Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the June 23rd, 2025 City of Gardener Planning Commission meeting to order. Would everyone 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 beginning on my right. Commissioner Colmes present. Commissioner Sza Clever present. Commissioner Gunman present. Commissioner Mater present. Commissioner Cooper present. Commissioner Berg present. We have a quorum. Moving on 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 enacted 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 applicant. Um, we have the standing approval of the minutes as written for the meeting on May 27th. Um, is there anything any commissioners would like to remove from the consent agenda? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve. I'll make that motion to approve. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Combmes with a second by Commissioner Cooper. All those in favor? I. Opposed? Motion carries six to zero. Okay, moving to the regular agenda. Um we'll start with item number one, the Wendy's Restaurant Final Development Plan. Um generally located at the northwest corner of Gardener Road and

188th Street. Um do we have an applicant for a presentation present? They don't have they don't have a presentation tonight, so we'll just give ours. Okay. Um, so do we have staff then? Good evening, commissioners. Again, this is item one and the property uh in question again northwest corner of the intersection of 100 west 188th street and south gardener road. Uh to the north of this site is vacant uh and also uh just north of that is Bumgars. To the east is new waterburger and south is the quick trip. And again, this is the uh final development plan that was tabled at the last plan commission meeting. The resoning, preliminary development plan, preliminary, and final plats were all approved uh with the planning commission's recommended conditions at the June 16th governing body meeting. Uh this proposal again is for a 2144T restaurant with a drive-thru. final development plan is in general is generally in conformance with the preliminary development plan. The final deh development plan meets all the code standards and uh all utilities are available to this site. It's a recap of the elevations that they are proposing. Staff findings is this property is consistent with the character of the

area and the proposed plan is in line with other recent developments to the I35 and Gardener Road interchange subary plan. The architecture and building design along with the overall final development plan are in substantial compliance with the code and staff uh recommends approval of the final development plan provide the following conditions are met. Uh the final development plan shall reflect the resoning and associated preliminary development plan as approved with conditions by the governing body. The proposed exterior lighting fixture shall comply with section 17.08 08.050 of the land development code relative to the mounting height and required shielding. The proposed monument sign shall be available for use by the entire development. A separate permit is required of course for this proposed monument sign and the sign shall comply with with the land development code. Final plaid shall be recorded prior to any building permits being issued and the approved approval is conditional upon the development satisfying the requirements of the garden municipal code title 14 flood plane and storm water management plan. We're done. All right. Um, we'll begin with commissioner discussion starting my right. Commes, do you have any questions or comments? I I'd like to just verify that the point number one in the recommended approval it identifies approved with conditions and obviously the the plan that we just saw had the conditions with the curve. Yeah, actually uh the one of the biggest

things was the uh right in off of Garden Road has been taken out as you can see from this uh the drawing here. Yeah, I think I said curb. I meant sorry. And then a median has been Oops. And then a median has also been added on the 188 locus curve there. Yeah, that's the only question. Commission, I don't have anything. I've got questions. Um, so on the plan, right? I know we talked last when this was in front of the commission and um, we did discuss removing the rightin only off of Gardener Road. I see that's been removed. And then we discussed that if there was going to be an additional entrance off of 188th Street in a ride in right out format that there would be a concrete um median between that entrance and then the quick trip entrance to the south. I did not see that literally called out on the construction plans like as to how high the concrete was going to be, what that was going to look like. Um, and then I just want to confirm because I it was a little maybe mixed on a determination that the additional entrance off of Locust Street would also be included because I don't understand how you can have a right in right out and you're going to have people all the time making a U-turn around that median. That just seems like a terrible, terrible design. Um, so I think allowing for individuals that that want to um I guess safely make a a better turn out um we need to have the other entrance included. So, can you confirm that both entrances are going to

be included and the type of material for the barrier between um the proposed additional entrance um right in right out of 188th from for Wendy's then south there the QT those entrances are literally right across from each other. So, so again this was discussed at the governing body's meeting. Okay. uh with the city engineer uh uh voicing uh his concerns and which is why that was one of the conditions that was placed on this development. We also have the public works director here uh who can probably describe or discuss maybe the types of median that will go in there. Of course, they'll have to meet their their access management code and their their code. So, Kellen, you want to answer that question? Yeah, I mean any median that's built there will be the city standard specifications. It's designed to keep people from going over it. So, um not concerned about the median and how it's going to be constructed. The concern about U-turns was brought up at council. Um but uh they were okay with the ride out there and approved it as that. So, that's kind of where we're at. And then the the entrance then further then to the west will also be constructed. Okay. So there will that that will also be okay. Good. I feel so much better about that. The one additional thing with the council conversation at the end of the median was that that would be signed with a no U-turn sign which then makes it an enforcement situation. Okay. So and police was there during that conversation. So while the median they can't really extend that median much further because you have locust coming out. So you you need to allow that cross traffic. So the median is designed as far to the kind of southwest as it can go and then there'd be a no U-turn sign that's placed there. Okay. So these

conditions while while they're not called out at all in the staff report for the planning commission um they are documented clearly that you just read. I mean yeah they're documented in the preliminary plan approval that the governing body passed. Okay. So they are documenting all those conditions and the applicant will have to when they come in with their further drawings on the public improvement plans and all the construction documents that go with that they will have to reflect those conditions. Okay. Okay. That was the question concern I had. Thank you. No questions. No questions. Yeah. I I don't have anything anything either. Thank you for recapping the discussion at city council meeting that they had. Um so I guess I guess we I think it sounded like we had all kind of comments and stuff addressed. I would entertain a motion on this item. I'll make that motion. Uh the planning commission recommends approval of final development plan provided the following conditions are met. Item 1 through five as listed in staff report. Second motion by Commissioner Combmes with a second by Commissioner Mater. All those in favor I opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries six to zero. Okay, moving on. Item number two, Lonear Prairie final development plan. This for a 66 lot single family residential development generally located on the south side of 175th Street, one quarter mile west of the Gardener Municipal

Airport. Um, do we have the applicant here for a presentation? Uh, do we have a staff presentation on this item? Yes. Good evening, commissioners. The applicant is requesting approval of the final development plan for the first phase of Lonear Prairie. It is part of a 187 lot development and is the first of three phases on 48 acres. The final plat for the first phase was approved by the planning commission on September 23rd, 2024. The proposed final development plan is for Lone Star Prairie phase 1, which includes 66 single family residential houses and an RP2 zoning district on 15.83 acres. It also includes three trackcts and one detention basin in the northeast corner. The layout for the final development plan matches the approved final plat and includes 50 foot wide neighborhood type lots for single family houses. It also is in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan and includes sub streets to the adjacent property and sub streets for future phases. The building elevations shown are the houses that will be built in Lonear Prairie. Each plan has two variations. The modern prairie elevations are shown on the left and the modern farmhouse styles are shown on the right. Here are four more. These are slab on grade options and are all singlestory. These are the plan options with

basement. The plans range in size from 1,300 square feet for the smallest slab on grade plan to 2300 square feet for the largest plan when including the basement. And here are six more options. All the modern prairie elevations include windows on the garage doors and the modern farmhouse plans include small hardware deal details on the garage doors and shutters or an awning over the windows. There are five deviation requests. The first two are for the driveway width on each individual lot. These would allow for a 20ft wide driveway at the front property line and allow the hardscape for a driveway of the same width in the front yard. The third deviation would be compatible with the proposed plans and it allows for a front garage that is 16 ft wide. This is the minimum width needed for two cars. The fourth deviation request would allow for a sidewalk connection from the front door to the driveway instead of straight out to the sidewalk. The front yard landscaping bed will be extended farther to wrap around the sidewalk. And finally, the fifth deviation is for the front entry feature. The code requires the neighborhood building type to have either a front stoop, covered porch, or enclosed portico. The proposed plans do have an unenclosed front stoop, but it does not meet the code's 8 foot by 8 foot size requirement. The extra garage transparency and details on the plans help offset the smaller front entry feature, and staff recommends approval of all five requested deviations. Staff finds that that the final development plan is generally in compliance with the preliminary development plan and with is in compliance with the final plat and that the final development plan is in compliance with the land development code with the exception of those five

requested deviations. Staff recommends approval of the final development plan with the condition listed in the staff report and as shown on screen. This condition is in regard to the lift station that is needed for this development. Um that lift station might be built on track D and if it is the land will be needed to be dedicated to the city. If it is built farther to the west as part of the development that is proposed to occur there then no land dedication will be needed. Uh this condition has the same purpose as the one that was included on the final plat staffs available for questions. Thank you, Jesse. Um, start with commissioner comment on my right again. No comments. I don't have any questions either. No questions. Cooper, I just have a question about why there is a um why the city requires an 8 foot by 8 foot unenclosed um opening and why I know I realize they're reducing the size because it's such a small um square footage, but right so when you have by the code if lots are smaller than 70 ft that 70 ft wide that requires the R2 zoning district or you get into higher than R1 and then as part of that under code you have different building types. So in this case they have the neighborhood building type and when you have that then there is a requirement for a front entry feature. The purpose is to be more appealing for pedestrians because the houses are closer together and they're also allowed to be closer to the street.

In this case, they have the same 25 ft setback, front setback that most other developments have. So, um, with the other changes that were were made, we thought that a smaller front entry feature was suitable. So, Commissioner Cooper, many of the design guidelines, especially for single family homes, there isn't a silver bullet or a magic uh wand that you wave and say, "Okay, because you hit 8 by8 or you hit certain things, it makes it a better design." Um, what we do is we take a look at the elevations and the fronts of the building. We look at those entry features and in this case with a number of the floor plans what they're doing while they may not be hitting the 8 by8 kind of requirement if you look at how they've broken up some of the roof line work added transparency and then some do have the uh front entry features that are coming out closer to the front of the garage instead of the garage sticking way in front of the building. We took a lot of those things into consideration and looked at that combination and found it to be acceptable at the size that was proposed. So the current all of the current um features that we're we see now they're all 4 foot by 5 foot. All the unenclosed I believe that's the minimum size. That's the minimum. Okay. Some may be larger. I believe um the bottom two are a little wider. Okay. That's all. No questions. I don't have any questions either. Um I'll entertain a motion on this item. Can I ask another question? Oh, yeah, sure. Are there any developments that are using this small of an entryway area

in Gardener currently? Yeah, we've had a number of developments that are coming in at this 50 foot wide width um lately. Cypress Creek and several of the others and those have all had variations of different sizes. They they've come in I don't know if I can say that they've come down as low as 4x5, but I do know that they have been under the 8 by8 uh requirement. We've passed those deviations before. Now again, we look at those deviations in light of other features that we're getting in exchange on that front elevation. So like transparency that goes on the garage doors and different things to draw your eye. So that's where it becomes acceptable. I'll make a motion. Thank you. Uh the planning commission recommends approval of application 25-314-06 final development plan for Lonear Prairie first plat and the five deviations as listed in the staff report provided the following condition is met point number one as listed in the staff report. Second. Uh motion by Commissioner Combmes, second by Commissioner Mater. All those in favor? I I opposed abstensions. Motion carries six to zero. Okay. Next, we have item number three, Tokyo Hibachi. This is a conditional use permit to allow food and beverage mobile. And this is a public hearing item. Um do we have the applicant here for a presentation or to speak?

Okay. Uh staff, just me. Again, this is item three. Uh the conditional use permit is located at 435 East Main Street and located in the east parking lot of the Root Landscaping Company. Uh total size of the site is about 4 acres. Current zoning on the site is M2 general industrial uh which allows for food and beverage mobile as conditional use. Uh the property is surrounded mainly by commercial uses and a mobile home park to the west. Uh there have not been any other requests for mobile food trucks at this location. uh general operating hours are compatible with the other commercial uses within the area and due to the nature of the s semi-permanent mobile food truck at this site. There are a significant number of recommended conditions to ensure that all regulatory standards are met. Uh this is something we've done in the past on on these types of uses. staff findings that the general business operation and hours are compatible with other commercial uses typically allowed in the C2 uh district and surrounding uses along Main Street. The use will not connect to sanitary uh sewer. However, they will be connecting to city electric. Uh there are 14 recommended again there are 14 recommended conditions of approval uh basically to ensure all regulatory standards are met. I already mentioned that And this is the uh this is the same uh Habachi place that's located I believe at the corner of Mulberry and Maine. Uh

unfortunately uh we the owner of that site uh has another use building that may be possibly going in on there. So they had to find a new location here in town. So that's why they're up here before you today. And we have 14 recommendations. Uh I believe 13 of these were part of another CUP that came through. The 14th one is all wastewater shall be disposed of at an approved wastewater disposal facility. Uh the applicant shall be required to provide proof of their disposal contract service provider and they have already provided a name for me on this one. Thank you. Um, try to find my little thing here. Um, so I guess uh we will now open the public hearing on this. If anyone would like to comment on this item, please come forward and state your name and address for the public record. Um, individuals will have three minutes. Um, and individuals representing a group will have seven minutes. Okay. Um, seeing as we don't have anyone coming forward, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I I opposed. Okay. Commissioner discussion. Um, we'll start on my left this time. No questions. Mr. Cooper, I have a question. This is just how do they dispose of water if they if they're not hooked up?

They actually have a service that will take the the waste uh fats, oils, greases, uh waste, gray water, uh to approved actually I believe the name of the company is called Environmental Liquid Solutions is who they're taking it to and it's an approved site. Okay. Yeah, I have I have I have a few questions. So, so kind of along that line, I they they're in business today, so I assume they've been using this service today or are they not disposing of waste water, gray water today, and this is something new? No, they they were disposing of it. Uh it's just that uh the site that they were disposing it at was probably not an approved site through the state or through the maybe the county environmental health agency. Uh we questioned it and then they they provided us with a service provider. They a signed contract. That's what you're saying. Or just looking. I don't have that yet, but that's why that we have it as a condition. It was just provided tonight, so I haven't reviewed it yet, but we were provided something on that. Yeah, because there's a lots of I mean, lots of stipulations here. And I know some of these semi-permanent food trucks have gotten a little complex um with the different with all the deviations and the requests and stipulations. And I was looking where's the site plan? That's part of the reason why I think we have so many stipulations. Is that correct? But I mean, well, all I'm seeing here is a Is that the site plan? That's basically the site plan. And atypical with our a lot of the food trucks or temporary use permits, they'll come in semi-permanent.

That is correct. No seating will be at the site according to them. So, uh, square box where that, uh, mobile trailer is going to go is in that inside that red box. I did he say no seating? I I don't know. That's That is correct. No seating. Just a But see, I guess that's where pick up the food and leave. I guess handy. Well, we also because we have a condition. A lot of these things are pretty fluid. uh you know if they decide to provide seating they need to come back and we need to take a look at where they're putting it just to make sure that uh their customers are safe. Number seven says a physical barrier should be provided that separates any picnic table seating area. So if there's no seating why is that in here? if they decide to put a picnic table in, we want to make sure that they are protected from the cars that come in to purchase food. So, so one of the issues we have with any of the food trucks, whether they're temporary under our temporary use permit or under the conditional use permit, is they will sometimes make decisions about their operations kind of on the fly because they are moving through. So many of these are precautionary conditions to warn the applicant that if you do something like that, you've got to follow these conditions. So even though they may not be proposing seating right now, it's very easy to pick up a few picnic tables at a Home Depot and all of a sudden they're seating tomorrow, if we catch that and it's not complying, we then can call the permit into issuance and bring them back for potential relocation. So many of these precautionary kinds of conditions are there because if our code enforcement officer catches something's changed on

the site from what they proposed their application as we now have something to bring them back to you to reconsider the whole thing quite frankly. And if they have enough of those kinds of things happening, you may want to revoke the whole permit at that point in time. I just I just would have expected to see a little bit more put into this. I mean, you're assuming it's going to be in that little red square, but you don't know. And I just to me, if if there's there's a business that's really wanting to operate within the city, and they that they would want to bring forth a site plan. I mean, it says there's attachment of a site plan. It's a little square. It's just disappointing. I I don't I I personally feel like that I I would I would like to table this for till the next meeting and and maybe and maybe some of these these conditions could be addressed in the site plan and then then we wouldn't have to have a mile long of keeping track of of deviation requests. It's just it's already taken care of and it's proven right there in a site plan. That's that's that's my stance on that. Thank you. Mr. I had a question about the water waste but I think that it was already answered. So I'm good. I have procedural question just for understanding. So they clearly have permit now. I would like to Not that that's I mean it's important but that's not the point of they they do not currently have a conditional use permit. The regulations were changed within the last oh I'm looking at Commissioner Mater it's been what about a year or so some somewhere in that range year plus where those were changed. So as these places are moving

and doing certain things that's how we're getting this applied to them. So this would be the first time that they would be getting a additional use permit if approved. So between obviously that and the property we see these seven 14 items. Yeah. And and in the past again with these conditional use permits, I believe when we were looking at the site, oh gosh, out west where there was the vacant site and things, many of these conditions were conditions that we were recommending there as well because of the condition of the site and what was going on. And so I I believe that staff as we were looking at this, we wanted to remain consistent with the way we were presenting that application to you. So, I I'll ask the procedural question anyways is for my own entertainment. I apologize in advance, but uh if someone had a conditional use permit and they were moving locations, is that a an update to said permit or is that an application starting over? So, technically it would be an application starting over because the conditional use permit runs with the property. Yeah. As well as the operation. Okay. And especially in a case where somebody's leasing property, the property owner is the person who's kind of getting this as well as the business. So when they leave that property, you have a new property owner that's now involved with the the site. So at that point, they need to be brought into the conditional use permit process and the other one drops away and falls off. Okay? because it would also if this had a conditional use permit at Malbury and Maine for where they're operating that would automatically expire with them leaving because it's to the operator as well as the property. Okay. Thank you. No other questions. I do. Yeah. Go ahead. Um, according to the

site plan, there's a little little bitty red square box and we're talking about possibly seating and um, so how far what are the parameters of this conditionally use permit? So right now they are not proposing any seating as Bob was indicating earlier. So there's no seating proposed whatsoever in this kind of situation. if they were to try to add seating to it, they would come back in with a revised site plan to show it if they were doing it right. Okay, let's put it this way. They would come in with a revised site plan. We would look at it. If they were to put the seating, let's say up in the grassy area where the curb to the parking area serves as a physical barrier, as a separation, that would be acceptable. if they propose some type of a fencing, temporary fencing or something around that seating that would again break that. But what we would look at is does it impact also the circulation and the parking that's needed for the operation that's there for the landscape company. So those factors would come in and that's kind of again why we're concerned with the fact of having these conditions but not necessarily they're proposing not having them but what we've seen in the past with the food trucks is their business can adapt on almost a daily basis. They'll do things and the next thing you know they weren't clear about oh you can't do this without getting approvals. This clearly states to the applicant, you're going to mess with seating, you're going to do anything with lighting, you're going to do anything about your hours, you're you've got to come back to us to get approvals. You can't just simply do it overnight. So, as I look at this, all I'm seeing is a tiny little square that's probably big enough for the food truck and that's it. Yep. And and that's essentially, if you go to most of the food truck operations, that's what they have is just the food

truck itself is standing there. Um, a couple of them now have little popup tents that they're putting up every once in a while in front of it so that somebody who orders has an opportunity to sit there and wait for their order and things like that. So, each of these places have been doing little different things as they've been adapting to it. I have it. It's real quickly that the hard part with these is it's not like a brickandmortar building where we can sit there and define The best we can do is say where are you proposing to put the truck? Is it out of the way from the circulation and the parking movements that are necessary to support the the permanent business that's on there? There's just a few things here because again they are so mobile and flexible in what they do. They can change their operations pretty quickly whereas a bricks and mortar kind of restaurant doesn't have that same option. So this is a five-year permit. I believe that is that is correct. And when we've done when we've looked at these before, it seems and I maybe maybe my recollection is wrong, but it seems like the conditional use permit was not that long. No, actually they're they're atypically about five years, but we also require a temporary use permit to be applied annually. That also allows us to go out and check the site out to see if they're still in compliance. So what'll happen even though you have the conditional use permit if they were approved for this I'm trying to think of an operation right now that has been approved for conditional use permit but even with that fiveyear each year they still come in for their temporary use permit. We review that they're still in compliance with the fire requirements um as well as their other requirements for sales tax IDs and things like that. So every year we're checking it administratively during that five-year

period. If they're in violation of those things, we could shut them down at that point or they would be given some time to correct the situation to get us the right information. So in this little bitty square, is there room for the trash recepticles or are they outside of that square? trash uh receptacle is supposed to be right beside the the food truck. So, they're contained in that little square. Yeah. But again, they don't have any seating, so trash shouldn't be that big of an issue. I just I guess that's where you just got to rely on the the the deviations as part the conditions, I should say, the conditions, right? Because at least number 10 catches, right? any on-site changes from the submitted layout depicted in the site plan, which is a little square, right? So, any of those changes outside of that, then it has to come back to city staff andor planning commission. But we don't even know the dimensions of this little square. No, no, but that's I think the point is we have all these conditions basically to say if we go out there and it's not safe, something isn't right, you know, well, basically we have the enforcement mechanisms to the mechanism, but there's also the lack of specific language that makes it very negotiable on their side. They have a lot of leverage because we're not nailing anything down. That little square can move all over that that site. We don't even know where that square is like physically located on that site. All we have is a picture of a little red square. We don't know if it's 10 by 10 or 10 by 20 or 5 by 10. I mean, to me, it's just it's way too vague. So, maybe I can I add to this and maybe help with my clarity.

the uh the site location aerial that obviously we have it's on the screen is not does not match the photo we reply I mean it's close well I just looked at that also actually what you've got in the aerial as the things are organized that is actually for the next case the aerial that you pulled up there okay so thank you moving on sorry about that I just noticed it a a few minutes ago when I was going through some of the stuff here with the discussion. So, so we even have less. Well, it does on the the one that I'm looking at, it has a little scale bar on the bottom. It so you have something, please. Yes. And the the whole situation with it is when they move that over to from their current location over to this location, it's going to be looked at as well. And we're going to make sure that it somewhere in that corner. We just know it's going to go in that corner. We know roughly the size of the unit that they have because it's out there on Malberry in Maine. Um it's kind of like the next case is the same thing. We know what TADS looks like as well. procedural question again on the TUP whenever that's submitted that is that a requirement excuse me during the submission process would it be required to identify and check off each of the 14 items and that be a requirement prior to operation? Yes. Yeah, I go to that restaurant.

Yeah, I pass. I I just Well, yeah, and I think that's what we've learned. Um, and that's why we're we're being more stringent is because in the past, I don't think we have, and that's where we've kind of tripped up. Um, in my opinion, and and to add to Commissioner Mater and Commissioner Cooper on this, what you're providing tonight too is further guidance for future applications before they come to you as well. So, you know, these concerns will convey directly to any future applicants on any food trucks regarding things like the specificity of items and addressing those items to make those part of the applications. I think if there was maybe some residential that was closer to this, you know, I think I would want more detail, but I think I'm I'm comfortable with how the site plan is and then the conditions that we have listed. I think it gives us enough enforce something if there was an issue that we noticed. I agree. It would be nice if we had up front 100%. Does anyone have any additional conversation or discussion about Commissioner Cooper brought up the expiration date of um December 31, 2030 and that's a fiveyear window. Does anybody feel different that maybe it should be a a shorter window or is the comfort level good at the fiveear window? Just just asking a question because I know it was brought up for discussion. I think you said the temporary was still brought up annually. The temporary is correct. So I think I think I think that's sufficient. And if I might add, uh the I believe it's nice baby that uh went in where the old habachi place was on the west side of town. They were granted a 5-year uh conditional use permit with again the temporary use being applied for every year.

Sounds like we're kind of reaching an agreement here. I'll entertain a motion on this. Then I'll make a motion. All right. The planning commission recommends approve of application 25.305.02 Conditional use permit for Tokyo Habachi at 435 East Main Street subject to the following conditions 1 through 14. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Sosa and a commission by Commissioner Berg. All those in favor? I I opposed abstensions. Motion carries 5 to one. Okay. Item number four, uh, Tad Shaved Ice. This is another conditional use permit to allow food and beverage mobile. And this will also have a public hearing located at 314 East Main Street. Do we have the applicant here? I was going to see if they weren't. Hi everybody. I'm Tad with Tad Shaved Ice. I've been here for 20 years. I guess we're changing from a temporary use permit, which I really like those because they're year-toear, to a conditional permit, which is your guys's codes, not mine. So, I'm just following the rules. Um, it was interesting to sit there and listen to you guys talk about the food truck industry. I've got a lot to say about it, but not not right now. So, um, yeah, any questions? That's all I have. Thank you. We have staff report.

And this one's going to be very similar to the last one. Uh, Yeah, for some odd reason. Oh, there we go. Uh, conditional use permit is located at 314 East Main Street and located in the west parking lot of the Devita Dialysis Center. Tool site area is about 32 acres. Current zoning on the site is C1 Central Business District which allows food and beverage mobile. That's conditional use. property is surrounded mainly by commercial uses and single family residential to the north. Uh again, uh TAZ has been operating on this site for a number of years. Uh general operating hours are compatible with other commercial uses within the area. Again, just like Habachi business that was just heard, due to the nature of the semi-permanent mobile food truck at this site, there are significant number of recommended conditions to ensure that all regulatory standards are met. The general business operations and hours are again compatible with commercial uses typically allowed in the C1 district and surrounding uses along Main Street. The use will not be permanently connected to any city utilities. There are 13 recommending conditions of approval. Thank you, Bob. Um, we'll start on my left this time. Again, I have no questions. I have a question uh public hearing portion. Thank you for the Thank you for the reminder. Appreciate that. Um we'll now open the public hearing if anyone would like to come forward and speak on this item. Um now is your time.

All right. Seeing as there is no one, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All right. Um, all those in favor? I I opposed. Okay. Motion carries six to zero. Now, commissioner discussion beginning on my left. Still no questions. All right. I have a question. Um, if we're going to do this all the same and we've got 14 conditions on the other temporary or use permit. Um, why do we only have 13 on this one? And I know which one it's is different. It's the wastewater. So, do they have a wastewater plan already? That's correct. They don't really produce the waste the fats that somebody that is cooking food. This is a shaved ice snow cone type facility. So, we're not going to have the same conditions for everybody. So, for anyone that is actually has a cooking stove and and produces fats, oils, and greases. Yes, you are correct. They won't have that condition on. I don't have any questions. No questions. No questions. Um, I entertain a motion on item. I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of application 25-305-04, a conditional use permit for TAD shaved ice at 314 East Main Street, subject to

the following conditions, items listed number 1 through 13 in the staff report. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Combmes and a second by Commissioner Cooper. All those in favor? I I opposed extensions. Motion carries six to zero. All right. Item number five, 199th Street Commerce Center. This is reszoning from RUR rural residential to CP3 planned heavy commercial preliminary development plan, preliminary plat and conditional use permit. Um, this will have a public hearing and it's generally located at the northeast corner of 199th Street and Waverly Road. Um, do we have the applicant here for a presentation? [Music] All right, perfect. Thank you, chairman and commissioners. Uh, my name is Jud Clawson with Phelps Engineering. Uh, address for the record, 1270 North Winchester, Tha, Kansas. Uh, with me is my business partner, also civil engineer. Can you speak in the microphone a little bit louder, please? All right. Can you hear me? Um, can you hear him in the back? Speak louder. Uh, I'll start over. My name is Jud Clawson with Phelps Engineering, uh, 1270 North Winchester, Ela, Kansas. Um, with me is my business partner, Daniel Finn, uh, also civil engineer for the project. Um

uh with me tonight is also our client, the owners and developers of the property, um Lynn Baker, uh and Fred Winger, uh also here um uh talk about the project. The property uh is located um the u the northeast corner of 199th um street there you've got uh I35 on the north side u here um the red is the boundary of the property uh the boundary of the resoning request the property actually goes further to the east over here and I'll get and show you some additional details uh on that as we uh get through the presentation here. Um access will be off of 199th Street. That's the only way you can access the property as we have, you know, flood plane uh and other item like the highway and stuff around it. So, we have to deal with 199 street. Um, so in kind of this general area here, there's already 11 buildings within a half a mile of our development and that's over 11 million square ft of industrial space. I kind of show that as just context uh for what's kind of around us as well as we have residential here to the east, large lot residential. Many of the homeowners I acknowledge and are here tonight. Um, we did have a neighborhood meeting last week as well to talk about the project with them. Um, but what I wanted to kind of point out to the to you is the project itself. The the blue rectangles in there are, you know, that's is kind of the scale of the buildings just in relation to the other things that are around it, which are much larger.

So this is uh the master plan for the site and I used an aerial backdrop for kind of context as well. Here you can again can see I35 on the north side. Um there's on the west side here there's existing county rightway right along um the property line there. Uh and to the west of that is a triangle piece that's still owned by KOT from when they built the interstate. They have a remnant piece of rideway there. 199th Street to the south. The property actually goes over to this black line on the east side. Uh you can kind of see some of the distances between the site plan and and that eastern property line. I tried to throw a few of those on there for context so you can kind of get a sense of scale. Uh but more particularly, there's a fairly significant flood plane and stream corridor setback through here. You can kind of see some of those lines uh on this exhibit, but as well as all the trees and stuff that are remaining and we're not touching as part of the project. So really the development is staying on the western side up along the highway here, west of the flood plane and west of those trees. Um this uh plan shows the area that I was just describing is the part that we're asking for reszoning to the CP3. Uh it's the 30 or the 57 acres on the west side of the flood plane. You can see the creek line kind of running up through here and that's the boundary of the resoning request is approximately where that creek is. There are 34 acres over here in this white triangular area that will remain as county rur zoning. Maybe has a future, you know, large lot residential use, but um that's not part of what we're asking for today. And that's set aside to be a buffer between what we've proposing and the residential to the east.

This plan kind of shows uh phasing of the development um is coming in off of 199th Street. The first phase uh would include um the highway billboards that are proposed uh on this site. There's four of them located along the highway rightway there. And then we'd start with the next phase in red with the first building on the site and then proceed towards the northeast uh towards the back of the property as future tenants and future buildings come online. All of these buildings and such would be accessed off of a shared private drive that comes in off 199th Street and acts much like a furnage road along that um property serving access to those various businesses that may want to come out here and be located. Put this drawing together to show you kind of the significance of all the existing trees on the site. We added some color to show that we're going to get into a few trees over here where we've got the commercial development obviously, but we've really tried to customize the site to fit in a lot of those bare areas right now where there are no trees because we know that that's a pretty significant natural feature of the site and will provide a lot of great buffering and screening uh from the commercial businesses to the residential to the east. So there's over 37 acres of existing mature trees canopy that'll be preserved to provide that that buffer. So we had a drone take a few shots just to kind of give you a sense of what's out there today. Um this is a a picture looking to the north. Uh this vertical red line here goes up the eastern property line. That's a north south line right there. 199th Street is along the

bottom of the page. You can see the interstate and the com industrial buildings to the north in the in the background. Kind of gives you some context. Uh to the left is the development commercial site there. Uh this red line here is really where that flood plane is and you see all the trees and stuff that are remaining uh as part of the project. And then we continue on kind of we're going to kind of turn to the left here as we continue on with looking at these areas. Here's just a little bit farther to the left. You can see the flood plane area and those trees that are going to remain uh there. Uh and all that to the right is part of that RUR. The area to the left is the proposed commercial area of the project. This uh photograph shows kind of looking to the west then. So we're kind of above the eastern property line. Looking back to the west again, you can see I35. To the west you can see the industrial buildings. Uh the red line really kind of shows the the limits of the resoning request. Um I kind of point this out a little bit to you because there's several trees even inside of that um resoning area that we're saving. And you can see this pocket right in here. You see the pocket to the south here and this bulge of trees right in through here and these trees to the north all are being saved even though they're on the resoning part of the site plan. And I can kind of go back and show you that part of the plan and see there's that clearing air and here's that bulge in the in the tree line that comes out onto the property and stuff to kind of give you a sense of what we're trying to accomplish. So, we've really tried to customize this site plan to really try to take and preserve a lot of the natural resources on the site.

Uh, this is a site. This is an image looking to the west to the south west southwest 199th on the on the far left I35. again that commercial area uh in both areas here and existing trees to remain. Uh last aerial photograph um kind of backed way off and looking now towards the southwest. You can kind of see the proximity of the existing large lot residentials uh to the east of us here in the foreground. Uh in the background off to the right is the development project. Uh so a lot of great quality native vegetation and separation there. And one thing I would point out is there is an existing uh residential property to the south of 199th. You as I mentioned earlier, we have to access 199th to get to our site. So to consider that property, um this is a blowup of the landscape plan that we've provided. That property is sitting over in this area here. Uh there's the driveway that comes into the site. Um they have the area in green is a burm and landscaping uh uh all along the rideway in there to help, you know, block views of any outdoor sales or storage areas. Obviously, we got our driveway in there, but we're really trying to do a great job of doing landscaping and screening all along 199th Street in there because of what we can do in that location. Um, one also the uh there's a solid 6ft tall vinyl screen fence to be also provided around any exter uh exterior outdoor sails or

storage areas. Uh that uh is part of the the plan too. So, kind of you got the burm and the landscaping and the screen and the screen fence. We've we started out with chain link with the slats, but I don't think that was really acceptable. And so, we looked at trying to do something that's really more maintenance-free. Um, and in the staff report, it talks about that uh vinyl fence. Uh, we're more than happy to change it to a different color that matches the building closer. Um and we'd be happy to work through some of those details um if if the project can move forward from a storm water standpoint. Um uh the development meets the city's criteria for storm water runoff for both detention and treatment. Um, kind of to note, you know, there's we talked about 57 acres, but there's only about 35% of it that's even going to be impervious. So, that's only a third and two/ird of it is going to be, you know, u impous or be able to green space or or uh trees or or whatever. So, that's a pretty significant amount of green space on the site. So, there's two new storm water detention areas. Those are the blue areas that you see on the site plan. There's an area to the north here. There's a more significant basin here to the south that acts as really a basin for all three I mean really this whole area right here. It acts as a basin. Water goes in there. Um I'm sure you've seen detention basin, you know, on projects before. Water goes in there, it gets detained, gets released at a slower rate. uh that is uh going to be below what's out there today. Uh so that's part of the storm water requirements to provide that tension which is a slowing of the quantity of storm water and then

the treatment which goes to address the water quality components. So with that, you know, we've provided a storm water study to professional staff for review and and it meets or the storm water meets or exceeds the city requirements and will not result in a detrimental effect downstream. One thing I want to kind of talk about a little bit is about access to the site and some of the traffic. Um, we spent a lot of time trying to get our primary entrance over here on the western side of the site because I know that's going to be a question. Um, we wanted it over there. Um, however, there is a um, a strip of land in here that's still right away by the county and we spent months trying to work through um, first of all, who owned it, who claim it. It ended up being, I believe, the county and uh they were not willing to release that uh right away. So, the best we could do is put a driveway here that would be an offset driveway to Waverly Road, which from a traffic standpoint is probably not a great idea. However, we have that there because we do need a second way in and out of the site. So, we've shown that as an emergency access to be gated. It's only when we've got the need for a second way into the site that emergency vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances can get into the site should for some reason the primary entrance not be able to be used. Uh it's a it's a building code requirement and so that's how we've gone to address it. But our primary entrance would be to the east here. Um so that's the only public entrance in and out of the site. It's about 460 ft back to the east of a Waverly Road intersection here. So, provides adequate, you know, distance separation

and and sight lines in and out. So, it's a safe driveway. Um, one of the things too is, you know, a lot of concern about truck traffic and, you know, to the extent that we can, we're going to, you know, we're trying to limit the amount of new development. And I'm going to get into something here even since the, uh, public meeting that we've taken a look at as well to try to, you know, reduce the amount of trucks or even traffic coming to the site. But also, we're proposing that signage will be installed at the eastern entrance for trucks uh that are exiting so that it restricts the lefts out and directs them back to Homestead Lane. Um the traffic for this development is much less intense than other commercial industrial uses. Um and I'll talk about uses here in just a second, but you know, no restaurants in a in this commercial area. No sit down drive-thru, no large retail centers, retail warehouses, large offices, gas stations, or other large office buildings, which results in a lot of auto traffic. Um, so getting into where I'm going with the land use is this was from I believe the 2016 future land use plan. Um, it identified this site and I've got an arrow kind of pointing to it. It's this red color here. Uh and you go up into the legend, it identifies that as future land use plan uh as community commercial. Um so in the city code, it cites community commercial to be more consistent with uses within CO or commercial office um or COA or which is like a neighborhood type business. Um, we're requesting the CP3 uh with significant use restrictions on

that to better align with those uses found in the CO and the COA districts um because we're not interested in the big large warehouse, you know, type uses. I mean, I there were a lot we went through the um city land use uh chart here and there's a lot of uses in here that really could fit with what we're trying to accomplish. And um so we feel like you know the CP3 with restricting down or throttling down those uses that are more intense or traffic heavy so it's not allowed would make sense with um uh aligning more with the CO and the COA type uses back to the comprehensive plan that's been approved by the city. So kind of expanding on that a little bit. The left is a list of examples of common uses between CP3 and the CO or the COA area that you know would be allowed. Um retail but only up to 6,000 square ft. Uh animal care, health care, kind of general type uses, limited office or general office type use. Uh you can have indoor personal storage uh or personal services. um you know maybe banker or or um investment advisor, you know, those types of office type uses. Um recreation or enter entertainment uh vehicle equipment sales and services but limited and commercial storage indoor and manufacturing which is limited or more art artist. Um there's things in the CP3 that we're not interested in doing and we're willing to take a restriction on those and those are listed in that center column there.

So large retail over 20,000 square foot. Uh we're not interested in the next Home Depot or whatever out here um or large warehouse or grocery stores. Um those types of more traffic intense uses we can restrict. We are asking for some common allowed uses um or for some uses that are in CP3 that we think make sense here. Uh and that's the right column there. Uh and that is the retail use instead of 6,000 square feet as shown right there. We would like up to 20,000 square feet. And the reason is is you know you're not going to have an ice cream shop out here. It's just not going to happen. But you could have, you know, like a a nursery. You have something like uh, you know, with an indoor part of it and then you have an outdoor sales where all the plants and stuff are and it could be a destination, a destination type retail, but something smaller that's more reasonable. Um, we would like to have the ability to have outdoor sales because that is a big part of, you know, when you see out retail, especially along the interstate, you have businesses that have outdoor sales and we would like to have that use. We would also like to have light manufacturing. Um, manufacturing is included at on the left as more of a limited or or artisan, but uh we could do light manufacturing. Maybe you have a cabinet maker that has a front sales office and he does cabinets in the back. Um, you know, for something like that. Um, and then finally, we would like to be have the ability to have the advertising signs on the site, which is

a CP3 allowed use, but it's not allowed in those other in the COA or the CO. Um, and that really that doesn't affect anybody on traffic, and it's just along the interstate. Um, I would touch just a couple things on the staff report and in fairness to staff, you know, we've been back and forth a number of times with, you know, making revisions and changes and stuff and some things we had agreed on and some things we didn't, but after looking at the staff report, I think there are several things that, you know, were listed, four items in particular that were discussed as deviations. First is the screens and screen screening and fencing and it talks about in the code a decorative opaque fence or wall complementing the architectural details and materials of the building. So it can be a fence or wall but must be compatible with a building. So we landed on providing a proposed solid vinyl fencing. We're happy to change the color from stark white to something tan or something that more matches the building color to have it blend in. We don't think this necessarily needs a deviation because offense is allowed as part of screening or rely on your professional staff to make the final judgment and of course yourselves to make a ruling on that. But we we feel like that deviation's probably you know we're agreeing to do that. Um the outdoor storage area um we had started out with doing asphalt millings or gravel um in the last version of the site plan. We agreed that we'll go ahead and pave it. So, we don't believe that a deviation would necessarily be needed at that point. Outdoor storage area setbacks. We also agree to abide by the by the setbacks. We had initially asked for a reduction in a setback, but after studying it further and what would be required, we

can we can make it work without a deviation on setback in sign area. I think we were missing it by six square feet. Um, in talking with uh Fred, we can make the sign work at 750 ft. So, we will comply with the 750 ft requirement. So, deviation's not needed on that. So, hopefully that makes deviation an analysis a lot easier as you come to discuss the project. We threw in a few architectural examples. Uh, this is one up in THA, also along I35, same side of the highway. Uh, this might be maybe a little larger building, a multi-tenant type building, a lot of glass storefront, uh, tiltup concrete, uh, a lot of architectural detailing and such for it. For a multi-tenant type building, you might have, you know, a manufacturer in there. You might have a sales office, um, that, you know, a lot of different possibilities that could fit within that use. A few other additional uses. I talked about maybe a nursery. Um, you could have something like this in one of the locations. It's a destination. Um, it's not a large box retailer. It's a small uh type um facility, you know, for for nursery type or lawn care type use. And you can see you have an outdoor sales and storage area that we'd be a we could use that part of the site for. Also, um, an artisan store and workshop might be in one of the buildings. uh out there. You could also maybe have a pool supply store or an equipment retail sales uh type building where you could have lawn equipment or something like that that might be for sale. These are destination type businesses. That's what you're going to have to have out here. You're not going to get a lot of pass trips um as you would in a normal shopping center in the middle of town where well, let's

just go ahead and get an ice cream cone while we're here. You're not going to have that out here. people are coming out here for a reason. Uh maybe they have an appointment, maybe they like shopping at one of these particular businesses and that makes a lot of sense. Um, one thing I did want to back up here real quick too is when we talk about, you know, land uses and stuff, I truly believe, I mean, one of the things that you have to consider in looking at, you know, land use and probably I wasn't here, you know, in 2016 when this was debated and decided on, but there's a need for transitional type zoning, you know, from something that's very intense like the highway and the industrial to the west of the highway that's 11 million square feet and and and change um to the residential that's to the east and they have to be sensitive to that. You're not going to find, you know, anyone that wants to do residential up next to the highway. You know, it's just that's probably not great practice from a a zoning standpoint, a land use standpoint. You need to do something that transitions from the, you know, low density residential across the flood plane to something a little more intense but still reasonable and then to the highway which is 100,000 plus cars a day going by to the, you know, interotal which is across the highway. And so we feel like what we've proposed here with the throttling down of the different um commercial uses to things that are less intense that more fit closely with the CO and the COA uses make uh a lot of sense. Um Fred would like to address the planning commission on a few of additional slides and then we'll close it up.

Just enter. Yeah, just enter here. Okay. The 199th Commerce Center um the 199th Commerce Center um can potentially be a gateway to Gardener. Uh LJ Development purchased property in 2003. In 2016, the Gardener City Council voted 70 as part of their comprehensive plan for the 57 acres on the west side of the property to be commercial and future use. uh about two years ago now in July of 2023, we started meeting with the planning department, the public works team and the public safety team um actually in this room and we went over our first detailed development plan. A couple months later, we came back, we went through the plan again. Um you know, it's been our intention to keep the 34 acres on the east side of the creek, which is currently RUR, for future residential use. Um, you know, it's our incentive and the neighbors incentive for the significant tree growth there and the brush to be a buffer between the 199 cent commerce center and the 37 acres that we want to develop for residential at some point. The goal of the project is for a a really nice long-term professional complex as the first thing people see as they enter into Gardener on I35. In 2004, um, LJ Development, you know, paid their property tax. They paid $116 to the city of guard. Jud, I might need some help here, bud. Is this my inner right here? Okay. So, we did have a neighborhood meeting a week ago tonight over at the senior center. Um, there were, you know, we went over a very similar presentation to what we had tonight and detailed the

plan. We've added a little bit to it since then. There were several concerns brought up from the neighbors. Um, the area around the house had not been mowed consistently in 2024. The development team uh and owners had plans to demolish the house that's there and began construction last year, but we've had several delays in getting to this meeting tonight. We apologize about that oversight. We have been mowing it on every couple of weeks now, but we we acknowledge that that was an oversight on our part. Uh a lot of discussion about traffic. Um we knew that would be a concern. Staff brought that up as concern. We have done uh a fair amount of work including studies to try to limit the traffic and the type of business that development we're trying to develop uh to limit the the traffic. Uh we have over 1300 mature trees that are buffering the commercial development from the neighbors and from our future residential development. We've added a six foot tall burm and a landscaping on the top of the burm to address some of the impact of the neighbors to the south. We're not saying it's not going to have any impact. We're trying to say we've tried to do what's in our power and we've made investments to try to limit the impact of those around us. Um there had there was fair amount of discussion about the 34 acres that we still will own and what we're going to do with that. It's our intention that that would be single family residential at some point. Uh we all have a you know incentive to keep those trees there. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the economic benefits of this project. So, new property tax revenue. We're asking for no economic development incentives. We're not asking for star bonds, tiff, uh, community improvement district, utility discounts, gardener's not going to have to wait on revenue for 10 years or 15 years. We're going to go on the tax rules the day this thing is built. Starting in 2027, the way we've looked at the math, we can add about $95,000 a year in new revenue city. So, I'm sorry. I I don't I don't want to be rude. Um but like just for for focusing

on the planning commission um I want to kind of put the finances for this project kind of aside. That's a governing body city council kind of issue. That's not that's not a concern that we are evaluating this project on. Okay. Well, we've got it. Um All right. Okay. So, the billboards. So, we're asking for four billboards. Um, I do have a study to talk to about billboards. Can I talk about that? Yeah. Okay. So, we're proposing four billboards. Uh, this case study was done by Mc by um the Outdoor Advertising Associated America. It was with McDonald's. It was in from from May 2nd to September 8th of 2022. They utilize static billboards, the same thing that we're talking about today. The methodology was looking at pre versus post and seeing what the impact of billboards are. an increase u to the visits to McDonald locations were correlated with exposure to outdoor advertising. The groups that saw the outdoor advertising saw 135% increase as opposed to the group the control group that didn't see it had basically no change. This means that exposure to outdoor advertising those that were exposed to it about 120% more likely to visit McDonald's um than the control group. So, um, you know, we do believe, just to summarize, that these billboards because they're clustered, there's businesses at both exits, the Gardener exit and the Gardener Road exit and the 175th Street exit, that those businesses can see a benefit. I don't know if I can can I kind of say how we got these numbers, but we think the bill I don't I don't think it's numbers are super relevant. Okay. credit for sure. Um, so as you approach the this is a view of the Gardener Road exit from I35. So as you come up on that exit, um, you're

literally about two 300 feet before you have to exit. You can see there's zero visibility to the businesses that are located there. Obviously, you got the quick trick truck stop, got the Culver's, you've got uh coffee shop, you got new things going in that you've discussed, um Casey's, etc. That's where the value of these billboards come in. Um and if we talk about like you who could potentially use them. Um, Jud, can I get this in presentation mode because I wanted to show the potential users or is this in I want to show the first slide first. Can we do that? Break it right down there. That one right there. Perfect. Yeah, just back up one. Okay, so approximately four years ago, this body approved billboard regulations at Gardener and then we went to the city council and they approved it. Um, since that time, each one of these businesses listed have reached out to us about billboard advertising. We operate two billboards at the 175th Street exit. They've reached out and said, "Hey, when you know when are you know do you have billboards coming up? When are those available?" We mentioned, "Hey, we we have a proposal that we've been working on." We've been working on this project for two and a over two years now. Um these businesses are we don't have signed contracts, but they have an interest at both the Gardener Road exit and the 175th Street exit uh to advertise. Um uh the only one that may not be applicable now is the Garmin Air Show, but um all the others are renting boards further down the interstate or waiting on on boards to be used. So we will have uh eight billboard faces going

northbound as what we're proposing and we are very confident that the vast majority of those will be taken by businesses listed here. But we don't have anything in writing yet, but we have a high degree of interest. Um these are just four examples um if appropriate. So these these are just four of the businesses. The one I thought was interesting was um the one from QuickTrip. Um they've reached out multiple times about you know the availability for their truck stop that they have at Gardener Road. Um they're quoted in this letter. There's a challenge right now for our business finding available billboard space on I35 both north and south of our location, meaning the one on Gardener Road, the truck stop travel plaza. We would support your approval by adding a few billboard signs on I35. And this was addressed to Dave Nikk, the community director. One of the questions that we've gotten um which is totally fair is is this going to lead to massive proliferation of billboards on I35 in Gardener or southern Johnson County. So if we start way up here, I'll try to use the pointer. If we start way up here north of the 175th Street exit, there's a a prohibition area next to exits of 500 feet from where the exit starts to uh widen for the road. So there's only one spot and that's way up in the Jacob's property right there in the corner that a billboard could go as you come from a tha into gardener. Talked to Mr. Jacobs several times. He's not interested in a billboard there on the this area over here residential. Nowhere in there can a billboard go because it's zoned residential. Only be only billboards can only go where it's zoned CP uh 3 M1 or M2 in Gardener. On the uh bottom side is

not in the city of Gardener. It's all rural um agricultural land. As you get down here on the exit, there's a prohibition zone. As again on the north side of the 170 uh gardener road exit, um no billboards. There is a space right in here. And there there has to be some distance from that res zone residential up here. So there might be a spot there and potentially a spot there that two billboards could go. Um there's a massive amount of trees in there. We've t I've talked to those land owners. They're not interested in a billboard there, but but they could go there someday. As you move on on south of the Gardener Road exit, city of Edertton owns all the land on the, if you will, the the north side or the west side. And this area right here, there's residential in here. There'll be no billboards go in there. And this is our property right here. And this is all Edton down here. So, you know, I can stop and answer any questions about whether this will lead to proliferation of billboards in gardener. I don't believe that it will. Um there just this is not how it works in terms of the availability to do that. So, we're wrapping up here. um wanted to give you some some concrete reasons that you should consider approving our request. Um we're aiming to provide a high-end commercial development with use restrictions that ensure the project is consistent with the gardener's land use plan for community commercial. Uh we've asked for four exceptions to that. I think they're reasonable. They just kind of build on that uh for that destination type retail. Um the project provides a transition from the large industrial and the interstate which is on the west uh side to the

existing streamway and the existing homes to the east. Good zoning has transitional type land uses. We've saved over 37 acres of trees to provide a significant buffer as well to neighboring residences east of the property. Uh the project provides landscaping screening burming that meets exceeds meets or exceeds the city standards. The project provides storm water retention and treatment that meets or exceeds the city standards as well. Project provides the zoning to allow destination type commercial developments which we kind of walked through in the earlier part of this development uh this presentation to help gardener in resulting intermediate and long-term growth. Um and it creates jobs and opportunities for gardener residences. Um so what we've asked for um is to approve our CP3 zoning with a condition that we would restrict uses to the uses allowed within CO and COA with only the following uses from C3 being allowed. And those are the four items we talked about and approve the cup for the following conditions. As as Fred had mentioned about the square footage, it's really u not an issue. We'll make make it meet the 750. Um but we do need a cup for the height 45 ft. I think the standard is 30. We do need the height of 45 for the double sign and then u to approve the ply plat. So, with that, uh, our team is available to answer any questions. Thank you. I think we'll hold off on questions for now until after we get through the staff presentation and the, uh, public hearing. Thank you.

Good evening. In the interest of time, and the applicant did a very nice job of going through the entire presentation, there'll be a couple of slides that I'll go through rather quickly. They described where the property is located and we did talk a little bit about zoning. I wanted to just point out a couple of things. Across the interstate is Edertton and that definitely is zoned for warehouse use. we in the area to the south to the and to the west that is still in the county and then to the east is within the city and we've got a combination of the residential R1 as well as the county RUR or rural residential zoning district that remains from when the property was annexed. The inset that I've got on the lower right also demonstrates the area that they're proposing to reszone as described by the applicants engineer. The applicants engineer discussed the I35 and gardener road sub area plan. That's the graphic on the left, excuse me, on the right side. And the bright red is community commercial land use designation. that is different than the regional commercial designation that you see that's sort of the rust or maroon color up at the interchange. The community commercial designation relates primarily to the CO and COA zoning districts and those uses include office retail and service. The other land use designations on the property include that lowdensity residential yellow and then the green that represents parks, recreation, and open space. I included the land use map, future land use map, excuse me, from our original comprehensive plan because you can see

how the property designations have evolved from something agricultural and rural residential to having some lowdensity residential and community commercial uses. And I would point out that the comprehensive plan is just one of the criteria that is considered when you're reviewing a resoning application. I also be before I get into this slide wanted to reiterate that the community commercial uh is described in the I35 and gardener road sub area plan as follows. And I'll read this directly from that plan. The intent of the community commercial use is for smaller commercial nodes that are intended to meet the needs of residents. Community commercial areas are located with or adjacent to neighborhoods and may consist of standalone structures or small shopping centers with multiple commercial uses. And I make that point because the three buildings that they're proposing, the smallest two are over 50,000, excuse me, and the larger one is uh upwards of 90,000. So those are not necessarily small in terms of commercial uses. The applicants engineer provided a thorough description of the preliminary development plan just pointing out the three excuse me the four red asterisks are where the proposed billboards are sh are located and they would be double stacked double-sided billboards. So you would have each billboard would have four sign faces on it for a total of 16 sign faces, eight in each direction. There are also three outdoor storage areas that could be standalone on proposed on the site. And the square footage of those three is approximately

the same square footage as the three buildings. And so again, in a community commercial type of development, that's a lot of outdoor storage and sales area. There were several points that were made by the applicants engineer in terms of restricting uses and BMS and some other things that were new to staff tonight. those we've been talking about in terms of what uses may be appropriate or not appropriate in this zoning district, but those were things that we have not seen before this evening specifically and therefore I'm not going to speak directly on some of those to this evening. The applicant went through the phasing plan. And we felt it was important to point out that the first phase of this development is the four billboards and then the three phases after that would include one building a piece with some of them also including a separate outdoor storage area. And so some of our concern is we get a private drive that um they've you know would have to comply with our standards for road and emergency access as well as a access drive to the northernmost billboard that would initially be constructed as gravel as the first phase and we may see no other development for a long time. They've talked a lot about that future lot six as residential, but they're also talking about preserving trees. And sometimes obviously you can make that work, but there's got to be a lot of stipulations on it to potentially feel comfortable. The preliminary plat shows six lots and two tracks. Each of the three buildings is proposed on its own lot and two of

the lots will have outdoor storage and sales as their principal use. The sixth lot is the remaining approximately 34 acres that they're not showing as part of their preliminary development plan. The applicant talked about the deviation requests and and I'm going to have a slightly different spin on it because some of the information that was provided to you this evening again was new to us. So they were talking about screening of the outdoor storage areas and it can be dense evergreen ve vegetation, a decorative opaque fence or wall that complements the architecture or a combination of those. And they're proposing a vinyl fence, which you traditionally do not see in my opinion in non-residential areas, and some landscaping. So, we were talking about how that we could support this vinyl fence, which would provide a good solid screen, but make it not as stark based on the color and ensuring that we've got a good amount of landscaping that would soften that reflective vinyl. The second, excuse me, the second one that's outlined in your staff report, we agree, is no longer required. And that where that difference is the original application included their deviation requests and throughout the process of communicating back and forth with staff and making revisions they did go from asphalt millings to asphalt pavement. So that second deviation is not necessary. The third one talks about the principal building and if there's not a that outdoor storage, excuse me, be behind a principal building and if there's not a principal building, then they need to meet what would be required for that

setback. They've said that they will comply with that. That's not what we saw in their plans. And so coming into this evening, we were still saying that we would not support that deviation. They need to meet the setback. And similarly with the fourth deviation, and this was one that they did not request as part of their application, it's one that in reviewing the requirements, staff discovered would need to be a deviation. And that relates to the maximum square footage facing a side um on their billboards. And the concern that staff has is you can say you're going to meet 750 square feet. The standard sizes for billboards gets you up to that 756 square feet if you are double stacking them. There are some smaller poster size. That's what I saw them being referred to as that are standard that they could use and comply with 750 square ft. So, we would want them to include that um in the restrictions, if you will, and not recommend or not support that deviation. The conditional use permit is a requirement based on two things. Because the billboard structures are proposed to be greater than 30 ft, a conditional use permit is required. They can go up to a maximum of 50 feet even with a conditional use permit. And secondly, if the billboards are proposed to have stacked sign faces, then a conditional use permit is required. And all four of the proposed billboard structures meet both of those criteria and therefore, even if they only meet one, are required to receive a conditional use permit. As outlined on the staff on this slide, they're proposing the sign

structures for each of the billboards to be 45 feet tall and have two vertically stacked sign faces per side. So, what you would see as you're driving either northbound or southbound, if you will, on I35 would be four billboards with a total of eight signed faces in each direction. I'll wrap up staff's report and be available for answering any questions. We've got three recommendations. They are each for denial. Um the reasonzoning and preliminary development plan staff is recommending denial based on the request the request excuse me creating a commercial vehicle traffic origin and destination point in terms of those uses within an area that's designated for no commercial vehicles. that allowing that type of land use and the associated commercial vehicle traffic is at an intensity that's not in conformance with the not only the gardener comprehensive plan but the I35 and gardener road sub area plan that superseded that future land use map. And lastly, the community commercial land use designation does which corresponds to the CO and COA zoning districts is not consistent with their requested C3 zoning. The preliminary plat we're recommending denial based on it not being in accordance with the community commercial future land use. From a purely technical standpoint, the plant document is in good condition. It's how it fits with or does not fit in this case with the the proposed zoning and land use. And lastly, we're recommending denial of the conditional use permit. The conditional you use use permit

application is reliant on the property being zoned C3, M1, or M2. And because we're not recommending that reszoning, we're not recommending this conditional use permit. Also, those zoning districts again are not in conformance with the community commercial future land use designation. Staff's not aware of any existing or future physical conditions that would justify a greater height or vertical stacking of the sign faces. and allowing four billboard structures to be taller and vertically stacked would have a negative impact on the public realm and character of the area in terms of scale and intensity of proposed uses. There's a public hearing is required for this application. There I've got three of the I've got the three motions outlined here. When we get to that point, if you've got any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I'm gonna move it back to the plans. Can I can I ask a question before she leaves? You said that the C3, the M1, I forget exactly the three that you had, but they're asking for CP3. Is that the same thing? Yes, CP3 and C3 would allow the same uses unless there was something that restricted them in the CP3. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Berg, just for clarification, so people in the audience understand, the P just means that this is going through a planned district resoning. So, it's it refers to the associated preliminary development plan. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, at this time, we will open the public hearing. Um, for those who would like to come forward and speak on this, uh, please state your name and address uh into the microphone. Uh for

individuals um you'll have three minutes um to speak and if you're representing like an HOA or a group you'll have seven minutes. Um and due to the time I'm going to try to be a little bit more strict with that three minutes. I'll try to warn you when when you're getting close to the end of your time. Thanks for letting us speak. Name's Randy Sparks. I live at 300056 199th Street. I have two pages of stuff written out here, but Mrs. Brewster, I think, explained everything that I'm going to say. One, we've got a no truck road in front of our house right now on 199th. It's designated no truck, $200 fine if you get caught. It didn't slow anybody down. They do the same thing. Uh, another thing is the the noise pollution. We try sitting outside on the patio and you can hear the trucks rattling down the road with their empty trailers bouncing. Um, light pollution is another thing. You can't hardly find the big dipper walking out my backyard now. And there it's just I'm worried about our neighbors have kids. Mine are grown, but they're going to start driving here in a couple years. And I worry about them trying to pull out on the road with all the not just truck traffic, the car traffic, everything about it. And it's just they're not good neighbors. I don't know who would want to buy a house in a warehouse neighborhood if we ever chose to sell our place. So, thank you for your time. Good evening. Thanks for letting us come speak. My name is Gary Lee. It's my wife Lisa. We live at 30875 West 999 Street. You've heard them talk about the

property to the east. We're the property directly south. Okay. So, our the driveway for their proposal is right across the street from my house. Okay. So, we ended up we've been out there a little over 11 years. And uh so far he he talked about mowing you know the house that's over there. He says he's been mowing it well. They've mowed it three times in two years and that is only because we've called the city to complain because we have residents across the street and we would like to keep it nice out there. Uh we have, you know, grandkids and everything out there that come out and play and so it's just uh not a good fit for our property. I mean, we that's this is exactly what we're going to have to look across the street at this. This is exactly front door for us. You know, this is something we don't want to see. And honestly, we pay $1,250 a month in property tax, lived there for a little over 10 years, and this goes in, our house will be unsellable because we're going to be looking right at the back of it. And we bought, as our neighbors did, acorage for a reason. We love the country. We don't want in the city. That's why we bought in the country. and then somebody comes in and proposes and they have been terrible, terrible caretakers of their property as my husband said. I have pictures. So, another concern I would have also is as you look at the property that they're wanting to build, you saw where the flood plane is. Okay, that flood plane continues right across the street also. Okay, so everything that they put in asphalt is going to increase the water runoff. Well, that water runoff is coming to my house from their property. That's where it's going to come. and so we just soon not have it there and not have that damage to our property. So, thank you for your time. Thank you.

Uh Todd and Melissa Leup, we believe at 30260 West 199th Street. You would see our barn in the picture. So, we're right next to his property. Um, the only thing I've got to say is when we moved out here about eight years ago, we weren't part of Gardener. Gardner came to us and said, "If you'll get annexed in voluntarily, we're going to be able to protect what happens with the property around you." And so, we thought that was a good idea. We signed the papers. All we're asking is for you to follow through with that protection. you you helped us with the truck traffic for are doing a great a much better job and with that and we appreciate that we moved from the city to the county to live on acreage not to be surrounded by businesses the property that he showed as a an example I know that property I was sitting at the light just this past week and I took a picture as I seen my truck pulled into that exact property and I have it on my phone on Tuesday. I don't want that. I moved out there from Overland Park to get away from it. So, please do what Miss Brewster showed and talked about. Deny it for us. We love being in gardener now. It has been wonderful, but we just want to stay on acreage. Um, it's it's nice. So, thank you guys for your time. Thank you. Hi, I'm Sheri Kale. I live at 30158 West

1099 Street. My husband and I and our family's been part of Gardener for I hate to say this out loud, but 40 plus years. We've been in this home on 199th Street. Our piece of the country, our piece of the land that they're no longer building anymore. We've been there for close to 30 years now. Um I think you lost me completely today when you said that this is zoned at this point like a rural residential whatever. I can't I'm sorry. I can't remember the exact verbiage. And they're proposing heavyduty commercial. That was the words that I heard. not the the lawn of garden and not this and that. No, that's not why we moved out here. We've been a part of it's the price of progress in gardener. It's damaged our family years ago. We've come back from that to a point, but at some point it has to stop at the price of, you know, this is the price of progress. No, this is the price of progress. These people have our homes, our families. This is our community and these gentlemen and this proposition that they have to come in here does nothing for any of us. So, thank you very much. Hello, my name is Frank Banister. I live at 1981 South Gardener Road, Gardener, Kansas. and I'm probably oh 3/4 of a mile uh from the subject uh location. I'm basically at the intersection of a gardener road and 199th. Um I've been fighting a separate battle for about 5 years trying to keep uh interotal traffic off of Gardener Road

and uh finally we have signs up but that um has not addressed the problem. So I would be opposed to the res resoning to uh heavy commercial because of traffic for one thing. U so far Johnson County nor the city of Gardner has been able to police trucks coming off of I35 coming down from Quick Trip and going all the way down to 207th on Gardener Road. It's illegal, but um daily they come down. Some of them turn west and go on 199th. And so a reszone um of course would just increase commercial traffic. It's a problem. Uh Nike school is right there. Traffic right now backs up all the way to Quick Trip at 4:00 in the afternoon when school lets out. I have a concern about that crazy bridge. I don't know why we can't get uh a new bridge. I don't know if it's K DOT or who, but um that bridge is old and it gets stacked up with semi-truckss and it's a to me it's a safety concern. The other reason that um I'm opposed to uh the reszone and I don't want to repeat because I think you all you know have heard the the proposal from your own your own team as to denial but I could find uh nothing in the golden criterion that the proposal meets. So, uh, and I know that you're familiar with the golden criterion, but I find nothing in the the criterion that that would find this acceptable. So, for commercial traffic reasons, uh, inappropriate uh, uh, reszone, it's like putting it's it's the wrong it may be a right thing, but it's in the wrong place. And I I'm a veteran. Uh I I was in the service

during the Vietnam War and one of the freedoms that that I claim and anybody in this room has that freedom uh to do what they uh want to do with their property as so long as it's it's uh in keeping with codes and and is in good good faith with neighbors. And so I respect the right of the the property owner to be able to do something with his property. he should be able to do something with it, but there needs to be a a meeting of the minds between the homeowners and the owner of the property to try and do something that is fitting for the community. And you know, like the the current uh proposed zone is that uh community commercial, something that would benefit the neighbors and that the neighbors would appreciate. And I suggested at the town hall meeting that the owner go knock on the doors of the neighbors and talk to them and see what kind of things that that they might be able to work out versus just coming in and wanting to to force a a heavy commercial zone which is is not going to fly and and you know we've already we've already heard that. So you know in in reference to the property owner I respect his right and he needs to be able to do something with it. But I would like to see he and the neighbors come to meeting of the minds. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Mary friend. I live at 19880 South Gardener Road. We have been on that acreage, my husband, for 80 years. We knew when Gardener was a very small community of about 400 people. I know it's growing, but I hope that you as a planning group realize what happens to people who have estate lots five and 10 acres each with some million-doll

home sitting there. They don't want commercial ground adjoining them. We also have the issue with the trucks. I do appreciate the hard work that Gardner's trying to do. no trucks on the roads and that we did my I think my husband said he saw 15 trucks and in a short time just this state but the police officer did get there and stopped one of them. We do not need truck traffic. We do not need commercial. We are rural residential single family. I thank you. I appreciate whatever you do. My name's Lynn Baker and I'm one of the owners of the property. I have a partner uh with me. We're both farmers uh in the area. Uh my partner lives on Gardener Road and I live on a farm on old KC Road. Uh we bought this property 20 years ago with the intention of putting a motor home park in there and uh of course it was supported by Ole Ford RV and so on. and we farmed it or tried to farm it for a period of time, but because the elevation difference, we got run off into the the stream bed over there and the flood plane elevation uh kept us from really being successful with that farming. So in uh 2016 uh the city council approved uh designated the part of the property that we want to reszone as commercial.

The uh sub area plan was not developed at that particular time. So there wasn't any really restrictions on uh commercial at that at that point. Uh uh when we decided we wanted to continue to develop it, uh we talked to the city of Gardner. They uh allowed us to uh be hooking in to the sewer lift station over there at Tuscan farm so that we could sewer the property. Um, I guess, you know, the real the real question is this property really isn't good for farming and uh, you know, what are you going to do with the property along I35? People's not going to build houses on there. I mean, that's that's the primary reason that city council voted uh, unanimously, including the mayor, to show that as commercial property. Uh, you know, it's we're farmers living in the area as well. We're not somebody that's trying to make a fast profit and and skate on this thing. Uh, and we certainly don't intend to hurt the neighbors. Um, truck traffic I don't think should be an issue on this thing because we might get an occasional uh truck dropped by, but most of the traffic would be either box trucks or or pickup trucks or residential I mean uh uh family cars uh in what 2009 if I remember right. uh the state developed that corridor through there as a heavy hall corridor with expected truck traffic including that bridge and everything else. So the plan was to have truck traffic on that. Of course obviously a lot of the

neighbors didn't want the truck traffic. uh this development, if it was allowed to go in, it's not going to create a lot of truck traffic and it's certainly going to not going to entice the intermoal trucks to start using the corridor. Uh I know they use it now, but that's because it's not enforced. So anyway, I want you to know who we are. We're not just somebody wanting to hit a fast profit, but and again, we don't want to we don't want to hurt the neighbors. And uh we don't think this would I think could complement everything. If any of you have been to the last city council meeting, you'll see that the city council is running short of development funds and uh they need more commercial development. Uh and this would help support that. Thank you. I'm Lisa Lee at 30875 West 199 Street. That's what we've been looking at for a couple years. And that's not the worst of it. There's a home that no one's in. Um, is there anybody else that would like to come forward and speak at this time? Okay. My mom couldn't be here, but my name is Holly Pervvis, and my mom and stepdad are Larry and Janet Noland. Um, they bought the property at 19985 Waverly Road, which is right off 199 Street back in 1998. And I don't have a lot to say other than the fact that they bought that property

for solace, for peace. Um, my mom went through a lot grow when she was growing up and then when us kids were growing up, they moved out there, like I said, for peace and they've already been forced to sell the front part of their land. The very first time it snowed, my mom walked the mailbox, fell and she ended up with ditches all over because of the way they fixed it. Fixed it. They're just tearing things up. They're just hurting people. They're taking away everything these people have worked for. And I can say I've watched my mom for 20ome years, my whole life growing up. I'm 40ome years old now, but I watched her for 20ome years trying to buy a house for us kids. She bought it. She's been there for 27 years. You're trying to take it, take stuff away, ruin things. The traffic there at night. There's needles in her yard now. We used to have horses and deer. Now we have needles because the traffic is stupid. All the trucks going by at night. They're parking in front of their banging on our doors 2 or three in the morning cuz they're lost. We It's It's enough. It's too much. My my my stepdad his his dog, which is like his kid, got ran over by a truck and he was cuz he hit our grass. the the dog was it was proven on the camera wasn't even in the wasn't even in the road. It's it's it's it's too much. This is a safety concern. This isn't this is these people have worked so hard. Every one of these people have worked hard to get everything they've gotten. They want the peace. They want if they want land like like like the veteran said, I earned this. I worked for this. We all deserve it. But he you know what I'm saying? He worked for it. We don't deserve to lose stuff. They these people don't deserve to lose stuff. Lose their safety. people driving around at night because of all the night shift workers and stuff parking on property tearing stuff up. It's silly. Don't let it don't don't take more from these people. That's all I'm saying.

Anyone else? All right. Seeing as no one is coming up, I will entertain a motion to close public hearing. So moved. Second. All those in favor of closing public hearing. I I opposed. Motion carries six to zero. Right. Commissioner discussion starts on my left. Uh I have question for staff. I see the CP3 request, planned community commercial, but then on the staff analysis it says C3 heavy commercial. I don't know if I'm missing the distinction or if there is a distinction or if it's or what the difference is. The request is for CP3 and the zoning district CP3 is just for a plan district that includes the plan development. So when you see uses referenced in C3, that's very similar to the CP3 unless it's amended. So is the community commercial the same as the heavy commercial? No. Per the Gardener and Interstate 35 sub area plan, Gardener Road, excuse me, community commercial, that land use designation relates to the CO and COA zoning districts, which are less intense than C3 or CP3. So where it says the project description the CP3 planned community commercial. That's that is wrong. It shouldn't say planned community commercial. It should

say planned community. Yes. They're requesting CP3, which is not consistent with the land use designation in the I35 and Gardener Road sub area plan. So that's where there's a disconnect in terms of one of the 10 criteria that one of the members of the public referenced in terms of when you're looking at a reasonzoning application. I'm going to interject for this because I think I I think I know what you're getting at and I want to just double check. What Maggie's referring to when she's talking about the community commercial designation is what is in the future land use plan of the sub area plan for the comp plan. The C3 category in the land development code is labeled as community C3 community commercial but those are two different defined terms. Okay. So the the community commercial, that's why she's saying it's correct to say CP3 community commercial because that is the zoning district title. But if you read the intent statement of that zoning district and the uses are allowed, that does not align with what was labeled in 2016 as community commercial on the land use plan. So there are two separate terms here, not to be confused. You have the land you the land development code term and you have the land future land use term out of the comp plan but the definitions are different. So when it's used in the comp plan it is used and associated with the CO district and the COA district which is an office district and a neighborhood business district by the LDC definitions. Commissioner Berg also there is an error in the reference when I was referencing in the staff report CP3 it's

heavy commercial not community commercial. Okay. So that is my error. Okay. So where it says the project description CP3 plan community commercial that should be CP3 heavy commercial. Planned heavy commercial. Yes. Okay. Apology. Okay. That's I just wanted to make sure because I was looking at those two thinking they don't align. Okay. I think that's one question I have for now. I'm I'm just going to pass for now. Not necessarily a question. I guess just um a call out and clarification. I think staff for doing a great job on the report. Um, I do believe that there's going to be commercial development there at some point and it does make sense that it's going to be that light intensity that that that fits. This does not. So, that's just my only call out for a for this. Um I think the really good job providing you know a lot of pictures and with colors that was I was able to you know identify the the site. But um how do I think this is the first time that we have a application that is the staff is recommending denial. So how we how does we commission how do we so so to lighten the mood that's what you get paid the big bucks for. So just just to understand when staff is reviewing these applications and looking at them, we go through several rounds of review with the applicant to try to work towards a situation where we feel that

we're in keeping with the comprehensive plan, the zoning codes, things like that. So we're trying to get into as close compliance with those things as possible. In this particular case, um we've reached a point where we've looked at it. We've had several rounds of review and the staff recommendation coming out of those reviews is for denial of all the applications that are before you. There's two driving factors for that as far as staff is concerned. One is what the comprehensive plan the future land use map says in the sub area plan which associates this with CO and COA zoning districts. This felt that this is sorry this is felt that this is too intense for that uh designation. The second one is because of the policy that is in place regarding no commercial traffic in the area. If this were to be established in this area, it would establish an origin or a destination point for commercial traffic at which time it becomes an enforcement problem with commercial traffic in the area because you can't easily sort out who belongs there because of the origin destination being there and who does not belong there because they're just cutting through the area. So that's where staff has to look at the policies that were put in place by the city since the plan was put in place. So that has also informed us on that. The third item that informed us was the decision about oh a little over a year ago roughly a year ago um as we looked at a less intense kind of commercial use with the cup in this area that was for the dog kennel and one of the concerns there was traffic as well. And so as we looked at those recent kinds of decisions and policies that have been put in place since the land use plan, that is where the staff's recommendation is coming from.

Uh to jump in really quick just to make this easier for everyone too. So staff did the research portion of this and your jobs today is to utilize those elements in the code that you guys have in your binders too that are laid out as points to consider. So that's where your element of it differs from staff in that sense. So if you don't know what to start considering, I think those are good guidelines in the code that you have. And what Katherine's referring to is the review criteria that are associated with the different elements. So those are those pages that you have in your book. Thank you. I have One general question. So when or in the instances of of any zoning or reszoning for that matter when there are land uses that cross different codes are those managed somewhere or administered somewhere? And what I mean is we see a a development plan clearly, right? That identifies all of the details that one might need except for what we're talking about. meaning sure you can see it says CP3, but when we talk about it's a CP3 reszoning district with CO and COA uses, are those specific uses outlined somewhere within an agreement of the developer and the city? Let me take to ensure they're adhered to. That's my general question. Let me take a stab at that. Um, obviously we've got our use table in the zoning code that outlines

what uses are allowed in each zoning district. And tonight the applicant presented, hey, we're willing to look at the CO and COA uses. Sure. That was not a conversation that the staff and the applicant had. We were looking at specific uses, but not that in that same way. So if the applicant were to propose a as part of their development plan that the uses are restricted to this to to the this my finite list that would be part of the ordinance that's reszoning the property that includes the preliminary development plan. Got very clear. Thank you very much for that. Yeah, just to kind of piggy back off of that, I just um because I think you mentioned your report that you were surprised by some of the things that they mentioned in in the presentation by the applicant, you know, that or were new to you, not surprising. Um I guess from staff's perspective would more time to be able to analyze those specific use cases or something of that nature. Um would that be of of benefit or or not? I guess because I would imagine that the applicant would still like to have the CP3 at least to have the billboards as a principal, you know, as a as one of the uses in that zoning. Um, but it sounds like they want to try to limit the uses to something that fits in that CEO category, but I don't know if staff had the time to analyze something like that. At this point, I don't know that it would help us to delay the project any further in that discussion because the staff's argument is really not about those specific uses. It's about any commercial traffic in this area. So whether it's COA, CO3,

name the district, commercial district, the issue really becomes one of a policy question related to the origination and destination of commercial traffic in this area with the current um regulations that we have in regard to commercial traffic on these roads. Yeah, thank you for for clarifying that. Um, yeah, that was kind of the main main point, main question that I had. So, is there Yeah, I do have another question. So, Commissioner Mayor made a great point. This sliver of land won't ever be built on as a house. Um, unless the city wants to take it over, make it a park or a dog park or something like that. Uh, it's probably going to be a commercial piece of land, commercial development of some sort. Um, kind of like the warehouses we did north of 175th a couple months ago, that piece of land really didn't lend itself to anything other than warehouse land. So, a CO or COA, if they reverted back to using that zoning, doesn't solve the current problem of commercial traffic going down 199th Street. Correct. And if you even if you have a CO or a COA, you're still going to have some kind of commercial traffic going to that because otherwise the business isn't going to be able to operate without something to sell or employees showing up every day. So you're going to still have that. So I I I don't see where there's not going to be some worth something's going to have to give. So, so you have several things going on here and I'm not going to be a land speculator or a development speculator because every time we get into that realm where we think it could be something always defies what you're

doing. So, what I will suggest to you here as part of your consideration is any development of the land could generate traffic. Yes, absolutely agree with that. Beyond even a single family home generates traffic, right? So, anything that happens will generate traffic in this area. Could there be other land uses in the future that could develop here that are not commercial traffic oriented? There's possibilities for that. If you go up and down just about any interstate corridor here in the metro area, you will find apartments. You will find residential at single family level. I tend to agree with I don't know who would buy those homes, but they do. Um, and you have much of those along 435, US69, I35, and a lot of them have required even more public uh money to go and put soundwalls up and different things like that. So, when you think about those kinds of things, does this lend to other types of development? That's for the private market to decide, right, in that sense. So I I don't want to say even that it probably will be commercial because I've seen areas in other parts of many communities where you had commercial areas and a different kind of proposal came to the table and we were evaluating it completely different. So um that's where I would would hold my speculation on that. I would also say that doesn't mean that there isn't at some point in time a commercial use that could come in here and satisfy the requirements to the point that it's not as much of an impact from a commercial traffic standpoint. But the policy question still exists and that policy question is simply we right now do not allow commercial traffic to use this area to cut through. You create an origin destination place at this location. Now it's an enforcement problem that compounds the issue.

Commissioner one final procedural question. Does this require three motions? Yes, we have the resoning and preliminary development plan, the plant, and the conditional use. And and in those cases, you are recommending to the governing body. So, it's a recommendation side this correct me with the exception of the plat, right? With the exception of the preliminary plat. That's something that you all make the final decision on the preliminary plat or the preliminary development plat. The platensus, you know, relatively motion. Oh, I'll make a motion. Uh the planning commission recommends denial of reszoning from RUR to CP3 planned commercial, excuse me, plan community commercial as well as the associated preliminary development plan based on the following. The requested reszoning and proposed preliminary development plan would create a commercial vehicle traffic origin and destination point within an area designated no commercial vehicles and would allow land uses associated with such commercial vehicle traffic at an intensity that is not conformance with the gardener comprehensive plan as amended by the I35 and gardener road sub area plan which calls for community commercial associated with CO and COA

zoning districts per the LDC uh future land use. The intent statement for the CO and COA districts are identified in the LDC as follows. I don't I'm trying to figure out where you're reading from. So hang on a second. It's the staff report. Is he reading the staff report? Okay, so he's reading the staff report. But I don't think the intent statement is necessarily part. Okay. I wanted to just make sure sure we're the last part. Second. I want to look at our city attorney representative. Are you comfortable? The first chunk was comfortable. Okay. So, we'll keep it at the first chunk. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Combmes with a second by Commissioner Mater. Just just for clarity and I is for denial and no is for not agree with motion just so everybody's clear on that. Yep. So all those in favor I I opposed. Opposed abstensions. Motion carries 5 to one for denial on the uh reszoning the preliminary development plan. Um next we'll go to the preliminary plat considering that Make that motion. Uh, planning commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat based on the resoning and preliminary development plan submittal not being in accordance with the community commercial future land use designation. Second. A motion by Commissioner Combs with a second by Commissioner Mater. All those in favor? I opposed. opposed abstensions. Motion carries 5 to one. And then the

conditional use per motion. The planning commission recommends denial of the request to allow four billboards with double stack faces and maximum 45 ft in height based on the four bullet points outlined in the staff report. Second. Uh motion by Commissioner Combmes, second by Commissioner Mater. All those in favor? I opposed. Opposed. Extensions. Motion carries. 5 to one. Okay. Um that ends our regular agenda for tonight. Um staff, looks like we have a discussion item that we need to talk about. Yeah, we have we have uh one discussion item I want to make sure I brought up to you was included in your packet. Um that item that is in your packet has to do with the RHID U rural housing improvement district application that was made for the Grand Street development. This has to do more with the financial side of that element, but they the governing body has to set a public hearing for that and also by state statute. The planning commission needs to be notified specifically that that public hearing has been set. So the materials that you have in your packet tonight have nothing to do with any action you have to take. It's simply notifying you that the public hearing has been set, I believe, for July 21st at 7 p.m. in front of the governing body. So just be aware of that. It it's a it's a necessary thing for the statutory requirements of that program. So that's all I have on that. Um, also as you know, I just want to let people know uh that Commissioner Junan has been reappointed for his second term uh with the planning commission. The governing

body is still working on uh applications that they received for plane commissioner seats and that has to do with Commissioner Cooper and Commissioner Mater's expiring terms coming up. They have not come to a conclusion yet on appointments for those positions. I will keep Commissioner Cooper and Mater in the loop on this because they are allowed to sit in their seat until those appointments are made. Um, so I anticipate they're going to be doing interviews and I think they're trying to get these done before the planning commission in July. But again, I'll I'll keep you both informed as to what the status of that is as it goes through the process. That's run by the city clerk's office. So, she keeps me informed as to when they do the interviews and at least if they're going to have something up on the agenda for appointments. So, with that, I it's one of those strange things for Commissioner Mater in particular because this was her second consecutive term. She's at six years. I want to say thank you for her work um in doing this, but she may be here next month, too. So, I I you know, I just want to let you know, yes, we appreciate the work you've done for the city. Um, this may or may not be her last meeting, but we'll see how the appointments go and the interview process goes. So, thank you again for that service. Commissioner Cooper, I also thank you for your service. I know you're leaving for other reasons that are personal and uh we appreciate the work you've done. I I do have a question, Dave. um the RHID reinvestment housing incentive district. As I read through this, it sounds like this is just a change to the plat. They're doing they're doing an amendment to their plan, if you will. They are uh reducing or they're taking out a portion of the development and replacing it. I believe they're putting in more villas. Is that right? Right,

Bob? Yeah. So they're putting in more villas. So they're making an adjustment to the housing unit count and the type of development that's there. That has to come before the planning commission as well. But again, this this piece that you got notified about today is just for the financial package and plan that was put together to show that it's still feasible. So you aren't involved with those. Plan commission is involved with that part, but you will be involved with uh reviewing the amended plan uh plan and plat I believe, right? Yeah, they'll both be okay. Thank you. Um if there are no other discussion items, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make that motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. We got C. So a motion made by Commissioner C Mater with a second by Commissioner Cooper. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Six.