 foot lot size. Yeah. But I was talking not specifically as the property as a whole, but mainly just like I think it's lots, you know, in the 90s there. Um, you know, I would I would assume you're going to lose, you know, one, two, maybe three three lots if you were to upsize those to R1. So, what would be required there? and I kept my engineer pop back up here. But it would require a whole complete redesign and engineering layout. So when we start pushing those, it's going to completely change that whole entire site. Everything that we've worked on with the city, how we lay out our developments, as David had mentioned, if there's concern, I mean, the large the lots that abut us are large lots. So those homes are a long distance away from our home. So it's not like those houses are sitting right up against our community. Um they're up against Four Corners Road is where those are at. But I think what would make the most sense and if you guys saw it as appropriate is, you know, maybe on those lots that are buddying adjacent is working with staff before we bring in final development plan of doing, you know, increased, you know, rear lot line screening and adding those things in with, you know, types of, you know,

evergreens and certain types of tree types and sizes, you know, across that that rear property line. if the screening and the visual is is really a concern. Like I said, those homes are a long distance away from our houses because they're all sitting, you know, up on four corners. So, I'm gonna I'm also going to refer you back to the sheet three in the plan set which has the data on the lots. I was just so the lots that are adjacent to the properties on the south there in the west, that's lot 78 through 97, I believe. Um those lots Most of them are 9,000 square feet and larger. Um, some are even in the 11,000 square foot range. So, there are some lots in there that are much bigger than that minimum standard, almost twice the size. They're gaining that in depth, not width, obviously, but I just wanted to point that out when you're looking at that. It's not that all of these are carved down to the minimum 6,000 square foot. Um, these are actually slightly larger. Um, so you know, when I look at it, the buffering, we're talking about these lot depths and separation that also helps. Um, and there may be something we can do with setbacks as well. And my engineer just brought up as well, he said that, you know, by design on those lots that were abuing the adjacent neighbors that we are actually quite a bit deeper. So our lots that might be a little bit less, maybe closer to that 130, which is still a lot longer than most at the 120 to 125, those are more up closer to 175th Street. and further to the east. So, he was trying to pull some some measurements, but if you if you look at that plane, I don't have the exact dimension, but those are actually deeper. And as David just kind of mentioned, we're actually in excess of what an R1 zoning would be. And so, you could change it, but then we're going to shrink them down probably. They're actually probably going to get smaller. So, because of the required width on the street, correct? Correct. So, we're narrow, but like you said, very deep.

And that's where we're getting to 9,000 ft where an R1 zoning is 8,000 required. So there again it's giving us further separation you know from from our neighbors you know directly to the west of us that clarification y And I guess commissioner discussion on the I mean the on the deviation request for the for the five foot sidewalks um on both sides or one side. I guess this may be a silly question. Let me confirm this. We're talking about both sides of the sidewalk inside the community both sides of the street. Excuse me. Correct. The Okay. The the neighborhood street type that is associated with this kind of development requires the two sidewalks, one on each side of the street, the five five feet is the minimum width for each of those sidewalks. Um, generally the reason staff has an issue with this is because usually when we're increasing these densities and doing things like that, we want to retain the walkability within the development itself. Um if this was more at the suburban standard, there is the option in that R1 district at the suburban level to have um the street or the sidewalk on one side of the street. So in this case where um walkability becomes important, it we feel that we should have those sidewalks on both sides. I I support that and I just wanted to verify we were where we were talking about. So thank you for that.

Yeah, May I ask a question about just our process? I understand. traffic study is is obviously not done. There's going to be additional stage set. Um what opportunity are we going to have as as a commission and a body to see the next step once that's completed? you talk about. So, so this is the preliminary step, right? And as part of reszoning, a preliminary development plan for a pan plan district is required, but things like the storm water study and these traffic study are done to a preliminary level. They're really intended to show that yes, we have room for the storm water the way these calculations are working out. Yes, this is how we think the traffic is going to be impacted. But with the final development plan and the final plaque, which is the next step in this, the developer has to come back with their final traffic impact study, with their final storm water studies, um, revisions and elements that they may be changing that are not substantially different than this. Um, so when we're talking about some tweaks that may occur um, in the process of going from preliminary to final, you will see maybe slight changes or differences from what's proposed here tonight. That final stage only comes forward after the planning or the after the city council governing body has approved of the preliminary development plan. So that's the trigger that then allows the developer to say, "Okay, we're going to go and expend that money on that final

plan set." At that point, you are the the review body and the decision maker on the acceptance of those final plans. So you will see this um if the developer keeps moving forward as the progression outlines, you will see this as a final next that'll come before you. Then after that um it goes more administrative because then you get into public improvement plans and details of construction and different things like that and that's where public works, utilities and others get engaged in making sure certain construction standards are met on roadways for instance and um in the event and I know we don't see traffic studies we've all read them many times but uh I would imagine during that that hour next meeting during that final review, we would have some highlights to we we can certainly provide that if you'd like. Usually the reason why we don't is they're so technical and they're so even us as planners, we look at it. We really look at the executive summary that tells us stuff. The engineers are the ones in Poke Works that are really evaluating are those calculations being done correctly? Is this really telling us what it should be telling us? And and so I I as more or less the staff of the body. Um the other development is there obviously or you know far along in the process we'll say um now we're adding an additional one of the residents right meaning you look at two cars per household over you know all of the phases that's that's a lot of cars u as it relates to the I believe it was mentioned that there could be a four-way stop versus just the

two-way and any responsibility to improving the the traffic as those phases grow. Can can we talk a little bit about that? Yes. Honestly, I I don't recall specifically if you know how that was addressed in the traffic study at four corners in 175th, but I'm pretty confident that most of the traffic generated from this is going to be going east. So, so eventually, obviously, as more and more development comes along and traffic moves west, further improvements will have to be made. But it's it's the traffic analysis that really drives that. So, even going to a four-way stop, that's driven by data. And so it's through the traffic counts that we currently have and then what is will we're we're expecting from the development. All that's very very uh regimen regimen may not be may be too strong a word but you know developing the the traffic flow the the amount of trips generated from a development all that's pretty pretty routine stuff. So, so again the the previous development's already included from from the local like lonear for instance the additional traffic from there has already been added in correct and then we also ask them to look you know into the future too to provide an analysis on what may be needed in the future as well. So overall, I mean, I would expect that 175th Street, I mean, the pressure on 175th Street is going to grow with multiple developments going on to some point, we'll we'll have to to do some major improvements to that corridor and and that of course is the city's responsibility to have a plan for further east where it meets. Is there plans to change that to mitigate traffic through that area?

Um, there's nothing. You know, we improved uh Santa Fe from Waverly to to US56 several years ago. So, that's now a threelane section and I would anticipate we from Waverly to the west will likely become a threelane section at some point in the future as well. I'll expand a little bit because on your agenda tonight at the end of the meeting we have something with the capital improvements program. So what Tim's referring to is as these developments occur each of them are responsible for impacts they create. They have to address those. We usually refer to those as safety improvements because they're usually things like left turn lanes, some type of signalization or stops or things like that. So, but when it comes to the accumulative effect of multiple developments, the city is monitoring that if it's on on a city street versus the high where we have K dot monitoring as much as anybody on something like 175th and that adjacent to our city limits, we would be doing counts every so often to see if that's still going on the projected path. And the first sign that a project is needed would probably show up in the capital improvements program at some point at that point. Then they would schedule the improvements and the budgeting for those improvements. So it's my understanding that there's already kind of like a preliminary easement for um that traffic way to be expanded if that's necessary. So all of a sudden that kicked in. Um so what happens is is when we get developments like this, we look at the

adjacent roadways that the development is along and we look at the right of way that is provided today. We have a transportation master plan that gives us guidance as to whether the road is considered an arterial, a collector or just a local street. Each of those have width requirements. So in this case, 175th Street has really been in the county and so the width of the right of way I believe might have been as small as 40 feet at one time. Um that right ofway when we get development we look at that and then we require the developer to provide the right of way and that's a permanent dedication of rightway if it's accepted by the governing body. So each development we review along these arterials or collector streets accordingly. We're looking to see do we have the right amount of rightway for that future expansion. That way when the improvement is needing needed whether it's because of this development or it's because the multiplicity of you know developments along 175th street or four corners road in the future we've got the right of way in place to or in order to do those expansion projects. So it's already incorporated into these plans. It is incorporated both on four corners and on 175th Street. And I will say it's only for the half of the roadway that's adjacent. So from center line to this property. If we get a development request from the property owner to the north on the north side 175th Street, we'll require a similar dedication right away to match that to gain the 120 ft of width. Do the commissioners have any other comments or questions that they like to address?

So, I'll ask for a motion on this. Sorry. I was just wondering do we not get to make any kind of like closing statements regarding any concerns of what they talked about. Um not not at this point though that was what what the public hear was for. Okay. Just seems kind of natural that we would have a popup conversation with you guys. So is there a way to deliver those concerns you know regarding Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. can and I do you want me to explain now or do you want to wait until you all finish your discussion? Are are were you going to talk about like you know us the next steps in process that they they could take at this point. So so there's multiple things you can still do. Um this the plane commission's action tonight is a recommendation action. It's not a decision action. The governing body is who makes the actual decisions. the governing body does not have to follow the recommendation of the planning commission or the staff for that matter. They they have the ability to evaluate this independently um with it. Um so in between this period of time um there are two things that you can do. Yes, you can go ahead and submit further public comment and address that to the mayor and city council or the governing body in a written format. I would say if you do that, don't wait until you're right up against the meeting night. And this will be their second meeting in June, which I believe is June 16th is when they will hear this item. Um, so it's a 7:00 meeting here in these chambers on June 16th. Um, so I would tell you the packets for the city council net go out generally the Wednesday or Thursday before that, kind of like the plane commission does. So, if you're thinking about a back calendar

here, I would say don't don't wait up until that 11th hour because then things don't necessarily get in the packets. It's kind of like one of the letters we had to provide tonight. Um, it's okay. They just don't get as much time to look at it and and kind of read through it. So, I would say get that in. You can provide that to the city clerk or you can provide it probably through Jesse as the staff planner in our office in community development. So that can be done as a as written uh commentary there. Uh they will have access to this meeting. It is on YouTube. It's being streamed uh and recorded. They get a reference to the meeting so they can listen to the discussion that was going on as well. Um, and then for the property owners that are within the notification area, which uh those property owners, I don't know which of you or if all of you got those, um, but for those owners that are in there, there is a protest petition methodology, um, which Jesse can walk you through or Bob or I can walk you through that and get you the procedures for that. That protest um, kind of petition process. you have 14 days from tonight's meeting to get that into the city clerk's office. It's a it's a more formal process, if you will, than just simply providing letters. Um, so that is possible. Now, the the difference is, and we can talk about this later on, the protest, there are procedures there as to when it's a valid protest or not. So, that can be something we can talk about kind of after the meeting or after this item's heard. So, that's that's the way you would be heard through the next steps in the process. Okay, perfect. Okay. Then Dave, if so, like if we were

to recommend a denial, there would need to be a specific uh reason that would need to be stated for that. or is it for the reasonzoning specifically? It helps if there is kind of a finding as to the reasoning for it. Yes. But um usually the conversation takes care of that you but I would say um go ahead and at least cite what the concerns if you believe there are the traffic concerns, the storm water concerns, those kinds of things. I'm looking over at the city attorney's rep and she's nodding so I I guess I'm saying it right. Yeah, it's always better to clarify if you have a specific stated reason. It's better to clarify now and uh you could do it at the same time as um all in one chunk so that on the record it's all in one thing. That's the best. Okay. Thank you. And then the other option would be if we're not if we needed more information would be to table this. So you have you have several options obviously, right? You have the you could recommend denial with your reasoning. You could recommend approval with or without conditions. You can recommend approval with the conditions staff has outlined or you can add to that or modify those conditions as you see fit or if you feel you need more time to consider it. Yes, you you could table it and we just want a time certain and be your next meeting um as to when you were hearing that you and a sense from the commissioners that, you know, is this something we want to

vote on tonight? Do we need some time to think about it? Is this more more information? Is it worth a table? Is it worth a I'm just trying to get a a temp check. I feel like everyone's kind of looking around and we we have a time limit of a meeting at 10 o'clock. Yeah, I was going to like I would like to see some sort of the numbers. What are they called? Conditions. Yes. about making sure that that final development plan has screening required for those properties adjacent to those. [Music] So, what I'm what I'm hearing is the possibility of adding a condition um that may have to do or may I'm going to state something and then you you all tell me um something to the effect that requires for lots 78 through I believe it's 98 that are adjacent to the properties just to the west of this property between the west property line and the um four corners road that that the final devel development plan adequately address um buffering and landscaping in those areas. That's the first condition to the traffic study. So on the traffic study, I think instead

of making that condition, they will be required to give us a final traffic study with all that information. I think your your question there and what we were talking about was maybe getting the highlights to you all and getting you information up front. So, why don't we just leave that with staff to make sure if this goes forward because city council may may or may not. But at this point, um what we can do with the traffic studies, we'll just make note that if the final is submitted that the traffic study, we at least get you the executive summary or some element that's got the highlights on that for safety concerns. Let's look at the city attorney just to make sure by me stating those two items. Are we good or do you need them to include that in their motion? Can they Yeah. Uh so reiterate making a motion and then list any additional um conditions that you just discussed. So all in one chunk. Can we verify the street and or the property numbers? We'll make that as part through 97. And and I I know that working with the applicant, we will also talk about with that buffering and how that impacts on track D and E and stuff like that that are on that same boundary where we're up against there. So I'll be happy to make a motion to actually is that an approval? Yeah. So you could approve with the conditions and then at the end be like here's those conditions that we just talked about. Yeah.

So so I'd be happy to make a move make a motion. Where's that? You're good. Uh to approval with conditions uniquely to the properties listed on the site plan number 78 through 97 to show additional buffering. For the record, I'm just going to get clarification here. Um, you're making a motion to recommend approval of the resoning and the preliminary development plan as well as the preliminary plat with the five conditions that staff has outlined that are in front of you now on your screens as well as that sixth edition requiring with the additional buffering. Correct. That that is correct. Motion is on the floor. Do I need a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Combmes with a second by Commissioner Sosa. All those in favor? I opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries seven to zero. Thank you. Um, moving on to item two on the agenda. Yeah, Austin, if you want to take like a fivem minute break, you can state the stoppage time and then when we'll restart. Yeah, we'll we'll have a five minute break. Um, we'll start back at 8:46.

Say hi to get some. Should have been prepared. That's why I was like trying to like I did not anticipate that. question. No.

So he did it. He locked the door. Shame on D. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

[Music] Actually, the other one's the flat first and then the second. [Music] There you go. Close enough. Uh I think we're hitting almost the time where we are forced to begin. Yes. Okay. Get up here. Commissioner vanishment. All right. Item number two. Um, do we need to wait on Dave for anything, Bob? I don't think so. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, Wendy's Restaurantsoning from C3 to CP3, preliminary development plan, preliminary plat, final development plan, and final plat. And this is a public hearing applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners. Michael Osburn, Call Valley Engineering, 14700 West 114th Terrace, Lanexa, Kansas, representing Legacy Restaurant Group, which is Wendy's, and Gardener 188 LLC, which is the owner of the property. And yes, it's a very strong coincidence that you've got two cases with C Valley Engineering back to back, but uh even different offices, but uh anyway, we're here tonight for that. The property itself is the roughly 8 acres at the northeast corner of 188, northwest corner, excuse me, of 188th and Gardener Road. Little history on this property. It's currently platted as two lots. Those two lots were platted back when 188th Street was actually a straight through street which provided access to the two lots in a very direct manner. The thought process of how this will

develop um has kind of gone back and forth through the owners of Gardener 188 LLC. They've looked at different aspects, different things, and as development has continued to grow in this area, they've been approached by multiple people looking at different uses. The first major use is the Wendy's, which we'll talk about that site plan momentarily. Uh with that, they've had other folks approach them on western pieces. So, as this is kind of starting to fit together, we've looked at replplatting this property into ultimately what may be four lots, but for today's purposes, the only true site plan that is I'll say concrete for what we would like to look at is what will ultimately be on lot one. So, in working with staff, they just suggested that we break the parcels up into tracks that would then come before you in the future as those types of uses are developed for the property. itself. One of the things that's kind of unique with this is is originally when 188th Street was a straight through street, it provided great access to the southern property line of what would now be the four lots or four tracks. Um but with a reconfiguration which was kind of put in place to help traffic patterns for the region, it created some very unique access conditions associated with the property and therefore creates the need for basically what is known as track A. Since if you were to extend all of the lots straight through or the tracks straight through in this instance, access to the tracks gets a little unique because of the curvature of 188th Street. driveways coming off of 188th Street and the ultimate configuration of the lots themselves. With that being the case, the ultimate site plan, which we'll get to momentarily, provides kind of common access from a somewhat private drive uh

throughout what would be track A. And I'll get to that again in a moment. But because of that, it really limits the access to the eastern side of the property itself. You have frontage on Gardener Road and then you have frontage down on 188th Street. But that frontage on 188th Street within lot one is in close proximity to Gardener Road itself. And when you start looking at all of the aspects of the distances associated with connection points to and from intersections and class of intersections, you've effectively eliminated access to lot one with the way the roads would been reconfigured. So it creates a unique condition that we have to kind of work through as to how we can get traffic in and out of the lots. And of course, the most prominent piece of this ground is the hard corner on 188th and Gardener Road. That's the most valuable piece out of this and would generate in essence the largest traffic volume user. So now you have a piece of ground that is suited for I won't say a high traffic user, but a more active traffic user, but effectively has no access to it. And so we've kind of tried to work through how this would come together and what would mitigate or uh reduce any traffic impacts that might occur as you start looking at how you put this piece together and yet still provide the opportunity for reasonable traffic flow through the site for the ultimate end user. So if you wouldn't mind putting up the other slide. What we've got here is the Wendy's site development plan. Fast food restaurants are called fast food restaurants for a reason. You want to get your food fast. You want to get in, you want to get out, and you want to flow through traffic. And they don't

ever want to do things that would impact regional traffic flows. And we hope that this development we've put together allows us to look at that. Now, I'm going to back up for one moment as we kind of see how this fits in. You have five items in front of you tonight. We have a reasonzoning element which deals with just putting together the site plan itself. Uh by going from the C3 to the CP3, it just provides a little flexibility and staff felt that was the best way to go with it. I don't think other than some foundation plantings, we're really even looking at any deviations from what would be a C3 zoning element. So with that, we could stay C3 where we are, or CP3 actually sets the site plan in front of you in for the zoning of this lot itself and opens up some opportunities as future lots come in to deal with setbacks or other things that may or may not be needed. They may not be needed at all. We don't know exactly what would go in on anything else. The second item in front of you is a preliminary plat. And we'd seen that earlier. It's the four lots, how we're breaking them up into tracks and things of that nature. It's actually four tracks, one lot. You have a preliminary site development plan that goes with the CP3 zoning. You have a final development plan because Wendy's wants to start selling burgers in your town as soon as they possibly can. And so by combining this preliminary and final development plan together, it lets them start moving forward if we can get some details worked out. And then ultimately, you have the final plat. Of course, as you all know, you have to have the final plat filed in order to obtain a building permit. So, we're in here for the final plat at the same time. Five applications, kind of a extensive amount for a single meeting, but uh hopefully we can get through them all tonight. Most of them, as within your staff report, are pretty straightforward. We work through all the details. Things are

in line with what staff wants and what the applicants want. At the end of the day, it kind of comes down to two items in your considerations on the site plan. Wendy's has asked for a ride in off of Gardener Road. They've also asked for a ride in right out down off of 188th Street. The ride in's at the very north end of the property. As you can see, it's just a ride in only. You do not exit out of it. They've asked for a ride in right out on 188th Street. And then they've asked for a full access movement on the other side of 188th Street. When you look at the way this site works together, you can see there is other than the right in at the northeast corner of the property, there is no other direct access to the Wendy's property. Track A will be a common space used for what would ultimately be the user of track D when they come in with their plan and Wendy's on lot one. Hence, uh, it's maintained by Wendy's and the owner of track D eventually. Uh, it'll also serve as our detention pond in between the driveways. We feel that this works very well, but there are some concerns of staff and that's what I want to kind of spend a few more minutes addressing. Uh, the first concern, we'll look at the right in, right out on 188th Street. Um, staff has requested that only be a write in. And I I guess I can partially understand that in the fact that if you have a ride out, there is that issue of someone trying to turn left out of a ride out. And in this instance, it uh could be a concern. Staff has also asked though for a median be installed on 188th Street. So with that, I have a little confusion in that if you're going to not let us have

a ride out and you want a median, they kind of one or the other, not both. In in my thoughts when when they indicate that the distance or the separation between the drive coming in off of 188th Street, 188th Street, and Gardener doesn't meet your standards. Well, neither does the one right across the street from Quicktrip. Quick Trip didn't even have to have a median put in. And then Quicktrip has another entrance just to the southwest of the current entrance. And if you look at those distances, they're actually less distances than the distances we have because we're on the outside of the curve, not the inside of the curve. So if it was okay for Quick Trip, Wendy's asks me as the engineer, why is it not okay for us? I will tell you in working with our developer, we do understand the problem of somebody trying to turn out left and it's probably the same problem Quick Trip's currently encountering with people trying to turn in left across the median. So, this development is willing to concede to put a median in as part of the development with the concession from staff and the city that they're allowed to have a right out. And and part of that goes back to the original statement of fast food wants to be fast. Someone comes into Wendy's, last thing they want to do is go clear across another lot to get onto another road to take a left turn to take another right turn as opposed to exiting out in the right turn only. And granted, that traffic is only the traffic that's ultimately going to be going southbound on Locust because it is a right turnout only. And we recognize that. But that is about 30% of their traffic patterns will come in and be heading south on the exit condition down locust. And so we hate to impact 30% of our clientele for a situation that if we put the median in,

we think eliminates the traffic concerns that exist and definitely reduces it by putting the median in because now you've also aided issues that probably currently exist with the quick trip. So in that we would request that in your evaluation of this matter you look at that right in write out allowing it to be right out and putting a median in which would be part of the stipulation that they would feel comfortable with in that regard. The other item comes back to the write in and so let's think about what happens when you do have a write in in this condition. There's two issues associated with that right in. One, it's right at the initiation point of the right turn lane in which you would be exiting and turning right onto 188th Street. If you don't have that ride in, all of that traffic that's coming there is going into that right turn lane anyway because the only way they're going to enter Wendy's is to go down to 188th, turn right, and come in the right end. So now we've doubled the traffic that's going in the right end off of 188th and increase the traffic load on the right turn. So we talk about how many cars are we really looking at. Our traffic counts that were performed for traffic study for this site showed that during peak PM hour, that's the largest number in this intersection at the time, you have about 62 cars per hour, one per minute turning right from Gardener Road to 188th Street. The traffic counts during peak for Wendy's coming from the north, they show to be about 25 to 30 cars per hour. So, we will add 50% more right turns here. But again, if they don't turn into the Wendy's off of Gardener Road,

they're going to go to the intersection and turn right at that time. The next question becomes traffic backup concerns, things of that nature. Again, it's just one car every two minutes on average. I mean it'll be more than not more than the total but sometimes there'll be you know three per twominut periods and maybe one per three minute period but on average one per two-minute period coming in. Does that impact the traffic going into the right turn lane because they're just leaving the through lane and going into the right turn lane at that point? Well, effectively you have the same condition with that patron. Whether they turn into Wendy's at the northeast corner or they go into the right turn lane and turn right, they're initiating their slowdown as they enter the taper for the right turn. So whether they go on into the Wendy's or on down, the slowing of traffic that may occur at the intersection will be the same. whether you have the right in right out for or the right in only for Wendy's at the northeast corner or not. So with that Wendy's requests that you do consider allowing the rightin only. Now the part I also want to point out is is the geometry that's been put together for that ride in looks a little unusual. It's put together that way for a very specific reason because the largest concern one has with any type of a ride in only is someone choosing to try to go out of it. And that's an area we know at this location we do not want anybody leaving because that would be the real impact to Gardener Road would be somebody leaving that intersection. So with that, we have kind of put that dip in it to really I mean if if you tried to leave out of that location, you would really be going backwards and up a

snorkel almost to get out. So we've designed that in a manner to really discourage and try to eliminate that possibility with that. the rest of the conditions and stipulations we we tend to agree with on this project both from the uh site development plan and the the final plat elements of it. I think you had two separate conditions condition on the second part on the final plat dealt with meeting the conditions on the first part. So if we can adapt those a little bit then we agree with all of the rest. And with that I'm here to answer any questions that you may have regarding this project. Thank you. Yeah. Well, I'm going to try to go through this pretty quickly. Uh, he really addressed quite a bit of the of the plans and the applications in his presentation. So, we'll just get to it. Uh, as uh the petitioner already mentioned, this is a basically a replat or re resubdivision of already two existing lots uh from uh Sheen Crossing. Uh uh to the north is vacant commercial uh land and bumgars. Uh to the east is the new water burger and of course to the south is the uh new quick trip. Uh tonight uh as mentioned earlier preliminary and final plats are the replatting of the original sheen

crossing. The new plat is divided into one lot and four tracks uh with uh track uh B, C and D uh will need to be plotted in the future into uh developer lots. Track A is being utilized as retention basin. All utilities are available to the uh to the site. present time, uh, the Plymouth Development Plan only addresses the Wendy's restaurant on lot one and provides for, uh, two access points, uh, onto 188th Street and one access point on off of Garden Road. Uh lot one is a little over one acre with a proposed 2100 square foot building for fast food restaurant. Uh the preliminary development plan shows a right in right out onto 188 street and right in off of Garner Road. Both of the entrances do not meet the city's access management code. Uh we do have the city engineer city engineer here tonight u and he has recommended the rep rem removal of the right out onto 188th street and also the removal of the right in off of garden road and both of these are in the staff's recommendation. Again Tim Mali gardener city of gardener city engineer is here to answer any questions about those conditions. This is just a picture of a portion of the final development plan. This is the landscape plan. Uh the land uh final development plan is in general conformity with the preliminary development plan. The

proposal again is for 2144T restaurant with a drive-thru. Uh the final development plan meets all the code standards with the exception of the one requested deviation and the final plat also meets uh is meets the conditions as well. Uh here's an example of some of the elevations of course in case you guys haven't seen them. uh the building materials are built with this uh quality materials. This is the uh the top photo or top rendering is the side that is facing Cardinal Road. Uh and the back side, as you can see, is the with a drive-thru. There's the north facing side and then the south facing side facing 188th is the bottom picture. Again, they had one uh deviation request as uh from chapter uh 1708030 landscape design foundation plannings set for buildings permitted within 10 feet of rideway. foundation plans area shall exist along at least 25% of street facing facades. There are two street facing facades here 188th and also garden road. Uh they they proposed to rec uh relocate all the plants uh on site. Uh they were providing additional landscaping along the south side of the lot and additional shrubs along Garden Road. Uh we believe that this uh this is a as good or better situation. Placement of the entrance door and 88 compliant sidewalks prevent

the code requirement for landscaping. Uh again in exchange for the amount of landscaping on the east side of the building. Additional landscaping along Parkinsons and Circulation Drive will help also shield lights bleeding out onto Kerner Road and provide for an attractive sites. staff is supportive of the deviation. Uh there's also we're going to have two motions on this one. So the first motion will be for the resoning preliminary development plan and the associated preliminary plat. And then the second motion would be for the final development plan and the final plaid. Um I think we have a public hearing we need to open. Um so same as before um come forward state your name and address and you have three minutes as an individual or seven ver uh Kenneth Yoder 30125 West 187 street apartment 638. Um could I have that picture with the um the ride ins and outs up again? Uh a couple that one. Yes. Thank you. So, my concern is is the uh that median right there on the 187th Street, is that a painted median or is that going to be a raised island type medium? Because I know the quick trip on Main Street down just down the road here has just a painted medium, but and you're not supposed to turn left going down this way onto it, but a lot of people do that anyway. So, if it's just painted, you're still going to have a lot of people cutting in through there anyway. The other concern is traffic wise. Yes, there's only so many cars per hour. I

believe it was 20 something. However, a lot of those are semi-truckss. And I know when I leave from uh the Horizon Trails apartments down there around 3:00 in the afternoon, there's at least two or three times a week the semis are backed up all the way to the uh 187 that goes down towards the apartment complexes, which will also impact some issues there, too, because I know it's it's usually slow going. I mean, maybe if the street light was modified so there was a right turn signal when the north back north south has a left turn. If there was a right turn added there so that people know that they can just go ahead and go and not stop first. That might help a little bit too. But those are my major concerns looking at that right now. That's all I got. Thank you. That's it. We'll I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. A motion by Commissioner Cooper with a second by Commissioner Berg. All those in favor of closing. I opposed. Motion carries 70. All right. Uh Commissioner discussion. Uh we'll start on my left this time. Okay. Um, I have a couple questions. The removal of the right out, I presume, is to prevent traffic from coming out around and then making a U-turn around the island. Um, not necessarily. I mean certainly that is something we we would not want to have there but really it's it's mainly congestion issue because that that access point actually does not meet

our access management code either. Uh we allowed them to have access at that point um at that location um in part because of the lack of access off of Ver road. Um so our feeling was you know getting getting the customers in was the primary thing and so the right in made sense and we could eliminate the right out um and also provide the the raised median u would prevent people from trying to from eastbound traffic trying to turn left into there as well. Okay. So the if it's removed then as you leave the windage you would come out of that street onto I guess it's 187th 188 also no no 188 makes it turns into 188 oh okay so 188 makes the turn got so 188 you would force the traffic to come out to 188 and then stop at that stop sign to get back. The location of this is obviously designed for interstate traffic to come off the interstate, get a burger, get back on the interstate. Um, this seems awful convoluted to me if the aim is to get people in and out. I understand the right out because of the median and the traffic, but then is there a plan to put a street light there at the corner of 1888 and locust? Because if Mod's right and there's semi-truckss blocking that and there are quite a few semi-truckss that make that turn off of road, then that seems to me that's going to become a choke point that will have

to be controlled rather than a stop sign. Well, again, that's driven by uh by the the traffic study, which is traffic study did not show a s I assume you're talking about a signal. You say a light. I'm sorry. Yes. Signal. Yeah. Yeah. And and I and Mike, maybe you can help on the future. Did your ultimate analysis show a signal? No. Yeah. So, so the The traffic analysis does not show a signal is warded from from the traffic. Okay. Well, then my second question is the right in off of Burton Road. Um I understand from the staff notes that it is too close to the intersection. My question is, would that be alleviated by extending the turn length farther to the north to give additional room for that? Um, I just as I look at this and listen to the traffic, proposed traffic flow, it just seems that we're going to create a huge bottleneck at 188 road for people trying to get in and get out. And it just to me makes logical sense that if we increase that turn in lane, the right turn lane for that turn in to the northeast corner, that would alleviate at least some of that traffic on the 188 road. Well, the the reason staff recommended against it is because uh we have requirements on functional areas of an intersection. And so as you approach the intersection, our requirements is 600 ft uh from the intersection to be clear of any access points and and our

requirements are fairly standard and and normal. You can see very similar things certainly across the county and and and fairly standard. So, so the reason for deny for us to deny it was okay, it's within that functional area which becomes a safety problem and a congestion issue by having that there as well. But wouldn't it be an additional safety problem if you don't have that right in and now you have 36 cars per minute or per hour going through there plus an additional 20some because now you'll fill up that right turn lane going onto 188th Street and it will block the right hand lane of Burner Road. Not 100% sure I I understand the question, but um I mean so there's a southbound right turn lane currently on Gardener Road. Okay. I'm talking about the right end and so to the farther north of that. So, so if you don't have that right end going into there on the northeast corner and all you have is the right the two lanes of Burner Road going south and the right turn lane go 188th Street and now you increase the traffic for the customers going into Wendy's off of 100 off of Gardenner Road. Isn't that going to create just as big of an issue when they fill up that right turn lane and then block the the number one lane on Gardener Road? Well, I'm not I'm not following the same blocking. So, as the as the traffic increases for the customers going to Wendy's, right, they have a free flow into Wendy's if they have the right turn in off Burner Road. No, off 188. They'll have a free flow right turn, but they won't they won't have a free flow because you'll have all the traffic coming

across Gardener Road and coming from the south. So, it'll stop to allow the traffic to flow from those two directions. And when that happens, what I'm saying is when that happens, the southbound traffic that wants to turn could potentially block the right turn lane. And because it wouldn't be long enough, it would then also block the number one lane of Gardener Road. So, to me, the logic says if we have the turn in we alleviate that extra traffic that would bind up the traffic on 188th Street. I'm going to clarify because I think I know where you're where you're talking because that's your why you were talking about the idea of taking that dedicated right-hand turn lane that's in existence today and extending it further north. Correct. Is to increase the stacking that could occur on that. Correct. So that's what he's kind of talking about. So if you if you looked at that and said, "Okay, that right hand turn lane gets expanded or gets extended to the north another 100 feet." Let's just say I'm just making that up. You know, then that would accommodate the stacking. So I think that's where Commissioner B coming from on this, right? And it can be designed to handle whatever stacking is expected to go through there. Well, the only reason that I that I wonder about this, the only that I'm in favor of this right turn in is because in the next two years garden road is going to become a nightmare as they build that bridge and again from us heading on to road makes that work in my opinion so one other thing I think worth mentioning here so when

the developed in its sluards now so that road. That's a private road that goes in on the south side of that building. We have cross made them provide a cross access agreement to the property to the south. So the property between Lombard and Wendy's with the intent being that okay traffic is southbound traffic could exit there and still access across to what is now being proposed as a wind. So granted there's there's nothing there today, but ultimately the plan is to have access additional access on road to the north. So Commissioner Ber there's compounding issues, right? So if if the right lane and I don't want to talk about the access point, I want to talk about the right lane first. the right lane extending it to the north. Then we also have to be concerned about spacing distances from that existing private drive. So there's some elements there as to how much stacking could you get by extending that. And what the city engineer is talking about is that that Wendy's, whether it's Wendy's or whoever at that corner, that traffic coming from the north at the rate that they've talked about, when that crossaxis is established from the Bumgardner private drive down through there, a lot of that traffic would take the right turn at that 187th private street entrance, use the private access or the shared I said to come in on the back side, if you will. Okay? Because what's required of this development is going to be cross access going north, not on the Wendy's lot, but probably between the next two lots that are over to the west of this, but then you'd

require Wendy's to reconfigure their parking lot to allow for that. No. No. Their lot would not be touched at all. What I'm saying is the crossaxis is going to be west of the Wendy's lot. Okay. on either split amongst the two next lots or somewhere in that mix as the development comes out. Okay. And that's where the shared access road would come down then from the north. So those 20 cars or whatever during that period of time will have that access and that ability to turn on that drive come down that. Now that's in the future. That's that's dependent on a number of factors um for that. So, but that's what the consideration is that full build. Let me just add to the So, in a situation like this where you've got we already have a a right turn lane for southbound traffic. If we add an additional access, you now have two sets of people doing two different movements. So one one of them is so people that are head wanting to head all the way down to 188th to turn may not realize that okay the guy in front of me is actually turning into winds and so you got two different movements occurring in the same lane which again I think this creates a safety and efficient efficient movement of traffic problem. Yeah, that was my concern as well. basically people not expecting people in front of them using the turn lane like kind of what the turn lane is today designed for because like my understanding is those intersection spacings are kind of based off of like the speed of the area traffic and so that's what's kind of driving the spacing requirements and so like we just don't want somebody to get we don't want rear end accidents there um and I think the engineer in your report you mentioned it was about two car a car per two minutes approximately from the north

um based on projections. Correct. Um and so like I hear your concern about the the stacking, but like I don't think with the cycle of the timing of the light, the green light for southbound traffic on Gardener Road, I don't think that right would stack up given that increase in traffic that would use that right. Okay. I didn't think I get why they want it. I didn't think about the second somebody's turn. Yeah. I think what you keep In many of these situations like this around your metro area is they'll come in and put in a median. So in this case there would be a median just south of the Wendy's entrance so that if you got in that right turn lane you had no you would have no choice but to get in Wendy's and then you would pass the Wendy's if you and get in the right turn lane if you want to go to 1888. But we just don't I don't feel like we have the room to do that here. Okay. So the idea is to make those exit assuming this right out the med but the the median that's why I mentioned that is is there to serve people taking a left knowing the only way at least in our discuss Yes. As uh citizen mentioned in his discussion, part of this is also heightened by what we've seen with right in right out only um with designs of these things. And when you don't have raised medians and other elements as part of that um even with this design, you will have people will try to make a

left in at that location on darker road. They will I have actually seen people leave that quick trip turn doing a left through the one that's supposed to be in. Okay. Okay. So, this is a practical question that I think that that area is a mess. um traffic wise. Um, so if you go if you go let's say you go follow Gardner Road, turn right going south and then turn right again to go into Wendy's and you come out, you have to turn right according to this, correct? Or is there going to be another access to turn? So the way it's shown on the plan, you came out that same way, right? In the plan, you would have to go right. Okay. If there was a raised med or some other component to it. What the city engineer is suggesting that that would not be a right out there. It would only be a right in. And so the traffic would have to go down that private drive further west to the far end of your drawing that's on the screen there and then come out of that by making a left there. Then would hit the intersection where the curve is and then go out that way. So that's what the that's where the C engineer second comment comes from about not having that right out that access. Okay. Okay. So So even even if the right out was there traffic going back to the interstate or getting back to Ger Road would still have to go west all the way west because there's no way there's no way to turn around. Right. Okay. So then my next question is this um I don't want to see proposed because

I it's like a concept of another road coming south from bombgars. Where exactly would that intersect because there's no um right according to this plan they've got trash dumpsters where would be the logical access road to it would not be at that location. Jesse, do we have the graphic that shows I think it's the final? No, the preliminary plan. The preliminary plan, if you will. Yeah, there we go. So, this is a little bit hard to read on here, but the Wendy's lot is basically that lot one that you see on your far right. Yes. Then you have what's called track D in the middle. We're anticipating that the shared access road would likely come down along potentially that western line of the track D and tract B B. Yeah, it's hard to read there. So in there is where we anticipate somewhere in that range is where that access road would come down. So people use the roadway that now serves bum gardeners or bum guards. They would go ahead in they would hit that roadway coming down and then they'd hit the roadway that's running east and west there at that location to get to Wendy's. So the there won't be a back road access there. Well, that would be not on the Wendy's site, but as part of the development overall, there will there there's going to be one recommended. Yes. because that also serves both developments to the north and the south. What what's the time frame for that? It'll be development driven by the property owner to the north basically and and anything that is this property owner and that property owner negotiating. So it may be driven by a development proposal on the north side as well as on the south side. It may be driven by one of them gets there first.

It might be driven by them talking to each other and negotiating it out is their mutual benefit. Uh but those are private discussions that we will not have a part in. So that so the land between Bombgars and and the proposed Wendy site is owned by a different owner or is owned by Bombgards or it's a different owner. It's third party. So there's three. So so well Bombgard is kind of out of the picture because the shared access is in place, right? That drive is there. So, it's really the property owner for the 3.1 acre property to the south of that roadway um that would play a role in this. Um I will share at one at one time we had concept plans coming in from both of these property owners at the same time simultaneously. And as you see, you've got one before you the other one has not come to fruition. Is was the just curious was the roadway addressed and that other one that hasn't come to staff's providing comments to that either way it looks like obvious future plan but that that looks like it would still connect going through track B I think it was uh it would still connect West 188, right? Because it would hit the road that they're proposing for Wendy's goss. So where you kind of see a goose neck on this drawing wherever this location would be somehow that would tie and at that point these that's private road at that point we're most concerned about establishing the access points and the depths of those access points so they're stacking things.

So, sorry to interrupt, but this So, this drawing is actually misleading because it shows an in and an out at the same location. And what you just explained to me, there's no not going to be an out at that first at the first one. There would not what city engineers recommended to us staff is backing is that it would not have an out on that first one. Okay? Only have a then at the second one further to the left. That's having in and out. Okay, cool. So, I'm gonna just kind of go go on with what Commissioner Cooper saying here regarding the various access points. Why why would you even have another why why would you want to do just this right in when you've got a full-on access directly to the west? It's really not that far away. I don't know if everyone did a a site drive, but it's really not that far away. Why Why not just have that one single full access point and be done with it? And then then you don't have to worry about conflicting with Quick Trip. You don't got to worry about building a meeting. You don't got to worry about somebody deciding to make their own way into the Wendy's. I mean, you've got the full access. It's there. It's safe. It's it's it's city standards. like it it meets the checks. Why? So, and I'm gonna I'm if I put words in your mouth, just me or whatever. Yeah. Okay. So, what you're referring to would be that the only access point would be the one that's on the furthest left, correct? On this drawing that there should not be any other access point whatsoever. That's correct. Okay. Um again, what you're seeing here is driven by the application of the of the developer. the city's willing to allow

that right in only um even though it does not I think Tim was saying this earlier does not meet the access requirements either and I think part of that is when you do look at this any fast food restaurant will tell you not just this one we go through it with all the other ones that have gone in this area right the biggest concern is getting the traffic in there they want the people to get there as quickly and as conveniently as possible coming out they won't tell you this, but they really don't care if they don't get out. I agree. Yeah. What they care about is getting them into the site, making sure the site can accommodate them, they buy their stuff, they have a great experience. If getting out is the problem, that's usually not that big a concern. But as a citizen group overseeing safety and correct and and good planning, correct, a good planning practice is only having the one full access to the west. That's that's a that's what I would say good planning, right? And you you're certainly welcome to do that as part of the discussion. You could make the conditions stronger than what we've talked about if that's the desire of the commission. Okay. As a recommendation. Great. Um and then just one other question um regarding the designated parking spaces for delivery and pickup. What which ones are those on the map? Curious. They are. So, you see where the two handicap spaces are? I do. Okay. So, all the other spaces that are in that line are dedicated to pickup delivery kind of ordering. So, there's six. I believe it was six. Maggie and I were Maggie and I were talking about it. I believe they are. I think we want the applicants to clarify. Okay. That was just the right thought. I don't hear you. Um yeah, it would be the three uh spots down here on the I should say delivery on the south side of

the of the protop here in the building is where we have those spots. And usually we we were required to do that with corporate with Wendy's corporate and then we're looking at usually at eight spots um just for workers alone, right? For our kitchen staff u managers and all that. So on top of the six to eight spots we need for workers, we'd have the three delivery spots on the south side. Correct. Correct. And that's just usually with all the Yeah, I thought there were six. Okay. So, is this a drive-thru only? Um, this one is not a drive-thru only. Um, we're starting to go more towards the prototypes of smaller square footage. We do have a lobby in there with about 30 35 um seats for folks but so so no it's not a drive-through only but with the recent we have a lot of GrubHub you know Uber Eatats and everything um we've started designating just three spots uh to accommodate for for workers for sorry for the deliveries. So, so the development proposals, what's happening is the fast food industry is making adaptations for a lot of the online ordering and the multiple ways that people are now getting their food from fast food restaurants, not just drive-thru and sit down like it traditionally was. Our our code does not specifically call out we have a maximum number of parking spaces we allow, but it doesn't really it doesn't really address the whole delivery takeout grub hub kind of scenario. Those are not really built into our codes. Very few codes. We checked with a couple other cities, looked at their codes. Those maximums and things do not take into account that type of traffic. So, as we were looking at it, one of the important things for us was to make sure that if they were going to exceed the maximum number of spaces that we would allow

that those spaces are appropriately identified and marked so that they're only used for that activity. Um, and that they're dedicated solely to that because we're sitting there going, we really haven't got a regulation that tells us, oh, you're allowed three of these or you're allowed five of these. and our maximum number does not really incorporate this type of activity. So, we want to as a staff, we felt it was important to say, okay, you're exceeding our max, but because you have these dedicated spots, we're okay with that. So, there's se seating for 30ome people inside, right? Yeah. Just how many staff? Usually about eight. Eight staff. keep staff members and 30 some people. Then if the if if it's fully staffed and it's busy, then there's not enough parking. I agree with that. Um we would love to put a little bit more parking in there as well. We can definitely accommodate that if that is a requirement y'all want. Um but yeah, completely agree. Yeah, that's a call. We can add, you know, if you depending on what the spots y'all want on the west side of lot one, you know, just add a few maybe six more spots there or whatever that is and we could add a little bit more on the east side as well and the front is there on Gardener Road. How that affect the drainage of the runoff calculations put that additional base area? be okay. Okay. We had ran that before with those um spots in there and then we removed them to meet the stand or try to meet the standards as close as possible by removing some spots.

Oh, so you you had more spots. We had more spots there basically on the west side there between the dumpster and those. We had spots there and then also on this on the east side below those probably eight spots there on South Gardener Road. We had more going all the way down. Maggie, our I believe our parking standard on fast food is it based on square footage, not on seats or it's on seats. Yeah. So, there's been two different kinds of calculations that are traditionally used either square footage or seats on these kind of things. Again, you know, we've got a maximum number. They were exceeding the maximum number by code. Staff's not supportive of that with the transitioning that's going on with these fast food restaurants. That doesn't mean that at a later date if their performance standards were, you know, something where it wasn't meeting or they needed more, that doesn't mean they couldn't come back at a later date with something like that. I think again as we look at these, especially fast food restaurants, and I'm not picking on any one brand, just so you know, every one of them is going through this transition piece and we're all trying to figure out what's the real parking that's required here because the operation is very different. Um, it just it's one of those things. We're seeing it with the way Chipotle handles things versus Starbucks versus everybody else. And when they get into shared scenarios, sometimes there's shared parking agreements at work to add that parking. And that may be something that we can look at with the track to the west too as an option if this one's not performing quite right. But those are dependencies that we don't want to necessarily put into place at this point. We want to try to consider this application kind of separate but understand its context. What would be the downside of additional parking there? We'd have to look at the open space requirement and make sure they're still meeting the open space requirement. We would want to double check all the storm water calculations and make sure storm water is being addressed appropriately

on this. I think there was still a little bit of discussion on storm water that was going on with public works and the applicant as we move forward there. Um, so those those would be the items that we'd want to primarily be looking at. Again, circulation. I'm not quite as worried about circulation on here. You've already got to circle the restaurant, you know, as it is um to do some things there. So, um I think those would be the two things are the open space landscaping and then storm water probably the two biggest issues. That's not to say they can't be addressed. It's just to say that's what we want to look at closer. Talk to you. Did you figure out what that distance is from the inter? Yeah. So what you got from the intersection to the top of the red line looks like it's roughly about 235 ft. So if you look at the width of the lots there. So the 600. So you're probably mimicking another 2 similar size there. So 600 would probably 187. And that's that's also when you look at the block. I have another question about runoff. Can you tell us what all you looked at as far as runoff and sewer? Because we got to the north and the west of you a little bit. It's pretty wet and so I was wondering if you took that in consideration. You could talk a little bit about that. Well, there there's two factors in in the storm drainage associated with all eight acres. Basically, lot one and track B, I think is I'm sorry, D. We renumbered them a

couple different times, but the lot directly west of lot one can drain and there's adequate space within track A with the pond. Even in a developed out restaurant type condition projected for what is track D, the pond is of adequate size or can be of adequate size to handle that. The two lots to the west actually drain to the northwest and so those lots will have to ultimately deal with their own storm water runoff and detention associated there with the pond allocated within track A only accounts for lot one and track D. But again, the matter in front of you tonight with regards to the primary element of storm water only deals with lot one, but we have accounted within the pond for what we project to be the probable development of track D. Is that kind of I'm going to interject for just a second and I need to ask a question. city attorney. Since we do have a deadline at 10:00, can we um entertain a motion about potentially extending the meeting past 10:00 now or are you comfortable with that even though we're in the middle of an item? Yeah, I think um if we do that now and we think that we can finish then it's worth doing that now. So the reason I'm bringing this up is we do have to consider the CIP item tonight. in the schedule of budgeting and everything else. We've got to get a recommendation council next month. So, I'm kind of tight on that. So, um what I would say is if if there's a desire here, it's up to you as a commission to whether you want to extend the meeting or not. We need a motion to put that vote on it. Do we need to set a time? Yeah. So, it's probably best practice to maybe give it

a slot of time like 30 minutes or 45 or whatever. If you don't mind, I would say up to 10:30 and if we can get done quicker, we will try to get done quicker. Okay. So, what's that law? Yeah, you use all the time you allow yourself. Yeah. Try not to. So, someone wants to do that formally. I'd make a motion that we extend our meeting to at least 10:30 or 2 10:30, I should say. I second. All right. Uh, all in favor? I opposed. Okay. All right. Sorry that we got a later bedtime. All right. Um, mayor, did you have everything? I'm good. Thank you. All right. All right. I will I'll try to be very brief. Uh, so could I have the picture with the right from and the the question is related to and and I think city engineer referenced this but what is the key concern about not having that or not recommending right in garden road that that's question one maybe the other one is more of a general question uh If the right turn in and right turn out on 188 was completely eliminated, would would it make sense and or could there be a discussion about the right turn in? Well, again, I think our preference would I mean, if we got two places, one of the two that is not meeting our criteria, the place to do it is on 188th, not on Gardener Road.

again. Um, we Gardener Road has a lot of traffic on I think 11,000 vehicles a day and that's just going to keep going up and and so the concern of of safety again we got that 600 foot area where you know when you get close to intersections there's just a lot going on. people are having to make a lot of different decisions on what they're doing and and the idea being okay the few if we can eliminate decisions which in this case eliminating the decision to turn right into Wendy's that's a reason for for not allowing it and and I think you probably just hit the nail on the head at least for me uh the big concern is it is very close to an intersection whereas you look up at Bombard and I understand road there are two right turn in front of our road but they those drivers are not nearing the intersection. I mean is the intersection what causes the the concern about the driver's fault process? Yes, for sure. And I mean it's also fairly close to the bombgards intersection as well. I think it's only a couple hundred feet to there. So, it's just a very congested area. Okay. I I don't have any questions. Sorry. I mean, most of my questions are answered. I'm just if we put too many stipulations and don't allow enough traffic in there, then there's we're going to reduce the reason for them to come and open business there. That's one of my concerns. I think we need to juggle, we need to balance traffic safety and making sure we have business growth in town. And I would just comment and you may want to take a look around. I mean, if

you look around the the city, there are lots of places that don't have as good as access as Wendy's will have here. And obviously Wendy's will have to make a decision, you know, whether that is good enough for them or not. But you go up to 51st Street, a lot of different locations. You know, there's Culver's up there. I mean, you have to really drive out of your way almost to get to a lot of places. And and again, that's up to those businesses decided if that's appropriate for think. The thing that I look at when it comes to that traffic pattern is if we eliminate the right out going on 188th Street and if we just eliminate that whole thing completely and make it go to the farther west entrance as you're coming up to it from the south it looks like where do I go? How do I get there? There's no obvious way. So then you're either requiring Wendy's put signage up that says Wendy's entrance. Come this way something. Wasn't that obvious? There's a monument sign over there by the intersection. How far is the monument from the intersection? No, you're talking. The monument is at the is at the apex of track. It's from Gardener Road. That's where the traffic doesn't know how to get into it. I saw the right hand side. So, I'm just gonna indicate too that our code does allow on each street branch. They could have a monument sign on each of the street. They're not necessarily showing that in this development plan,

but I believe that is would be allowed by our code. Correct. You said yes. Um my my question for for staff was kind of like I guess big picture wise, you know, with the recommended motions of removing drives. Um, it seems like kind of a weird approval to me to is it basically because we're we're saying like I I guess hypothetically if we if we approved with the recommended motions the reasonzoning and the preliminary development plan and the preliminary plat would we then have to deny the final development plan and final plat because it shows those drives like how would that work? No, essentially what we do at final and Bob can clarify, but I think at final what you would do is we would alter the motion to accommodate accordingly. So we would say, you know, it has to meet the requirements of the preliminary development plan and we probably site a condition on on the access points. So it wouldn't it wouldn't ever come back before us though, right? You could also the other situation is you could move forward with your recommendation on the preliminary development plan. the final plan to your next meeting. At that point, you'd know what the city council has done with it at that point because it would just be tabled. They would not have to reapply. They don't have to go through a whole another process or anything like that. They're they're just sitting to wait on that. Yeah. That's another option that you have. Yeah. Yeah. And during that time, that could allow them to make the changes depending on what is going on with the council governing body. Okay.

Yeah. I say like my kind of general thought process like I agree with you not allowing the right in off guard gardener road but I kind of like logically kind of agree with about like well if we're denying there based on spacing logically we should also not allow the other one then you know commissioner B has a good point about we want to be reasonable about access here. Is that unreasonable? Not allowed to write in there. I don't know. It isn't right term. Let me let me just add because I I probably wasn't clear on this. So the the 600 ft on Gardener Road that applies as you approach an intersection on an arterial. Yes. So a collector others they would the the number shrinks. So as you go leave the intersection going west that number is significantly less than 600 feet. For a collector it's only about 200 feet. So you could actually I mean in my mind this I mean 188 is an arterial but it's somewhat functioning as a collector. And again that's part of the reason why okay we don't quite meet our criteria for the spacing on the 188th entrance but I I think it's not unreasonable where it is. But you don't you don't know that spacing number off the top of your head I guess we're at like what's deviation that would so leaving the intersection would be 335 ft on an arterial 200 200 feet on a collector which excuse me it's greater than 200 feet from gardener road to for a collector. You just said a collector's 200 ft. This connection from Gardener Road is more

than 200 feet. Oh, your Oh, your actual Yes. Yes. Right. So, with that stipulation or item, it meets the distance. it meets the criteria for so I guess that's where I didn't bring it up if it's okay that's fine yeah I I didn't bring it up because I didn't want to get into argumentative states but your state your your distances for spacing is 200 feet and this is greater than 200 feet from gardener so therefore I guess I'm a little confused as to why It's not meeting the spacing requirement. I'll just clarify it. 188th Street is classified as an arterial. What the city engineer is saying is if you looked at it as a collector, you could get to 200 ft. Okay. So, it is classified as an arterial, which would require the 335 to be met. That's where the staff comment is coming from because of that classification. But in this case, it could be looked at as a collector potentially here on 188th because it's not the traditional straight shot arterial that's going through town. Can can I ask for one other clarification while we're talking about this access point? So, if it's so critical on the north side of the road, we're just confused as to why it was allowed on the south side of the road without a median even. when it's actually a closer distance. And I know two wrongs don't make it right, but I mean criteria. Yes. Well, it's actually a more stringent criteria because you're in the ascending side, not the descending side coming into the intersection. So the right in right out for quick trip that's directly across the street is the same exact situation,

but it has a longer distance because it's descending for your code, not descending. It's not. You're entering the intersection. Approaching the intersection 600 ft leaving the intersection 330, right? And you're approaching the intersection with the quickrip inter with the quickrip entrance. We're not talking about quickrip. Well, I understand that, but I'm I'm asking for clarification as to if quickrip was allowed, why is this not being allowed then? That's just my only question. It's a pretty basic question. I'll I'll say this. Unfortunately for us, most of us weren't on staff when Quick Trip was in front of the city. And I can understand that. And if that's the answer was that we didn't follow our rules before, but we're going to follow them now. I understand that. I just asking for that specific clarification that we're following the rules today, but we didn't follow the rules when Quick Trip was put in place. Or maybe the rules changed. I We'd have to do some research on the case to see what was what was the situation. And it could have been that the governing body said allow it. I I don't know because they're the decision makers. So and I understand that. I'm just trying to get further clarification as as we go forward with this because we were kind of envisioning the direction your recommendation is probably going to come forth with which you'll then take it on to council and we'd like to have additional talking points potentially as we reach the council level. And with that, I was hoping to get clarification as to why one's allowed and one's not. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Uh to jump in really quick, if it makes a difference to everyone, um any decisions that you guys make as a planning commission do not set precedent like you would think of in court, if that makes

sense. So if you make a decision for one restaurant, let's say, um that does not set a precedent that then any other restaurant can come in and request that exact same thing because each thing each application is so factually specific. So you don't have to worry about setting precedent in the future. It's not a finding. Correct. Right. Yes. So, also this one. Wow, mine's loud. Um, this will have to be multiple motions. Um, so if you're prepared to make separate ones, you can speak on those one by one. Um, and again, you have those four decisions. So, you could choose to table whatever you want if you if that is your decision or if you have certain ones that you choose not to table, you can decide that now. also driven by those recommendations.

Correct. So, Jesse, can you shift this over to the recommendation, the first recommendation? Okay, so this is why we've split by the preliminary and the final. Okay, because this is a planned zoning district, the reasonzoning and the preliminary development plan are tied together. They it has to have an associated preliminary development plan to move forward. So the first motion and I think this is what Katherine's referring to is really would have to be around the resoning preliminary development plan preliminary plaque that that's one motion in that area. The final is where the break then becomes. Now understand anything that you place here in the preliminary development plan motion. Okay. Again is a recommendation to the governing body. And I'm gonna look at Katherine because she's gonna either jump in on me or she's gonna say, "Okay, you're fine." But what's happening here is you would have that those conditions would have to be met in the final no matter what. Okay? If the governing body chose to enforce those conditions, okay? So understand they're the decision maker at that point. They can go along with your recommendation on those conditions, right? But then they could still in their deliberation in their consideration the item they could say you know what we disagree with the planning commission and the staff recommendation we want to remove condition number or whatever. Okay so they do have that ability to do that at which time then the final would be impacted by whatever they kind of decided as conditions on that even though the final comes to you all not to them. Okay. So, understand that's where the situation is. So, I think what you're displaying, you're I'm going to call it discomfort in this is the idea with those options that the governing

body has, what are we really approving at the final stage now? Yeah, exactly. I think I'm I think I'm wording that wrong. Yeah. So like you if you wanted to see what the governing body's decision on that was and then look at the final plan you can do whatever you could table that if that is your decision or if you don't care what the governing body does even if that includes making edits to what you have proposed to them or recommended to them then you can discuss the final plan now or choose not to whichever one but the final final plan will be predicated by whatever conditions or whatever approval denial whatever decision the governing body makes. So if the governing body ultimately were to say, "Hey, we're just denying reszoning. We don't we don't like it." Final plan's off the table, right? No matter what action you took on it. So I just I want you to understand that's where the authority of the decision making lies versus what you're doing which is a recommendation. Many times we put these packets together like this because we're moving through the process as quick as we can for the applicants. You know, it just depends on your discussion. I think they understand when we have these things running parallel like this. There are times when you may consider doing something different. So along the staff recommendations different I think. Didn't we already discuss number three and come up with a different number for the stalls? Yes, we probably would need to make a change that there are three there. Is that was that correct? Three stalls for marked for delivery instead of six. Right. Correct. So yeah, that would be a change. If you choose to approve that with a condition, you'd have to make

that clear. Yeah. I just want to make sure that's fair. And then feel like we still have a lot of differences between between us on number two as far as I think most of us all agree that we're okay with the right in offer road or some of us still want that one right but then but then the second right off of 188 I think I still think it's it's okay to be there the right the right in right Let me let me recap that. So, what you're considering is making a motion. I'm just going to say I'm going to use you because you brought it up whether it's you or somebody else. No matter. So, what you're what you were saying here is that there seems to be one in condition number three. We would definitely want to edit that. six to three. Got that clarification. Then on item number two, what I'm hearing is that there's agreement that it would stay as written, essentially allowing the right in but not the right out. So number two would stay as is. I'm just looking at that's kind of what your question is is if there was consensus on that. And then item one I'm hearing right now it seemed like most people were saying and that's what I'm wondering because I know that's what you were kind of hunting for to see what

I'm not We're going to feel like it's only a right in the med. No, we need the median. If it was a right out, if we're taking away their right out again, it's just based on what we've seen. go back to the because that's so this goes back to the citizen comment about what's there today which I believe that's pink isn't as a so one of the concerns there is cross traffic that tries to shortcut go straight across the quick trip and this drive so you want the right to be designed in the manner that you're trying to prevent that occurring correct Yeah, it's bigger than just the medra comment on that. Is that going to be your is that going to be So typically, and that's just clarifying with the engineer, if if this were approved without the meeting and the the occurrence occurred, it would be on the city's dime to do that. If we've identified the problem prior to that, then we could require the developer to put that media in. I mean like just with our scope of our of our commission that seems like that seems like a city council kind of thing.

I think it makes sense. Sure. Thank you. Last time I promised I would get up again. You're you're again contemplating eliminating the right out requiring a median and the comment behind that is is so someone wouldn't take a left turn to come in to a right in only condition and I understand the comment but if they were coming up the street from the south which is where this person would be in all likelihood they're going to go take the left turn and go in the back way off of the west portion of 188th not try to come up and turn back left very often. I mean, the amount of occurrences that would take that to happen versus the ones that are currently happening for Quick Trip, you're basically causing this developer to spend in excess of $20,000 to fix a problem QuickRip has if you eliminate their ride out. I want to get into the cost responsibility. Well, I understand. I'm just I'm just making a very direct point that in this instance, we can just keep adding money to them and as your other commissioner indicated, they'll eventually say this site isn't worth it. Access doesn't make sense. We're not coming here. You're not getting to Wendy's. I mean, if you keep piling on enough elements to a small development, which a Wendy's is, you're eventually going to hit a point that they'll hit their squeal point and they'll say, "We've had enough. We're not going to go on." I understand where you're going with this and I appreciate what you feel you need to do on it, but I just think it's important to understand asking people to do things that really aren't their problem just keeps adding cost to a project that's not very large to start with. So, thank you.

I'll make a motion. Can I make all It's not solely. I think if I was coming from the south, Wendy's is in my direct site coming up that road from the south. I would think, you know, that's kind of direct whether people are supposed to do it or not. It's already I could also make a comment that that local street is about 40 miles an hour and that side street goes off. Sorry. I make a motion for approval. Staff recommends approval of the request to reszone 7. You're making a motion. You're good. You say staff recommends. That's not if you just simply just simply say yes. I think I Uh yeah, you you can restart other twice in a row red. Yeah, you're good. You're good. Thank you. Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to reszone 7.58 58 acres from C3 heavy commercial district to CP3 plan to heavy commercial district with the associated preliminary development plan and preliminary plat and deviation related to the foundation to foundation planting subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report one through five with the exception of number Three, identifying signage and pavement shall be installed at three of the proposed parking stalls. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Combmes and a second by Commissioner Mater. All those in favor? I I

opposed abstensions. Motion carries 70. And then um then now we have the final development plan and the final plat um and I think we were discussing the tableing what's going to be the best option there. I think it's the options the options before you is you can make a motion just like you would any other motion you do that or you could choose to table it to your next plan commission meeting in light of the preliminary development plan and pending decision by the governing body. I think that's I'm looking at Catherine again just to make sure. Yeah. So, you have the options listed on here and the distinguishing factor is this would be all your guys's call on this one. The what was previously discussed was a recommendation. So, this one is this is ends with you. So, if you want to approve it now, you can or you can choose any of the other options listed on here. number one is pending the governing body. So if you trust the governing body's decision on it and you can approve it with the conditions that they put or if you would rather wait and see what they say, you can table or you can deny or you could do any of it. It's up to you guys. So if if you're to table this, I just wanted you to know the timeline roughly. So the preliminary plan reszoning's going to go to the governing body for June 16th. Okay. So they'll be there. Our next planning commission is June 23rd. Is that correct, Maggie? Anybody? June 23rd. Is that our next planning commission meeting? I don't know what they're doing. I'm

just looking for somebody to tell me. Uh yes. Okay. Thank you. Correct. So June 23rd. So you'd be talking you would have this back in front of you one week after the city council decision. So that would be the time delay ramification for your consideration of the finals. It would be one week essentially. David, I'm sorry. The final plat still has to go back to planning the city council council. They table it. So So what would happen? You're you're correct about that. That's Thank you for catching it. So the final development plan would be June 23rd. You'd make a decision on that. The final plat you would make a decision on as well. Okay. Because you're the final decision making on the final plat. the city council or governing body would accept rightaways and dedication u sorry rightaway and easement dedications that would be at their first meeting in July which would be July first Monday July 7th yeah on that piece and that would go on consent can they split those two for the plat for the plat we're talking almost a long delay that file I want to so I they could potentially if the plat's meeting all the technical requirements for a legal plat there's really no issue on that thing we would have to catch though is if the governing body chose to deny this at preliminary of course the final plat approval would be subject to governing body anyway so right I think I think we could we could do there's a potential here that you could do two motions on

this you could do one on the final development plan where you wanted to table it to June 23rd, you could go ahead and recommend approval for the final plaque because a plat again is really just dividing the land and creating the legal descriptions a lot and block descriptions for the property and the parcels all meet the technical requirements of the subdivision code. So that should not be an issue here. So you could do this in two motions, one on the plat, one on the on the uh development plan where you table one and move on the other. So then we would have to condition out figure out which one. It looks like four obviously flat one and four and Five. One, four, and five. Well, they if they if they chose to do that, sure. everything the timeline would still move. You'd still have this on your agenda on the 23rd with the idea that it's being delayed if the council chose to do that, you know. So, it's that's not going to affect the decision. I think you look at your decision independently on these finals. If you're if you're going the route that I think you're going, which is I'm thinking you're going to recommend or that you're going to make the motion to table and then the the recommendation approval final plat. If you go that route, that timeline will be impacted. Whatever the council decides, if they decide to table

the reasonzoning because they want to take more information into account, they may send it back to you and say, "Hey, we want you to look at this closer." They may do that with direction. um that would push these other items either way. Well, I think you could split it because again, the plat all all that's happening with the plat is you're creating lots and blocks for legal description purposes and you're meeting the technical requirements of our subdivision code, which is what the final plat does. Okay? It's it has nothing to do with the access points and all the other stuff unless we were to put some kind of note on the plat which right now is not on for the final you would actually be making a motion to approve the guys making that decision. Let's do let's do the plan first and then I'll help you with the platform. Uh just to confuse everyone a little more. So pause. Um uh I have been informed that in the past there has been an addition of a condition that the plat gets looked over again by the or the plan. Yeah, the plan gets looked over by the governing body because although it is not a requirement, you're just creating an additional set of eyes on it. You're not stripping an approval. You're like requiring an additional approval just so that it complies with what we've already approved with the reasonzoning and the preliminary plan. We're looking at the wording of the code and we're just trying to cover bases if that makes sense. I think the

tables is that what you're referring to or are you referring to another part of code that talks to what section you looking at? Uh we are looking at table it's I think it's table 52. indicates that indicates the appeals final or final plan I'm sorry I know I keep that's on which is different than just having they want to see that's correct they are the appeals yeah yeah so I the governing body they could have a condition that says and I think we've had that in other cases that say we want to final plan, right? If they were to do that, this part of the preliminary plan approval, I mean, this is still whatever they do for the final plan is still subject to whatever the governing body does. They add that condition they want to see it. Then when they see the final plan, they would still have to govern body, right? So the table here say plan puts it on the 23rd the week after city council city council adds that condition says hey you guys are about to make a decision on this but we want to see it after that or if there's an appeal on that still be an option. Yes. Yeah. Right. Because you're you're required that would be an additional approval which is not very much frowned upon. So if you're having it come back here anyway and then sending it back up one more time to that's where the table makes sense, right? I think so too. Okay. So I think I think Catherine and I are agreeing. I don't know about the rest of the staff.

Um the so if you're making that motion commission pling the final development plan until it next meeting on I'll make a motion. that the planning commission table the final development plan until the city council meeting or I'm sorry until our next meeting on June the 23rd. Second motion by com second by Cooper. All those in favor I opposed. Motion carries 70. And then the uh final plat um In light of the staff recommendation that's in front, um, a motion or a potential motion could be planning commission approves of the final plat or approves the final plat subject to condition one, four, and five. Yeah, I'm double checking that those are the Yeah, those are the ones we mentioned earlier were the applicable ones for the platform. Motion. I can make that one. So, the planning commission I want to make a motion that the planning commission would approve the final PL platt provided the following conditions are met numbers one, four, and five as listed in the staff recommendation. Second. All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Vonishman and a second by

Commissioner Sza. All in favor? I posted extensions. Motion carries 70. All right. Um 10:23. So we still have Do we need to have another motion to extend this CIP item? If you can if you can do it, let's Oh, we can do it. See what I can do in seven minutes. Crank this out. We'll give it a shot. If it's looking like you need discussion to go beyond it, great. Need to get to my presentation. Okay. So, agenda item number three, the capital improvement program conformance review. This is an annual activity for the planning commission. Your job tonight is merely to uh make a recommendation as to whether the capital improvements program is presented is in compliance or in conformance. I will say with the comprehensive plan. So with that in mind, this is kind of I'm going to call it a housekeeping item, but annually you'll see this by state can statute 12748. This is an activity that links the capital improvement program to the comprehensive plan. the plan commission. You're not here to debate the funding. You're not here to debate that. It's more about are these projects in line with our land use plan and our growth plans within the community. So, you're looking for that kind of conformance. What this does is it does tie our planning documents to budgetary tools. So, it's a way to implement the actual uh plan and then it also helps to tie the public investments to our long range goals. Very quickly, um the comprehensive plan, there's chapter 12 to it. It's called the capital improvement element. The CIE, don't get that confused with the CIP. The CIE

looks out 20 years plus. It's it's a laundry list of items and potential projects that are out there based on the land use plan. Capital improvement program is kind of an inter intermediate type of tool. It's a five-year outlook and these are projects that are I'm going to call them eminent. Um and then you have your capital budget which each year then looks at the projects that are listed in the capital improvement and schedules those. There's three primary goals of the comprehensive plan that we look at when we're looking at the the uh CIP. One is the high quality dependable public services and facilities. Second is maintain safe and efficient transportation network. And the third is to support growth. Um, the CIP has several key components, and I'm saying this for our finance director because this is what he focuses on. It's a way to identify needs that may be very immediate, determine the costs for those things, and then prioritize how we spend that money and how we can accomplish and and deal with those needs. So, he'll develop uh financing strategies around those things. So when it comes to the CIP and you were given the project sheets as part of your packet. So you had a lot of individual sheets there. I'm just using some of these as examples. When we look at the comprehensive goal of or the plan goal of highquality, dependable public services and facilities, you can see there's a list in front of you here on the screen about a number of these projects. You might notice the focus really on recreational facilities. There is a real push to upgrade playground equipment. uh gain better accessibility. Um looking at turfing, baseball and softball fields for extended use for tournaments and other things on a regional scale beyond our local use. Um so those are elements again that are reinvestments a lot into facilities and services that we have in place but try to make those improvements to keep them

operational moving forward and en enhance what they're offering as far as programmatic abilities. The second one, safe and efficient transportation network. I will tell you this set of items continues to grow. Transportation traffic as you noted tonight with the two issues we were dealing with. Huge issue in this community as we continue to grow and there are a lot of issues out there having to do with our arterial roadways. We are looking at a number of things with KOT projects. In fact, our three major bridges are all under consideration right now. Now, if you think about Gardener Road, which is the furthest one along, um that project will hopefully be let in June and then they'll start construction shortly thereafter hopefully with that bridge replacement. They are in design on the Moonlight Road bridge replacement. And then US 56 or 175th and I35, that interchange right now is in preliminary um planning and design. They're looking at alternative ways to reconfigure that. So transportation is becoming a huge issue within the community and moving traffic around. So you're seeing a reflection here of the arterial program and other functions that have to do with our network. And then finally supporting growth. These are primarily utility type items. When you look at them, they have to do with the electricity. Again, we have our own electric system. So one of the benefits we get is to have those capital improvements as well as the water and sewer capital improvements. So a number of investments are being made there or recommended for being made in the next five years regarding each of those types of utilities. So with that my presentation is done. Uh we'll open it for a discussion. But again remember if you as a citizen have comments about these kinds of things that you want forwarded to the governing body you certainly can provide that through their process. at this point acting in the role of planning commission. We're really just looking

are these the kinds of projects that are supporting the growth patterns and the goals that are within the comprehensive plan. So that's where we're at. Okay. Before we go to discussion, did it hit 10:30? Does somebody want to make a motion for an extension of time with a specific amount in mind? I'll make a motion to extend our time five minutes or to exactly 10:35. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. I'm here for questions. Only have one. Okay. Uh so went through obviously what was listed. Are there other projects that aren't indicated here? Yeah. So, yes, there can be. And these are the ones that we have the capacity. There may be funding that's already in place. So, like when we have to approach Mark for funding or some other element. So, many times what happens is is we have other projects that may be unfunded. They don't make it into the CIP, but we still kind of work on them to try to acquire funding for them. So, I will say yes, there's there's a number of other ones that are back there. They're just not in the formal document because our funding capacity can't add those to them at this point in time. That's a question. I have a question. This is There's two airports in town. This one, the funding that we're talking about goes to Century. No, New Century. This funding goes to the municipal airport over on 175th Street. Yes. We have nothing to do with the funding of New Century. That's a county function. The airport uh commission handles that. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. I'll make a motion.

Great. All right. So, after review of the proposed 2026 2030 captive improvement program, the planning commission finds the proposed program to be performance with adopted comprehensive plan. All those in favor? I I opposed. Seven. I got one quick discussion item. Not really discussion, moreformational. Um I did get a question from one of the planning commissioners regarding procedure on election of officers, which our bylaws talk about those elections happening in May. Uh, Commissioner Mater will know this from past, some of you won't. Um, we actually have three positions that at the end of June, I'm going to say the timeline on those positions or appointments expires. Um, that's Commissioner Junan, Commissioner Mater, and Commissioner Cooper. What staff did with the elections is, and we've done this in the past, when we have this many positions that are coming up either for renewal, reappoint, or new um because of that potential change, we don't like to have those elections being made where you have a significant number of commissioners who aren't going to live with that decision. So, generally, we postpone that until the new commissioners or the commissioners are reappointed into their positions. Um, in Commissioner Mater's case, she has served two consecutive terms of three years each. So, she's hit her limits for this time around at six years. So, she will not be back on the commission. I'm I'm going to say thank you for your service now real quickly because we want to meet 10:35, but um, Commissioner Mater is in that situation. I mean, and Commissioner Junan has

submitted his uh application in for consideration for reappoint. And then Commissioner Cooper, do you want to talk about your situation at all or Oh, I just I'm I didn't renew my application. I've got personal things to take care of. I just lost my mom and liquidating her state and so I'm I'm just kind of overwhelmed. So, I just felt like I couldn't couldn't be as effective. So, so the city clerk has initiated the process. All three of them were informed of the situation. Previously, the city clerk has received applications. She has uh forwarded those applications on to, I believe, a committee of the council. They'll go through the process. The hope is that we will have appointments in place before the June meeting that would start in July. So, June is still in your realm. it's the end of June when your term expires um as well as yours. So, we're good for the month of June, but then what we like to do is if there are new appointments, they get to sit in and watch the June meeting so they get an understanding of what's going on and then they take their seats in July. So, that's kind of how we You've got one minute remaining. Okay. Hey, it's good. The good thing is they don't have to take any other action except a motion for adjournment unless you have questions. Questions? Nothing for the record. I'll I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Some moved. Second. All right. All those in favor? I. Now we can talk about non- business items till midnight if you want. Oh, and on this day I got to go to the brewery. Thank you for your