City Council - Regular Meeting

I have pledged 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. Heavenly Father, as we approach the 250th birthday of our great nation, we want to pause and give you thanks and just reflect on the first prayer of the first Congress that met in which they invoked your divine presence and help in forming this great nation. I just pray that your continued blessing would fall on this country as we seek your leading and your guidance. For none of America would be possible without your intervention and your direction. In the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen.

Okay. Real me? We would just like to ask for the approval agenda that you had of the amendment for G2. So we have another straight closure that we'd like to add.

Alright. We can read that. So I make a motion to amend the agenda.

I make a motion to amend the agenda including G2. Item G2. Second.

We've been seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. On the side of D, is there anyone here for citizen comments? The wind's blowing. So we'll pass on sits and comments since no one's here to make any. Item E, any conflicts of interest that might affect tonight's discussions and agenda? Five nos on that. Moving on. We have no appointments. I seek a motion to approve the amended consent agenda with two street closure requests.

I make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

All righty, we know he's made the motion. I'll second that. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries 5-0. This train is rolling down the tracks. there's no unfinished business under h that brings us to item i mr micah this is i1 this is a discussion around the draft resolution related to family structures

You're all fairly familiar with the background. I'm just going to go through a brief history lesson and then we're going to just dive into it. I feel free to stop at any time, but conversation about destructions has come up many times, not just over the last couple of years, but over the last decade and more and more. On May 11th, the Planning Commission and the City Council had a joint meeting where they discussed the possibility of having design standards for duplexes for larger developments to ask for rezoning specifically for duplexes. uh which by area bills association spoke on june 15th during the regular city council meeting and after presenting their ideas and concerns staff agreed to meet with them or their representative as soon as possible to see how design standards draft resolutions to be amended to take them into account their concerns on june 23rd city staff met with travis whistler homes as representative guava discussing changes and ideas introduced by guava after meeting with travis whistler city staff drafted a memo outlining their concerns about possible changes which is attached to exhibit one Going at I.1a, design standards would only apply to developments that are asking for rezoning if resolution was adopted. It gives the government liability to waive revisions of resolution if it is deemed unreasonable in its application for specific projects. And I'm just going to keep moving on. City Council is reviewing and discussing changes to Family Resolution. Please see the attached memo for reference. I'm going to dive into it. Basically, that memo which you guys got, which the city and manager put together, basically outlined some of the concerns about WAPAs and WAPAs representatives had presented to us when we met with both Ryan Schreck, the deputy manager, and Craig and myself. Eight key items came up. They're up there on the board. You guys got the memo so you're aware of it. We're going to go through all eight items. There are recommendations that the city manager had posted to you guys in that email and in that memo. So I've included them for each item. So we will begin. But number one. The concern limits garage doors no more than just in front of the house. That concern came up and saying that that was kind of a structural impossibility given sort of lot layouts.

I just like to back up a second. There was a question that I wish I would have asked at the last meeting. think we all were under the impression that there were members of the Builders Association that maybe were in favor of some of our design standards and I think that to some degree the representation that was here the other night didn't maybe necessarily represent all the views of that group of 900 developers and so I just think that It's just important to note I think we've had feedback, I know Craig I think has had feedback from other developers that are pretty much in favor of what we're doing. So I think we just need to kind of keep that in mind that maybe that just by the representation that was here the other night did fully represent the total viewpoints of the whole association. Much like When we have citizens come in with an issue, we get a very narrow view of things. But I wish I would have pushed on that. You know, you reflect sometimes afterwards. But I do think that's important that we've had feedback from developers and people that didn't think we were too far off on what we're doing. Mayor, could I further your point?

Sure, please do. Just a point of clarification. WABO is 900 developers, builders, folks from all the trades, not just developers. Secondly, on what you mentioned, I spoke with a member of the development community just a day or two ago, I think it was yesterday, and he agreed basically with what you just said that he has no problem with the design standards. However, his opinion was he had a problem with the restriction on the percentage of duplexes being minimized to the 40-60 ratio. So we're dealing with a lot of different viewpoints. Some think the design standards are great, but they're concerned about how many duplexes are being allowed. with the circumstance related to these garage doors, this was one that, since we're getting right into that, this was one of the higher level issues that they had brought to our attention just because of the practicality of it. And when we met as a joint group at the Planning Commission, we had a bunch of engineers in the room that night, not so many developers, if you remember, in May, and I asked one of those engineers who's working for the city of Goddard on one of our own projects, What did you think about this specific, I asked him, what do you think about our design standards? Do you see any specific practical concerns? That's always been my biggest sensitivity is are we creating some regulations that just are an impossibility of working in the field? And this was the one that he brought up. He mentioned that this requirement would make it so the lots would have to be so large that all of the duplexes either have to be two stories or very wide, meaning the square footage of the duplex would be a really big duplex. So you're basically limiting it only to the ones that would have their really high rents because it's going to be a larger structure. And so the standard size lot would not work with this 50% garage requirement. And that one has come up quite frequently as one of the higher concerns while we're talking about this one specifically.

I would say just doing some of my own research and talking to some people that I've worked with, they said the same thing. The garages, the 50% was kind of a lifeline for them.

So what percentage do these garages take up currently?

I couldn't answer that question. I'm not sure.

I don't know the answer to that. Really quick before we get into the garage. I feel like we're going right into it and I just wanted to say a few things that's been really on my mind and I've tried to really pray about it for a while. Just for future reference for all of our builders and if we have conversations like this going forward. I think it's really important for people to understand that if they want to be able to come into this space, right, and ask us to work with them, that they have to come in a lot more respectfully than what they come in last time. We're always very respectful to our community, even when someone's upset with us or not happy. Part of being able to work with somebody and make decisions together and work as a team is respect. And I really feel like they kind of rolled in and they weren't very respectful to us I feel like there was some, like, almost threats and things going on. So I would just say, like, this is not, I just ask that if you're listening and you're out there, you know, that, you know, you're going to give back the same energy that you give us, right? And I just want to say, like, come in and let's be willing to work together. You know, don't say things like, well, where are you spending your money? Because I didn't really like that comment. Because I feel if anybody wants to know how we're spending our money, we're the most transparent that we've ever been. You know, they can look online, they can go to the budget, they can go up to Brooke, you know, and make an appointment with her. There are just some things that were said that I thought was really inappropriate.

Councilman I appreciate that and you and I talked about this a bit offline and I agree with your sentiment and I just want to be careful that we don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch as far as the way you perceive that conversation because as mayor said there's 900 people builders developers a part of all the trades We had a handful in the room, and I think there was one person who had an interaction that you didn't appreciate. So I don't want to paint them with a broad brush, if you will.

I don't want to do that either, and I'm not. I just think, like, go aboard. It's a good thing. thing to just let kind of everybody know because he's also not the first one that you know has told us like you know we need to get in line and things like there's no getting in line we're going to do what's best for our community and what we feel is in our heart and you know what we hear from the people in this community that they want and that's the only thing that's guiding us besides you know Jesus so

It's important to know that we come in here and we have a job to do and we understand that but we're also still human and so it's not a great feeling to come in and feel like maybe we're being bullied and I think we want to work with everybody and I think that Listening to our community is very important. I think we've been very open and honest about that as this council just in our first six months here. So I think it's really important that we hear a little more from some of the other people who maybe did not have the opportunity to speak as much that night. So I want to make sure that we're being mindful and that they understand that we can, you know, come to the middle ground on some things, but not everything. So...

Well, that really all comes under the heading.

One of the things I would say from this position is we're going to do things the right way and do the right things. And that's our intent. And we have Goddard's best interest at heart. We're not perfect, but we are, I think as a group, collectively, trying to do the right things and do the right thing. As long as we're doing that, I think at least we have a bit of behavior to stand on. And that's, I mean, We paused our decision, we invited them to come in, so I think that's a sign of our willingness to listen and to try to do more like that.

I will just leave it with, when I first started council and you guys got me this iPad, I put scripture on my home screen because I wanted something to reflect on. Each time I was sitting up here, each time I was working on these things, and so I think it's worth sharing, and I hope that the community is listening and our developers are listening. It's Ephesians 6-7, and it says, Serve wholeheartedly as if you were serving the Lord, not people. I think it's really important that we not only do the right thing always to the best of our abilities, but we know we can go home and we can lay our heads down at night and rest peacefully knowing that there are thousands of people in this community who rely on us to make their decisions, so.

What is the standard size of the garage doors that they're talking about? Because our limitations are no more than 50% of the front of the home.

so what is what's what's the garage store size now yeah 60 or 70 percent i can take i think with the single family obviously it takes up a lot usually i'm thinking with the garage on a duplex especially you're going to have two cars so you know so you're gonna have four basically two doors that can have four cars on each side two cars on each side but you know four cars in total and so obviously that takes up a lot of space on the front of the building um i think like if i was looking at a regular single thing like saint andrews and whatnot you're gonna have a a single family detached house has got a garage it's got two cars in it and then if you pay maybe a little extra you get that third car that's probably quite a bit more than 50 percent especially if you have a third car garage on a single family i couldn't tell you as a percentage wise how much traditionally it eats up obviously if you go up the street to cedar the cedar edition that's probably like 95 of the front if not more, and so it's quite a bit. Bridge or Maple, I would say, I don't know, closer to 70%? It's quite a bit.

I'd say it'd be 66 to 75% or so. The trouble in the calculation, I think, and I even alluded to it here, is that that's, are you saying 50% of just the level frontal area or are you including any gables or softening and anything above kind of the bottom of the roof line so if you add that like if you have gables facing forward and add to the frontal area then you don't need as It helps offset the garage door when it comes to area of the front house. That's the percentage of the total? Right. And I think they've even mentioned that.

It doesn't define it. We just say 50%. But I do think that if I was doing the calculation, I would do facade total. Total facade area.

And that would give you some leeway there.

Yeah. But then, of course, those gable groups would have to be pretty peaked to offset more. Because that 50% or less, that's a lot of additional space that you can do. Right. Unless you've got two stories, as mentioned.

Something you could do, and I don't know what the smallest lot width could be, but I know like a typical house is maybe 40 feet wide, and your garage door is typically 16 to 18 feet wide for a two-bar garage. quickly approaching just 50% linearly, looking at perhaps a little on vertically, so.

That was one of the arguments we heard was that this wouldn't even pass the muster for most of the single family homes in your community. Right.

So I think what we're trying to avoid, I mean this is my perception, is that we're trying to avoid what's happening on the end of Main Street with every single entrance is the garage. And then there's doors on the side of the house, there's no windows to speak of, it looks terrible. And I don't know what the fix is for that other than maybe multiple styles like six that we have asked for. But I think that's really the thing is that we don't want the whole front facing of these buildings to be the garage approach. Is that correct?

Yes. I think the theme I saw when reviewing a lot of these concerns is if we say try to compromise on all of them to the extent that this is going to, we are basically just allowing exactly what they've been building. Because what he showed for the four different styles, I believe, would fit once we, if we were to compromise on all of these, those would then fit. And it kind of, the first part of this garage work, he says basically it would cause them to redesign otherwise marketable plans. So to me, if we don't

stand some ground here they're just going to copy paste marketable plans over and over again so everything is going the same so that's the way i kind of see it i would assume you guys did the research on this and i was just kind of looking up a little bit because this is a little out of my realm of getting into the weeds per se but in wichita um the wichita central county metropolitan area planning department sets the 50 restriction derby also does this so it's More like the zoning, which right now we follow MABCD, but since MABCD doesn't have this in place, correct? Wichita's... You use the word zoning.

Think that out and restate what you just mentioned.

So I'm just kind of spit reading here. Okay. Basically... It mentions like it undergoes a plan review. They look at the zoning administrators review, the site footprint. So the first thing they do is they check the facade and setback, fine, for whatever they require. And then it says, then it goes over to the metropolitan area planning department and they enforce the 50%. Is that not something we follow? Maybe this is a silly question. This is where I don't quite understand Goddard versus the Wichita. We don't follow that currently because MAPC themselves don't enforce that because they just skip the permits. This is the Wichita, Sedgwick County. planning department. So we, right now, are not following the 50%.

But they are. Yeah, they've adopted the 50% design standards for a specific area in Wichita. So you will see that. You will go into Wichita and be like, oh, these garages are 50% because it's in a specific geographic area that they defined. If you leave that geographic area, there's other areas where you're like, that's clearly more than 50%. And that's because they left that area. That was something, actually, when we met with, actually, sorry, Craig wasn't there. I think Ryan, it was me and Ryan, we met with Lala and Mr. York and some others, and they had mentioned that, that Wichita actually had these 50% design standards that we were considering adopting. So I went and did the research, kind of like you did, and said, well, is this, you know, for the whole city, or is it, and it was for a defined area. They said that in a core area of Wichita, they want that 50%. It was adopted as policy. And as you're saying, basically, For us, Wichita aside, but for us what we would do is somebody would submit a building permit to us and if it was, if we had adopted this resolution and that resolution was in play for a new development, I would look at it and be like, I need facade renderings and I need calculations because that calculation is going to have to help me determine if these garages are greater than 50% or not. And then I would say, yep, these meet these standards that we've adopted and here's your book. For MADCV, that's for permitting. MAPD is for planning. And so they'll probably do the planning review, say this meets the setbacks and the design standards. Now let's hand it off to permitting. All of that falls under me anyway. I can just look at it and go, yep, this works. And I talk to myself and say, yeah, I can issue a permit. So it's pretty easy on my end. But for them to have two separate departments.

By the way, starting today, because July 1 was the day, which moving forward, we are doing all inspections for new building permits. Which is amazing.

So with regard to the specific areas, in those specific areas, is this adopted for single-family homes or for duplex development?

It was for duplexes. It was a duplex policy that Bushnell had adopted. And then because I noticed that, and then I mentioned that to Craig and Ryan when we were talking about this, they wanted to see it too, because Derby, had adopted a lot of what Wichita had already adopted. And so we were like, oh, this kind of seems like a trickle-down thing more than anything else. Like, this policy started in Wichita, and then it went to Derby, and Derby, I think, already adopted it. And then we're considering adopted portions of it, you know, with maybe modifications. And then Mays is kind of waiting for us to see what we do, and then maybe they would adopt portions of it. You know, so it's just kind of interesting. But yeah, ultimately it started in Wichita. I think it was adopted back in 2015, 2016, so it's been around for a while.

But like you've said, and you've done more research on this, They did it for specific areas.

There's a map on it.

Is there a world in which... I feel like we've already allowed so many that it's like, that's so hard, but they talk about protective overlays or specific subdivision regulations. I don't want to take this away. It sounds like Derby's leaning towards this as well, I think. Derby's adopted it. Yeah, and we have Mays and some other areas, isn't it Mays? I don't want to see them turn. It is kind of waiting on our lead as well. So, and I don't want to sound catty about this, but one of the things was, you know, don't call us and we won't build here, but it sounds like this is going to be something that trickles everywhere. So, do we want to back down this? Is there a number in your head that would be acceptable if it's not 50%? I don't, maybe this is kind of like the big one. Maybe we keep going and we circle back to the rest.

Like what do you think? My perspective is that we already have currently being built, built and being built. Yes, all of their things, all their compromises, that's already being built in our community. I think going forward, we could stick with our guns here on the things that we've set in place. My point in all of this is that we haven't had the standard and now we are. And even though there's pushback, there's always gonna be pushback when you're trying to do the right thing. And we are really trying to do the right thing for our community in terms of building community, building places that people wanna come and live and work and play All of those things, I think that 50% is not unreasonable. I think it's unreasonable for the bottom line of the developers.

Can you remind me what our walkway is, like standard?

So, that's a good question, and Council Member Durr brought that up, but traditionally, we didn't go below 60. For a long time, we didn't go below 60 as a width. We have what's called urban standards, and so it's like between 75 on the width and 100 and 120 feet on the depth, and then it goes up to like 80. We've shrunk that with our R1 all the way down to 40 now, so you can do 40 by 100 as a minimum. on R1, but historically, the vast majority of Goddard is 75 by 100. The vast, vast majority. With the exception of traditional Goddard, which is south of 54, north of Santa Fe, those ones that were platted pre-World War II, and they have 25 by 100, and 40 by 100.

So, realistically, how many of these twin homes are going to be smaller?

Twin homes? Oh, I mean, typically you're going to see on a duplex lot, it's going to be at least 70 feet because they have to have duplexes. Right, right. So it's going to be at least 70 feet or up to 75, 80 feet on the duplex for a duplex lot. That's the minimum width, usually.

They're probably going to be building vertically if they're going to use those smaller lot widths that we know of.

Which at the end of the day, then they're following the standard anyway, so this is probably the only way.

Theoretically. I'm Excuse me. If they had another story, that's one of six designs.

So I'm just wondering if we say anything below our standard 70, we maybe don't enforce the 50%? Because they would have to build up anyways?

And she's talking about block width. Block width. Yeah, the 40 foot block. You mean if the block gets smaller since they can't accommodate the 50% of the garage, then that provision of that resolution would be... Because they'd be building up anyways. You guys could waive either in part or in whole. Ryan Peck is here. So the way it was drafted, and it hasn't been adopted yet, obviously, but on July 6, if it is adopted, any part of that resolution can be waived in part or in whole if you have somebody asking for a rezoning. Maybe that developer comes before you guys and says, hey, for splitting specials and being able to make this economically viable, I would like my lots to be 50 by 100. And I want my R2 zoning so I can't accommodate the 50% on the garage, but I can accommodate the 30% lanes coding, you know, and the six design standards, and maybe that provision of the resolution is what you waive in that particular case. It could be out of case by case.

But it requires them to come in front of us and explain why they're doing it. Yes.

I want to, I think this is really important to know. If A developer has a product that they really like and it works well and it's high quality and we can go out and visit it in another community or something and it does not fit these? Because I think there's a couple in town that we'd like that definitely would not be legal with this. You guys have the option to either waive it, as Micah said, or you can allow them to submit a planned unit development, a PUD. And at that point, you guys can say, yeah, this is really nice. We don't care that they're all the same color. They're really high quality. So we're going to allow you to do that. I mean, I can name two developments right now, maybe three that I've heard council members share that they may be partial to that wouldn't be allowed in this, but since it's a higher quality construction and you guys may be able to go see them in the field, if someone wanted to do that product here, you could either waive this or they could submit a PUD application.

I want to be very careful because I feel like that's also a slippery slope. I like that we have the ability to do that and it's not so black and white that Maybe there are some designs that don't fit whatever we put into place that are still really great and could be really great here. But I just want to be really clear about the slippery slope of what we're approving, who we're approving it for.

I mean, we would only approve it if we would vote. Yeah, right.

We would vote. So the example here is... Schellenberg came to us after we had already said, do not bring any more duplexes to us. Their first guy came and presented the product. I actually, I said to him, it looks like a nice product. We just don't want duplexes here. And then that developer, that builder came and said, will you come and look at our product? And we did do that. And I said, you have one that's 20 years old. I want to go look at that. So when I went to look at that, I saw that the quality was still there. They did, but still there and still very good. So, and that coupled with the information that Amanda brought with our senior community, all of those things, all of those things are what changed my opinion about that particular development.

So, although we didn't, they had amenities, they had all this.

So what I'm saying is, if we set the standards, And then someone comes, you know, a reputable developer comes and says, you know, we want to do it this way. I think that's how it works. I think that's the collaboration. I think that's the compromise. I think we set the standard and say this is what it is. And then, you know, you can come and speak to us about something different. We're not unreasonable, but I think initially we just haven't had the standard. So we now have to do something.

If you think you have a product that's better than our standard, but our standard wouldn't allow for it because of these technicalities, show it to us. There's a project in Park City right now. They're selling each unit for $450,000 to $500,000. everything is aftermarket, but it's a five-plex with, it's all the same color, but it's an absolutely gorgeous project. It wouldn't fit in this. In that circumstance, you guys would have a chance to go look at it in another community and say, okay, well, this doesn't fit. It's obviously exceeding from a value perspective and a quality perspective, so you can either waive this or just have them submit a PDD to you guys.

I think that's a good plan. I like having a standard and I like that if they have something that's better, they know us at this point. But I think if we hold to the standard and then they come show us something better, we're willing to see what they have to offer. So I kind of think that's the way to go.

I just think by putting together the standard, we will attract a different kind of developer than we've been attracting.

Which is some of our goals.

That is the point.

Well, and if our lots are a minimum of 70 foot wide, I mean, doesn't that mean, theoretically...

Minimum's 40 for two family, I believe.

Right, but for the most part, you're saying we still kind of stay up higher, correct?

For a duplex, you just have to, because the thing is, even though the minimum is 40 by 100, if you're saying I'm going to do a duplex, you're going to plat it, because that's the minimum, you're going to plat it as more than a duplex.

So, theoretically, for a lot of designs, wouldn't this be Nolan Point anyways? Because most duplexes are the standard two-car garage, and that width is 20 feet, 23 feet. What do you mean, what's Nolan Point? Like, we wouldn't touch the 50% anyways. I'm saying we put it in place, but this is being made to be a... Oh, no, no, no.

We're doing, the garage is going to be, the numerator for the garage is going to be the garage width, and then the denominator is going to be the facade of the house, not the lot. The lot doesn't factor into the percentage for 50%. The denominator is going to be the facade total coverage of the front of the house, not the width of the house. Sorry about that. That's our fault. We should have explained that better. When we're doing this calculation for 50%, we're saying the garage is the numerator and the facade, the total facade, is the denominator. That's our division there.

so not we're not taking any capital area right yeah it's probably right really within an area not with correct yep yeah so it's all the area of the garage i think one a clarification and an actual item d that calls it out might be to say frontal area of the home yeah we can we can prep that better yes because that way if there's it's based above the garage you can count that area exactly that's right sorry we need to clarify that that's a that's a that's a so to get off the top of that center a little bit on this 50 thing i think we could come maybe up with compromise or we can stick our ground but i think if we don't compromise on a lot of the other things it can still force a way to have more than just a garage facing the front because they bring up the windows, there's talks of doors and porches, so I think what we're trying to get away from is two car garages and nothing else that you can see, right? It looks like a storage unit from the front. We're trying to avoid that. I think there's other things in here that can help drive to have features.

Yes, and after having this conversation, if somebody submits to me a facade that looks like a cigarette issue up the street, I'm just going to say no, based on what we're discussing here today. Right, right. Even if there was a, I mean, even with the calculation in it and everything else, we just simply say, this garage, is the preponderance of the whole building, and it's a shotgun style, and that's a no. And based on my feedback that I'm getting from council, that's easy enough to reject, based on what we've already approved in the past. And so, I can kind of just use common sense in that particular case to say, I don't think people are gonna like to look at this based on council's feedback. So, we reject that design.

I tend to think if you can include all frontal area, including the gables, like in the facade and everything, 50% is Yeah, because if the garage door has a gable with a standard pitch above it, that gable should be nearly a quarter of the area of the garage door, if you think of a triangle. Yeah, but in an other frontal area that's non-garage, if you can get there.

I still think we can push it 60% though, 60, 65%. Even with the Gable Group.

I think 60 would give a lot more room to the builders, but then I would just say that we need to make sure we have other mechanisms in here like windows. portraits, you know, other features that can make sure that you can't do creative math and get to 60 with some, like, modern slant room, really high, a lot of deciding, you know, just, I think 60 seems reasonable too, but yeah, I just wanted to get that out of you guys.

Would you guys be okay if we kind of looked at some of these other things?

I want to mention one more thing, Councilwoman. We are requiring varied roof lines, porches, so I think that's going to break some of this up, too, to keep it from being garage after garage after garage all the way through.

I do think mathematically, though, based on what Councilman Durbin and others have been discussing, that 50 is a hard mark just because when I'm looking at a house, just kind of empirical, if you're staring at a house face on and you're calculating everything with a facade and just empirically you're looking at the garage, it's very easy to see that garage as being greater than 50% of the facade, even with the gables and the roof and the door and windows and everything else. It's very easy, even on single-family houses. is clearly greater than 50% of the size of the house, unless you had a two-story house or a very wide house.

Yeah, it had to be two-story or very wide.

I do think that if there was some legal room, I mean, since it seems the intent is to prevent what we see in the street, we can use some sort of intuitive understanding based on that, say we're going to reject certain standards that we see, but I do think that the 50% is a hard mark, just generally speaking.

So you're saying that most of those... terrible designs that we see are about 75. They're probably like 90. Oh, so going down to 60 is still like a really big difference.

60 is a nice compromise then? It's a nice compromise.

Anything above 60 they can come to us.

Well, they can. They can, yeah. I mean, let's say that they were at 65% or 62%. What if they were supposed to not? But I would say that you would need to present yourself to the city council and ask for... Yeah, I mean, there's got to be a reason.

So we're going from 95 to 60, meaning they're not in the middle, but they are in the middle.

60%.

I'm in favor of 60 and or I'll say it again, I do also like the compromise of exceptions if there are recesses behind the facades, porches.

There's room in there, I don't know if we want to go down that road, but that's another option. Do you understand what he's saying about the recessed facade?

Yes.

Yeah, for example, the ones on Maple where their porches are out further than the garage. So the garage is kind of set back.

I would agree with that. So it's not the first thing you see is not the garage, the first thing you see is their porch.

Yeah, it's just it creates depth and contrast where it's just two garages with the little four foot fence that's hiding where the gas lines are the doors are on the sides that's a hundred percent basically so to further develop this thought just so the staff has clear direction sixty percent we'll add some language in there to make it clear that includes the total frontage and the calculation the garage

limitation does not apply in the case where there is a recessed facade such as an entry corridor, a breezeway, or a common area in front of the structure? I think that's fair. Something like that?

Basically what that means is the garage is not the closest thing to a garage. I mean, anything to me where there's, it's not cookie cutter, I keep going back to cookie cutter, but it's not a box.

So keep in mind, we're requiring a different plan every lot.

Right, this gives them flexibility for the one plan that they struggle to have a sixth version that can get 60%.

So maybe the garages sit back further on one of those, but then they don't max the 50 or go past the 50 on another.

So basically, you're saying 60% or... to allow exceptions for if the garage is recessed. Like they have to do one or the other. It gives them the ability to also be flexible with their designs.

And I don't know the answer to this question, but I just like how much does it, and we need to limit them, that's the point, but how much does it limit the design standard? by jumping out of that 60. So I think if we think about the fact that we are going to require different variations, that giving them that little bit of wiggle room to do something different and not have to follow the 60%, maybe to me as a compromise, I think it's meeting them in the middle.

Why don't we just go with 60 for now and see if we can get the next one done in less than 40 minutes.

Move on to number two.

I'm going to put that language in there based on what I've heard. And you guys can throw it out on the sixth if you want. Do you need a specific distance?

I think I know enough to be able to put it in a way you guys will like.

Because we already have the language in there that talks about requiring a breezeway, a common area, a recessed area sort of thing. So I think we just would put that in there as an exception to the 50% minimum if you have one of those. Because in that scenario, the garage is not going to be able to be front loaded. But you're good at thinking of stuff that I didn't catch. So if you think of something between now and tomorrow, let me know. OK.

We did it for, I mean, now.

Okay.

Sorry.

Number two.

Go back in. Thank you. Yes, so... in terms of purple, what they're asking for is to exceed 40% of the development as a whole. I believe number three, Daniel, or what? Yeah, three and two are similar. Three, I believe, and speaking about each individual phase, because we're saying you can't do more than 40% on phase. Two is about 40% of the whole development. That's my general understanding. Is that correct?

Didn't trials in front load their duplexes? A lot of developments do that.

And so, I mean...

my problem is is that well i think that they'll always get it done because they're financially invested i don't listen to front load all their duplexes and then wait four years to do the rest and so i think that that's why we i doubt that you wait four years you have to remember that specials are in place and what's called building costs and so you mean if you buy if you buy eight acres you have to pay taxes on eight acres and so when you plan it it becomes even more valuable so you pay more taxes

and so as you are developing you really want to offset them as fast as possible specials are by phase so you're going to go phase by phase by phase and we run into this a lot where you will have different types of developers trying different ways and so you will have for example harbor creek harbor creek went really fast but that's because rates were low like three percent as soon as they went above Six percent this last phase are really, really slow. In fact, I think in phase four of our big phase three right now, they barely sold any loss. So he's got to eat all those specials. And so that's painful for him. That's a carrying cost.

But it's order phase, so if they break this up by phase and we don't limit per phase...

It's still going to be the 40-60 ratio, but they could build duplexes first. I do think that this could be an issue, depending on the land. You've got to consider the different engineering elements, and some of the engineers that we talked to said, yeah, this could be a problem. Think about it if you've got... You can't do a phase where you've got the duplexes clustered over here on one side of the track and the single-family homes over here. It just doesn't make sense from, for all the public infrastructure perspective. Is it possible, such as the Trails End example, to where maybe you can do a couple clusters, but think about the environment they built in where we had a hot market they built that whole project out in three it would be four years yeah and they came back and asked us to do let them do duplexes you did say no now the covenant will carry with the ground so let's say developer a buys this and they tell us yeah we're gonna you know while we need to front load the duplexes for whatever engineering or financing reason we will make sure we come back and do the single family on another 60 but they don't do it for whatever reason, they're going to sell that to somebody else and the covenant is still there. You're going to have a financial reputation with your lender, your reputation with the city, as Micah said, carrying costs, special assessments, letter to credit, all of these organic reasons that are going to motivate them to fulfill the development. It's just whether or not are we patient enough to maybe take a couple more years or a different builder to do it. The covenant stays with the land.

so i've thought of a concern with this too and then going with the planning commission that my concern with making it meet 40 with every phase and maybe it doesn't apply in all cases but depending on where the land is structured and where they can put the entrance roads and such it might keep them from being able to visually separate or I don't know, most efficiently lay out where the duplexes and they would go versus where single family. Similar to cloverleaf where a lot of them are nicely separated from the actual development. If they had to do one of those phases before the other, maybe they couldn't have gotten the 40%.

That's the only real concern. We heard that comment too.

I think it's reasonable to, you know, this is their business model. They are going to front load the duplexes and, you know, get the revenue from that. I still do not want to go any more than 60-40. We've been fighting really hard for two and a half years to keep this ratio.

And not to mention with the smaller lots for single-family homes, they can meet the ratio easier.

Because when you build 40 duplexes out of 100, you're actually building 80 living units against then the 60. And that mix Compared to where we were, I can't remember all those numbers, but historically, I think at one time before duplexes became an issue, we had about 1,300 single-family homes and maybe 150 duplexes or something. I'm trying to ballpark it, so don't call me to zero points. The point is that there's gonna be some integrity in terms of we maintain community and in the base of our community has historically been single-family homes. Now the real test of this whole thing is this trails in, builds out that last phase and they've got a street in there with smaller lots and you know single-family homes and we've got Liberty homes being built, smaller homes. The market, you know, the market's gonna drive this to some degree. We've got some developers saying that the duplex craze, you know, might be, duplexes are your appointment, they're a tipping point, they're almost overbuilt, so maybe five years from now, you won't have a lot of requests for duplexes, but I just, I'd be more inclined

to make that ratio 37 i mean just and then that's a hard thing too we have fought hard for 60 40. i do not want to go above that at all i don't think that's even i mean not for me anyways that's not even a question my question was just being careful of i hear that i agree like the phases and we want to make sure i think it's really nice you know when you pay a lot for a home you want to be in the back of that moment right like not everybody wants to hear those duplexes but i just want to be mindful that we're not opening the opportunity to sit on faces for longer, but also stating that I think some of the other things that we're putting in place, hopefully, like you said, will drive in. some new developers that are a little more eager to do some of those things.

I think our community has intangibles that we can be confident that a development is going to get finished. We have never had one, someone walk away from one, ever. Well, that addition still got built out. It's still built. I just don't think, I think because of the factors surrounding these, it's just extremely unlikely that we'd have to worry about some of the building and the people I couldn't leave.

Well, I'm fine on the phasing, but I would 100% agree. I would not be willing to give a yes vote to anything that was over 40%.

So this one is the 60, 40-foot hole development, and this one is... This one is my face. So I think that, from what we're hearing, this one you want to stand firm, this one you're willing to let the front row do the flexes and continue with the... We don't have to get off there, but what if suddenly you're burning up? I know, that would be awesome. Are we shooting, burning?

I don't know that it is the right thing to go back from what we have been discussing, but that's ultimately your prerogative.

Maybe baby steps, we start at 64.

Well, we've gone 64 for the last two and a half years, but that's a standard that we grew up with. trails in started at 60-40 and then they came back and we said no I think we pretty well drew a line in the sand then that 60-40 was almost as far as we want to go. They could always come in and build a 70-30 and you'd let them. I mean this is just a high end and I think if the market does shift that will happen. The market will lead them to go below that but I think this You know, you don't want to have kind of 15,000 and there's, you know, 3,000 duplexes and 2,000 single-family homes in terms of residence.

I think there's just also a lot to be said about consistency and I think that we have been consistent over the last two and a half years about what we are looking for and I think if we stay with the 60-40 at this point and we can if we need to later, but I just think that consistency is really valuable and it keeps us from maybe appearing volatile or unreasonable. We are trying to work with the market that we have, but we are also trying to maintain a strong community feel.

I mean, Trails End is really a great example. They kind of front-loaded the two places to some degree, but they've intermingled single-family housing. It's a good mix. They put the amenities there, the sidewalks and things, the trees, all those things we talked about, they've done. And I don't think that they're... They're not walking away from the second base. I don't think that we were unreasonable. And the things that we've asked for here in the majority, I mean, that's what we've already done. So I just have a hard time. I mean, I might back away from not the trees being planted, but you can plant the trees after we give you your certificate of occupancy if it's December and it's three foot of snow on the ground. We've got an idea for that. Well, I mean, just... Just be a person of your word and come back in in March or April when it needs to be done and take care of it. Because I think if you look out there at Trails End, there's a few of those things that they didn't plant those trees and they got their certificate of occupancy and they come back in and they've done what they said they were going to do. And so, you know, it's... I think that it's a good example of kind of the standard that we set. It's not perfect, but it's not unreasonable. The place filled up.

So are we fair to say that we are good with taking it off of the phases, but we're not going above 40%? I think that's probably right.

That's what I got here.

I don't have confidence that an HOA is gonna

I mean, I live in one, but they're going to mandate the trees. I feel like if a developer comes to us to certify their home and they say, we can't plant the tree because it's January and there's eight inches of snow on the ground. Okay, well, here's the cost for these two trees. You'll write us a check and we'll take care of it in the spring.

I don't have a problem with that. That's good. I like that.

Well, we'll have to paper that up to some degree, but I don't think it'll be that complicated.

Yeah, because we have to be able to step on the private property and install the trees, or replant the trees in the right way.

Most of them are in the right-of-way anyway, because they put it around the utility boxes.

In St. Andrews, we require wind, so HOAs in Andrews and Spring Hill, you've done to the trees, and as the mayor was saying, the trail sand, those are all enforced by HOA covenants, that you have to have two trees, and they plant them on private property. There's an occasion where they plant them in the right-of-way, and I've actually pushed back aggressively on some people, but the previous city administrator told me to step back, so I did.

So you're saying that you don't think that the HOAs will instill,

I don't trust them to enforce those things.

But they are in St. Andrews and they are in other communities?

They do have requirements in St. Andrews. Are they following it? It's going to be case by case on what matters most to the sitting board at the time. They may have rules on the books that no longer fit the spirit of the law or there's a physical reason why it can't be done. I'd rather just get it taken care of. The other question I have, and we had talked about this over lunch, is I don't think we need a list of trees. We know what an invasive tree looks like, so if those start popping out, we'll take care of it.

Yeah, I think we could find, as Craig mentioned, sort of an average for two trees and say, well, it's now November.

Skip the pinch tree.

so yeah here's an average you know so in lieu of planting trees you know you can write us a check we'll plant the trees i guess we'll have love works or something like that yep but legally going on private property how does that can there be something contingent in the seller agreement like can that complicated like i said if you're going to the easements but what's the point of putting this on there if you can't So, yeah, there's a technical aspect here, and that's the idea that trees are in the right of way are dealt with differently in city code versus trees on private property. If there's a tree that's on private property that dies, you can cut it with no repercussions. If there's a tree that dies in the city right of way, then we say that we will remove it. Property owners are responsible for trees in the right of way, but at the point where you actually have to remove the tree, they have to ask us permission, or we can do it ourselves. Now, if you have a tree that's... Yes. I mean, there's potential for us to incur costs in the city right away. I mean, there's just different aspects of how that falls under city law.

The other option...

I'll tell you, most older neighborhoods, it's all under the trees. You go into older neighborhoods, the trees are all on city property, like between the road, like College Hill. Those are the trees that are right next to the road.

Older neighborhoods are in the right way. But if you go up St. Andrews, all the trees are past the sidewalk. That sidewalk is the delineation mark. So once you leave the sidewalk and you step on grass, you're on private property. You'll notice all the trees that St. Andrews requires is on private property. And older neighborhoods, especially gridded neighborhoods, they're lining the right of way. And it's really pretty.

We lost the planning commission because of the longevity of our last tree debate. So maybe... Another option, sorry to bring up a sore subject, but another option could be if it's within this 90-day span, we just waive the requirement. We're still going to have a lot of trees, and I can promise you no builder that's trying to sell a house is going to delay getting it occupied to try to fall into a window so it doesn't have to split.

I just don't want to add more. on either, I mean, we're talking about them paying us and us just doing it anyways, but then we're expecting public works. Yeah, yeah.

We could hire it out. I mean, there's a lot of firms out there that plant trees.

But is that cost being put back on the builder?

Whatever the cost would be, we would make sure we were making it.

That's what we got. The builder pays for it. that's what this is the tree but are they going to pay for the cost 80 to 100 years from now that's what i'm saying

savings on to whoever purchases their house. They're going to recover that cost. So we can have them pay for the tree and the labor to have it done. Right.

I just want to make sure that verbiage is in there. Whatever your cost is. We're not eating any more and we're not adding to the public works.

So let it be written, so let it be done. Number five.

You guys ready for number five? King of Siam. Okay, requiring a park or common area space of at least three residents serving an amenity. So, potential compromises were, require one meaningful active amenity rather than three. Allow new ride public parks or trails to be set by all or a part of the requirement when the development provides direct pedestrian connection. Exempt developments below a specified number of blocks or growing units. So, you know, you heard from that one developer who showed up at the last meeting that it's like, they can require a lot to be dedicated as a neighborhood park, H-ways may not want that, or to be dedicated to the city. Of course, the city doesn't want to be there because that's more labor and cost for us. So there's that question of like, okay, do you want a sprinkling of neighborhood parks for every development, or do you want to have more of a communal park, like the North Park, or a legacy bank park, I should say? or is there something else you want to say? Dollar and a jar.

Dollar and a jar. For saving money.

I did, I read myself. I still thank you. There's multiple jars of dollars that I can throw at these jackpots.

On this particular thing, if there is a retention pond, which most developments have that I think there should be a walking path around it I don't I mean or like that would be part of an amenity but and I would be willing to compromise if the developments are very close to linear park or legacy bank park with a connection of a sidewalk

I mean, yeah, that's a direct pedestrian connection.

Right. The development at Willows Ridge isn't going to have a place for an amenity, but it will be right across the street from Legacy Bank Park. I think that if... If that is, I mean, I think that that's a reasonable compromise. I think that other communities that are disconnected and are in no way connected through sidewalks should have more than a walking path in that community.

And stopping a pond with fish is not...

I really struggle with that. I don't know about that. I just know about walking, like a place to walk around. I'm not a fisherman, but if that's what's happening over at... You're not a walkman? So you're saying if there's a retention pond, there has to be a...

A walking path around it.

That would look nice. Or a big fish it. But fishing it can't, if they're not in connection to the park, fishing it can't be another amenity. I mean, that is one amenity to me as a whole. That would be my thought.

I would want another amenity.

Right. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Yeah. The fishing can't be the other way. Yes, we agree with that.

Can you remind me, does this apply to any R2 or didn't we have like a threshold of development of so many houses or more?

We didn't have a threshold. It was subjective. We just said that you guys can weigh the versions. We felt like that it was practically impossible for it to be applied. Right, like if somebody... Willow's a good example. Willow, of course, is single family.

Right, but it can't fit very many homes alone.

No, it's not threshold. It was simply if we felt like it was untenable given the layout, for whatever reason, or the proximity, or the size, or the dimensions of it, practically untenable for us to have that.

But then again, they could come to us with the design at that point. We could look at it and say, okay, we see why you can't come in a minute here.

They would have a rough sketch. So it doesn't have to be a full plaque. They could have a rough sketch that says, this is why I can't have a mark.

Right, that makes sense. I still think if that is the case, then they have to make some sort of connection for somebody, for people to get from that. Like, for example, 183rd Street that we looked at last year, I was reviewing both of those videos this week and there there has to be and that that's on the other side of Arbor Creek there are no sidewalks that connect Liberty homes even to Arbor Creek that in an Arbor Creek connects to 23rd right so any neighborhoods that went around in those places there they would have to have an amenity or an a sidewalk that connects them to the city so they have accessibility to get to a park?

Some places it would still be a physical possibility. We've got an R4, which this includes R4, that's on five acres. It's going to be 60 units. It's already been entitled. You guys will hear about it at some point here pretty quick. It's only five acres. There's nowhere to put a park. This wouldn't apply to it because it's already been approved previously, but So there's going to be circumstances because of the size where it's just not going to work. I mean, I think that's just bringing it to us. And it's also disconnected. It's far enough away from amenities. There's no way you could tell them, yeah, you've got to connect to the one that's a mile away.

I mean, I feel like even not underneath there, like...

even if we made the connection like most people or even if you had kids right letting them walk from there all the way to the parking with sidewalks right and that's kind of the point though about these kinds of things there are going to be children in these neighborhoods they are they're not all going to be in their in their rooms playing video games but there there should be options for them to be able to go outside and play ride their bikes

you know safely i think a size threshold could work i mean if it's something that's less than like 40 35 acres something like that maybe maybe it doesn't apply or and then you have the exception if it's connected like willows or villas where you're catty corner you have a crosswalk right to the park if you're within a mile of the park We need connectivity, too.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

If you're with anyone at the park, you have to provide connectivity or an amenity.

They don't own any way to get connected. I'm saying like when I'm walking over at Arbor Creek

the sidewalk ends in that development so either you go out on the road or you just walk back through the development and get back on and walk over by Amelia Earhart right so the like any developments that go in behind there can you connect them through those neighborhoods like for them to connect into our community this is getting I'm just saying no I'm just saying or if we're not going to do an amenity can we maybe this is far-fetched

Can we say, hey, we require sidewalks on one side, but if there's no amenities and you can't get to this, can we do the sidewalk on both sides so that kids can ride their bikes? It is a loop. You can walk safely. You can... Is that... I mean, you can still do it there.

It's just a little difficult because... Developments, we usually require, and I'm trying to talk about this too, but we usually require developments that, you know, they're going to stop out. So you'll see a road stop, and then you'll see the signs playing through, because they know this road's going to continue into the future, into another development. In theory, I mean, you can do the same thing with sidewalks. Sidewalk stops, and then if you take it over at the next development, it would just require some foresight on that end.

if we're saying that let's say let's think of the outcome we're trying to achieve for the areas of town that are disconnected we want those people to have an amenity to enjoy right so i i think we require it it's do we require one or four which is how it's currently written i mean i think one is plenty but also if they have a retention problem to qualify it needs to have a path around it yeah no no

But it doesn't qualify as the amenity.

It is. If you have a retention pond, you are required to have the walking path. Yes. But you also have to have an amenity. Yes. And the amenity is not fishing catfish out of the retention pond.

Yes. I think we want to be careful about requiring walking paths around the ponds. That's expensive. Unless you're going to allow it to qualify as their amenity.

Okay. Well, then it would be under this amenity. We never...

Could be. I mean, that's a recreational area. You have a walking trail around the pond that you can fish or bicycle around.

It's not common. Most detention ponds don't have walking trails. So if you do have a walking trail, that would be considered a general amenity.

And I think the only exception to requiring one amenity or four as it was currently written, which I think maybe one of... consider tweaking down a bit. The only exception would be is if you have a direct trail connection to a public amenity such as a park or a pool.

That would probably be the exception.

And then if there's some really small, weird, small tract piece of land that comes up, we'll just bring it to you guys and say, hey, this doesn't make financial sense to make them put an amenity in. So you guys might want to consider waiving that. Say it's an eight-acre piece or something like that.

That's a good point. So basically, I mean, one part of this resolution adopted in the United States would basically give you guys a lot more input into the design and layout of the developments in New York, which I think is something you guys are able to more generously make. Yeah, so that's not a bad thing either. I mean, considering... you would have to have more feedback into it. There might be multiple iterations that go above and beyond simply approving zoning ordinances and platens. You might have multiple iterations of design review because if there's any questions, we're going to have to take it to council. That might not be a bad thing. That might be something you guys are okay with.

I think the question we're trying to answer with this is do we want to require three amenities with one of them being an active amenity, which the feedback we've gotten is that's going to be maybe too much, too expensive. for the developer to do it front or for the HOA to do it themselves at some point.

So can we require an amenity and say if they don't connect to the park, the pool, something like that, then we can require an active amenity as well?

I think we just require the meaningful active amenity. Yeah. I think that's what it is. I think we just require number one, unless there is not access to a local park.

So one and two is our compromise.

Do you guys want to get rid of the half-acre requirement for a park?

No, I think you just have to show it to us.

yeah i mean i don't i'm not sure where the half acre came from initially so i just um you know whatever okay so we're going to require one meaningful amenity the exception would be for developments to have a direct trail connection to a public amenity such as a park or a pool keep it simple

One thing that came up, which is good, and ties into that, is that when we met with John Swissler and his idea of putting the public amenity on a reserve, it would be better than having a dedicated lot, because then they could still do that cost. They could sell that lot, but they could still have the active amenity that's in a reserve area, which you can't sell anyway. And that could be greater than a half acre.

I forgot to mention that part.

We'll omit the half acre. I don't know if this is a foolish question, but that won't be dangerous to any... children or anything like that?

No, it's very common to see parks in reserve areas. The one that trails in is actually in a reserve. It's very common to actually stay in a reserve, which is something I forgot, so that's my apologies on that end, is that I probably should have put that language in there and I remembered it. It's okay.

We can add it in, right?

Sounds like anyone can have it. We'll get that fixed. This is good feedback. The point is we are trying to collaborate.

We are trying to figure these things out. And we don't know all the language that you all know. We're just trying to get to a point that gets the community what it needs.

We can certainly put action. They can still sell box.

They're going to do that anyway, probably, because they don't want to lose their lot.

Right.

I don't care where it's at. The client's there.

Okay. Are we ready to go to six?

I think we are.

I just thought that I'm kind of a range person in numbers. If we said four to six,

And that gives some flexibility.

It's always a minimum, right?

What are our expectations?

I think we've budged a lot.

Yeah, I guess I could go five, but I drove through ones that have four different ones. Right. And it looks very repetitive.

Yeah, yeah. I think the action I remember is always better than an even number.

I don't know your reason, I just like it. I think when you're looking aesthetically at something,

it's i mean it looks better to have an odd number of it i mean it's a five so we're meeting in the middle all right sold american five five five we got this done in 57. okay let's move to number seven i'm not budging on this i'm really not i don't know no number seven sorry

Because these are slab homes, right? These are slabs.

They can be. Most of them are slabs. Some of them are not.

But, I mean, most of the twin homes or duplexes that we're talking about are slabs. They do not have basements. Some of them have basements.

Some are split level, some are basements. Not as common. I would say that 95% of them are on slabs.

And I don't know what developers... fuck this, so again, not for our own sons, but Travis Listler himself installs these storm shelters all the time, and he does this. That's seven and the seven on my computer.

Oh, yeah.

Mine's a storm shelter requirement. I'm not budging. Sorry.

We're on windows per the slide. That's what it is. Okay, we're going to go to number eight. Oh, go backwards. Let's finish seven. I think on this... One thing I would like to consider adding on this is just that 2 there to allow other glazed or transom or sidelights to count towards the 10. I think that would be reasonable.

Yeah, I don't want to omit it completely. I don't think that that's an option. I think that homes need to look like homes. And there should be... I think 2 is very broad as well.

Yeah, 2 is very broad. I don't...

Well, I think the 10% calculation can be difficult. So the two allows them to maybe put a side light next to the front door with a window next to it to get a little more percentage of glass or maybe a transom over the garage on the gable. But from the front, it makes it look more like a home.

I'm fine with that as long as they have a window. I don't want to say 10% and then we're... That's why I said I think it's just too broad.

But if you're going on percentages, then we're back to calculating things and it just makes it a lot more time consuming and more in the track. It allows for more variety with it. with a window on top of the train set. What is Portugal? Side lights the window next to your door.

We don't have those in our houses. You need to go come to the corner of 7th and Spruce.

I like number two on this one.

I'm not sure porch openings are right.

The unglazed frame spaces between the support columns post or railings of a porch. The unglazed frame spaces between the support columns post or railings of a porch. So it's like if you have a rail or slats, what do some people call them? Yeah, yeah. Like on your front porch, this is more ranch style or the World War II style, like if you have your porch, but then you have like a wood column and then a rail, and under the rail you have a bunch of vertical slats. Those are porch openings. That area is called a porch opening.

No, I don't think those are porch openings. I mean, could we just say that the 10%, but that sidelights and transom windows can contribute to the 10%?

Side lights, transom windows, and other transparent or glazed architectural elements and omit porch openings. To me, the porch opening more so is like what we were talking about earlier about the recessed area, the common.

That solves it.

I don't think we should budge on this.

No.

And what I was saying before I realized our numbers were wrong is that this is not an uncommon thing. Travis Whistler himself, and I'm not going to say this because I like Travis and I don't know that he made any comment about this, but he would see storm shelters all the time. So, I mean, like, the triplexes that Schellenberg does, They have storm shelters. New built slabs that we do, we put in storm shelters. I don't think that this is unreasonable. I understand they're expensive, but we live in Tornado Alley.

You can literally just be in the closet like this at two or three. They integrated in the bill, that is my understanding.

It is a substantial cost to add a storm shelter bubble for protection. Yes. It just makes sense to make it a closet because there's no way it doesn't. Right.

Yeah, the space saver. I mean, from what we heard, it's $4,000 to $6,000 per unit. And one of the pushbacks we got, and we heard this one a lot on several of these, is, well, why aren't you requiring this to single-family homes? They're over 50% garage. They don't have to have storm shelter. And what I've always said to that is, you know, we're going through the comprehensive plan process. That's not as much of an immediate urgency to address those things. But thanks for the idea, I've taken that note. So when we do go through this, we may consider requiring this lab on grade single-family homes. to have a storm shelter i mean i think if it's in duplexes it should also be in single family homes i don't disagree with that so we want to keep eight yes yes that's good i don't know i've seen that earlier that's new we've created a parenthesis new yeah we did well i'd like to see how we're requiring it

Is this storm shelter, does that include like those rooms that, like what they call the PRC?

It was drafted as, it's not included in anything that you guys have seen, but behind closed doors with staff that we've drafted it to have FEMA standards and ICC standards. FEMA standards and ICC, the National Construction Code, the FEMA standards. This FEMA has set standards for certain hurricane and storm ratings that the ICC has adopted for building those for a storm shelter. And so the language that we were drafting was taking that and putting it in there saying, hey, this has to meet that ICC FEMA standard for a tornado. I'll send you the language tomorrow morning. But yeah, that would include a safe room or safe... closet or something in an attic or something in a garage even you can have this inside the garage there's different options for that I would be cautious though that I'm not sure I was being worded but if you have a basement

we don't need a storm shelter right but if you're trying to you put in FEMA standards and stuff I don't think a normal basement counts either so we would accept it it's basically yeah but I would be careful too because sometimes basements are full basements so you know you wouldn't count crawl space but if you have a basement you should still probably let that count right

I don't know. I think that you can still take a utility room. Even a view out or a walk out is still in the utility room. And that's still cemented. That's still got cemented. Not all the way around. But a portion of it would be.

So yeah, as long as we don't make it so restrictive that even somebody that has a view out basement... ends up having to put in a metal storage shelter. I'm saying exempt if you have below grade shelter because you don't have to meet the on-grade people.

That's good language, below grade shelter. These are specific to

But it doesn't say that. That's all I'm getting at.

So now we can say that?

Yep. That language is a little newer to us. I remember storm shelters and some of the other stuff kind of came up later.

I think the Schellenberger property actually did have that. They had it incorporated, I believe, in their laundry room.

the laundry space was the shelter it was in the middle of the house and i remember that i do believe that that's how that went so and i know like even in my home it has that crawl space and i just encapsulated it so i don't yeah that's good well that's my storm shelter i did that myself it was expensive i was going to go in to walk in the master i mean there's so many ways they could do it i would say like a standard

Not to make that worse, but I'd be curious where like the four to six came from, because I know like even back in 2022, like a standard storm shelter in Schellenberg's triplexes were like $7,500 a storm shelter. So now I don't know the sizing. I don't know the difference.

It's those pods that were 4,500. So we kind of thought four to six was probably a good range.

So usually a concrete company will come in and.

I've seen in Oklahoma popular things to put a pit in your garage. I've seen that. Like changing oil when you just shut the steel door over it.

Are we requiring a size on these form shelters? I don't even know what the saver is. But we don't have a one person pod.

We can all go get in our bathtub in the middle of the... I mean...

Most of the ones we're seeing are two seat... That's kind of just... You probably should have a couple other people in there. In an emergency.

We're just trying to make sure people have a space to go if they... You know.

So the requirement is... But to require it on slat pumps, unless they have a golden gray place that they would go to, then they don't have to have it.

We'll have Micah, Ryan, and Andrew work through that language, massage it a bit, and send it out to you tomorrow. But we'll keep this requirement in. Well, just real quick. There's a couple other things too on this.

Ryan, you've been involved in a lot of discussions. Do you have any comments? Go for Ryan's, I guess.

Nothing additional that has been shared tonight. I think the discussion has been very fruitful and very transparent. So I feel like we've made really good progress tonight. So no, I'm good. Thank you. The only thing that I would mention is that obviously you reserve the right to grant exceptions to whatever you decide upon, but handling things on a case-by-case basis just opens up the city for greater risk, opportunity to challenge any decision to be arbitrary and capricious. And I'm not saying you can't do that or you shouldn't do that, but if you come to a decision to make an exception, you just need to have a clear reason why you're doing it and you need to apply those thoughts and considerations consistently across the board. So that's really the only additional food for thought that I would have.

I would say that the answer to that for me with you is the Schellenberg property. It came back to us. We also had community feedback from Amanda with the seniors. That was how that decision came to be.

Right. Very clear reasoning, though. Exactly. You're obligated. Not arbitrary. Yeah. It has to be consistent.

It can be arbitrary. It's not like, oh, we like to look at it, so it was, yeah. So, I mean, those types of things, those would be the kinds of things that I would be looking for from a legal standpoint when you're considering whether or not to grant an exception. And, you know, I'll speak to them. I think that it's, you know, too close to that impermissible standard, whether I can defend it or not.

We can't only defend it.

We're never going to guarantee it. I can make an argument out of those things.

I appreciate the feedback.

I think that's important.

So the curvilinear road and the creating space to roughen a water softener, we never really got into the discussion on those with WABA or the developer of builders we spoke with. There's just a lot of other things we were trying to work through, and so we kind of left those ones to the side. If that's something you guys feel super passionate about, we can continue some of that dialogue. And Micah, the curvilinear issue, he found a fairly large practical concern with that, if you want to share. Will you share with me?

Oh, yeah, just the design standard. Well, when you have, let's say, six, it's just, when you have repetition, you know, so you have A, B, C, D, you know, let's just say that would be four, A, B, C, D. when you do that repetition ABCD and it said you know basically curvilinear you want to have you don't want to have that repetition you don't want to have it the way it was written is you didn't want to have it again you know within the fifth lot or across the street but the problem was that as soon as you get a cul-de-sac you are going to have it across the street there's nothing around it And that's something that we talked about. If they're going to do all the duplexes up front, then they're going to do A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D. And A, B, C, D is going to do this. And then at some point, you're going to have A across from A, B across from B, A, C across from C, and D across from D. So from a practical perspective, it became very difficult to actually apply the standards once adopted to actually have that non-repetition if we had a curvilinear aspect even. But I think the curvilinear also had to do with designs too, which is breaking up monotony. But it was just the idea that it became technically kind of impractical to apply it. If you say that you can't have A across an A as a design, it's going to happen inevitably. Just by sheer repetition and probability, A is going to be across an A at some point. And then I'm like, well, I can't. you know, then it's done, you know, and then you're stuck. Because if you have A across from A, then there's a high probability that B is across from B, and then you can't have them within that proximity of one another, and then you stop, and then you're like, I can't belong to this plot, and it stops. So that's kind of where we stop. That's, anyway, just kind of the layout concerns I have from a practical perspective. I think also the curvilinear was kind of a design element, which is still, I think we're still, Ryan Peck and I are trying to walk through that because certain plaques are not going to even have curvilinear streets in some aspects. They're going to have gridded or just straight on streets. You're still going to have that aspect of it. Because what if you have, for example, Bridge or Maple, as soon as you drive north on Spring Hill, you head east or west, you're on a straight road, and you're going to have that straight road with your buses.

I think I did read through some of that stuff in Derby standards, because they do have that, they do have that, you know, alternating, but also whatever's across the street can't match, they can't, I mean, I don't know.

I think that Derby made a mistake.

I'm just saying. I think Derby doesn't realize what they're doing.

I just read that and saw that, so. Is there anyone besides Derby that's doing this? Or are they kind of getting right before us?

I don't think Wichita had that in there about the non-repetition. I think when Derby adopted, they didn't actually do a mental mock-up of what a plant would look like. We have lots, A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, and they didn't realize it.

The point here is that we just do not want the monotony of military row home housing. the variety and there are plenty of single family homes that look exactly alike that are across the street from each other. We want neighborhoods and I think by asking for five designs, we're going to get that.

They should be able to find a way to vary it. They could change a roof height. They could make some variance to the floor plan so the one across the street looks different.

You could go with five, A, E. B, C, A, Z.

Let's put the ping pong balls in the hopper and let's pop them out randomly. You might have two next to each other that are the same. Maybe one or two arrows.

But it's just some random. If you're okay with some variety that's interspersed, but you don't mind if B and B are touching, or A is within three lots of A.

Well, yeah, because right now it's written that you can't have a repeating one within five lots. Yeah.

So you would have to go from A all the way to the alphabet and get back to A. That's right. Yeah. We can soften the language to make it say something where you must make every effort to, or something like that. That way there's some tolerance where the community development director or planner can...

try to achieve the outcome we're just saying three because they still have to have softening the language gives us what to pull back on

Softening language simply means that you're allowed to have a mix of the repetition, that you're going to have five design standards, but those five design standards is A, B, C, D, E, but E and E can touch on one case maybe in some rare instances, or E can be across from E, or A can be across from A, but if I can't do that, and they have to be within five blocks of each other, that process becomes mathematically and practically impossible. that's fine but also if you allow it to be across the street at some point when you hit that curve on the other side you're going to be across the street from it but not if you can split block

A, B, C, A, D, B, A. You've got a lot more flexibility. I feel like we can probably leave it to Micah

this meets the intent or it doesn't. Like I feel like we're really looking at Micah a lot. Like I think if we just say we have to have five different design standards and let Micah like run with it, like he understands what we're trying to avoid and what we're trying to say. And when you do stuff like that, he's going to be like, give that a little bit, because the council's going to be like, nope.

I think the point of even just putting two in there, because I don't think you're logging anywhere, but God forbid you weren't here tomorrow, we don't know that the next person's going to do as good of a job as you do.

What I'll probably do is, the plan requires a single family and two families to be identified. I will probably require not only a one and a two to indicate one single family and two families, but an A, B, C, D, and D. Because that way you can see the ABCDE and then you guys can make a determination to find the criteria that you're looking for. Because then you'll feel like it's very important. Let's not make it too hard.

Let's not make it too hard and let Micah just do his job.

I think Derby made a mistake. You guys also don't want to have to legislate every single development. We have staff and we have policies. That's why we're doing this. Exactly.

I think the standard is the standard. Like, write it how you need to and make it work, Micah, and then we're just going to trust you to make it look good. I know you don't. I trust you.

You got this. Okay, so for the repetition, are we taking that word out? I was going to say that we have a lot. Reduce it to two lots. I can work with that.

The water software? Can we just require that they leave enough space for a water software install? Not that they have to install themselves.

That was what we were... Yeah.

They don't have to install it, but they have to leave a space for it.

Yeah. It's Goddard. Oh, I think that's asking too much.

Sorry.

Even if it's the garage.

I don't...

It can be the garage. It would freeze.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Well, what do you think?

I think in a slide-on grade, it's hard to find a place for one, which is why you don't see them.

Well, they do have a new kind of water softener that's changed. It doesn't require salt. And that's the biggest part. I don't know.

I don't want to answer that.

It's called water softener. Don't quote me on this because I don't know how this came out, but I feel like Dan Bunker and Bruce Smith are in those houses. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking of, but I think, like, the laundry room, he's not, but you could do a stackable washer and dryer and make room for it there. So maybe it's just having the option.

Yeah, because water is even more important. Because water could be running all over the second house.

I think he had it in his office.

All I'm saying is...

If it's not there, then it's... Yeah, something else is...

Well, I mean, I think it's a goal of our community to have a treatment plan in the relatively near future, and now we've required everyone to have a water stopper. Some people may say, I don't want one because I can't call the salt. I have no means of doing it. I don't want the expense of the salt.

I think that's the other thing that we have to consider, too. Everybody who lives in here isn't going to have the means necessarily to do the upkeep on that.

I don't think we require having it. I understand also, like, how do you leave space for it, but just being

Build the water treatment plant.

Build the water treatment plant.

We only have to build the water treatment plant for us. There are 13 things that kill your city, and one being? Water. We've got water quantity under control. We just need to grow to a size where we can afford to do the water quality things. I accept.

I got one other question and I just have to go back to it because of what Ryan was saying about exceptions is if somebody had one city lot here in town and they wanted to build a duplex on it, This would apply to them in some ways, though, right? No. No? Okay. And why not?

Because they have to rezone it. If they don't need to rezone it, then they're... Well, yeah, what if they do have to rezone it from R1 to R2? Then you would probably sway the provisions of the resolution.

But they'd have to bring it before us?

Yeah, well, if a rezoning's happening, you're going to have to prove the rezoning anyway. Okay. And then you would simply say that we are not requiring this restrictive covenant to be applied to that property.

I'm just trying to think of like the extreme, the one. The intent of this is not for that scenario.

Anything that's already rezoned or already constructed and then rebuilt. Yeah, you're not going to be able to do anything.

Yeah, a single lot, that's kind of where mine should be. you would just simply say the resolution resolution when it's adopted it doesn't apply immediately we would then require them to have a restrictive covenant applied to that property you would simply say we're not requiring you to have this restricted

It does create a small concern for me with infill opportunity. We have some three-acre tracks over there by the car wash. That would be an amazing place for townhomes that should be zoned R4. We're not going to make them do two single-family homes and four townhomes there. I do struggle with that to some degree. I think it could have been, I think that it could be wise to put up a size limitation on it.

Well, we did talk about the size at one point.

I feel like whatever number we would come up with would be arbitrary. That's my issue with that. Maybe it's a conversation about infill, that this is an infill.

I think there's too many wadds, which then again... the argument could be the intent of this was not to

I think when you see it on a case-by-case situation, since you have to approve your ordinance for rezoning, you'll simply say it doesn't apply in this particular case.

And you trust that if you're bringing it in front of us and saying that you think it's fine, that it's probably fine.

Oh, I'll let you make that determination. You're going to say I'm a rezoning, because I have to.

No, I know, but I mean, you're pretty honest about it. Yeah.

We'll get this fixed up for you guys and send it out tomorrow, because we're off Friday. It'll be a busy day tomorrow.

So do we need to make a motion to do that?

You don't need a motion. No, we would just simply receive the file. If you want to make a motion.

We received it. It's in my paper file here. We're recording this.

It's on film.

No, file nine. We'll get it all put in and sent out to you guys tomorrow. Or the X-files. Maybe just...

Give us some feedback based on what you heard from us tonight and what we're looking at doing with the edits. Did you feel confident as a staff that we're equipping you with reasonable restrictions?

I can apply what you want. You're going to get a mix. You're definitely going to get a lot of people asking for waivers of the resolution. You're going to get a lot of that. But what you're going to do is you're going to get a lot of developers saying, okay, what did you guys adopt? And we're going to send this out once it's adopted to them. And they're going to go, do I want to do this or do I want to go to Wichita? Some of them are just going to go to Wichita. Maybe that's what you guys want and that's okay. Then you're going to get some developers going, I feel like I can do this. And then they're going to get the engineering firm and they're going to be like, this is a little tough. I don't know how many of these lots I can do. And they're going to come ask you for provisions. to waive portions of the resolution. You're going to see that. And then you're going to see some people who are like, well, I can't buy all of this. And that's what we're going to do. So you're going to see a mix of everything. But you're definitely going to see people asking for provisions of the resolution being waived.

But you were pretty honest about the way you structured scattering the different types. I mean, as far as everything else here, do you think that it's realistic?

Overall, I do. I think I can apply what's being asked of me. I think the tough one, the only thing that was kind of left up in the air, I still think I'd have a hard time with the window aspect of it. Based on what Travis Whistler showed, those six examples, that's the only one that I'm like, okay, is this transom enough to justify that? Do I feel like that's enough? of a window to justify that provision. That's the only part where I might have some, I might talk with Ryan and Craig about that. And they sent me four or five designs. And I'm looking at them like, that's easy. We saw some from Travis Whistler. There was two that he showed me that I was like, that's easy. There was three that I was like...

But those turn out also the ones that I don't think are going to need a lot of other things.

That's right. This doesn't apply to those. They've already been entitled. But those are the ones they want to continue to... Maybe, but he will have a long runway to modify his floor plan or find something else that fits this. I think that what we did tonight and the... The way that we have worked with our building development community will be very well appreciated. I think it's going to be well received. I think your willingness to move off center and compromise on some of this stuff should be thought of highly. And I anticipate, because we've had investors and developers telling us, back since May, we're waiting on you to adopt this so we can move forward. I think it's going to be good. And I hope the community appreciates, too, the thought and time and effort you guys put into representing, you know, their interests as it relates to this. Because we have all gotten a lot of sentiment from them over the years, and I'm much warranted as well with that. There are cities all over the place who require you to submit pre-approved bill plans. This isn't a whole lot different than that. I think we may be a little excited about that opportunity.

I just go back to the Walgreens sentiment in the firms that we spoke to. I'm not going to. I think we should have a nice Walgreens.

I just think about those things.

I know that there was a comment made about all the tin buildings on Kellogg and all of those things happened before we came, but that doesn't mean that we have to continue in that vein. And, you know, we are just trying to build something that will last for generations.

We want our members to come in and go, well, that is beautiful. Or pull up for a Walgreens at 4 a.m. and not be fearful of getting out of their car. So I think that that's... No, we're not getting a Walgreens.

Maybe. In everybody's way.

Yeah. I'm going to get CVS.

Thank you. Okay, let's move along here. So this is also in line with the I-1. So the I-2 is our fourth region growth zone overlay district. So a quick background. We did talk about this during the joint workshop last year in August 27th about the future overlay district. Basically, it's defining an area that we feel, that council collectively would feel favorable towards if people are submitting rezoning applications that they would be more inclined to approve it. Not just automatically approve it, because we can't do that legally, obviously, but feel more inclined to approve it. And also that possibility of, if this was adopted, this overlay district, that, correct me if I'm wrong, correct me if I'm wrong, that the provisions that we just discussed in I-1 may not apply in I-2 because if it did apply in I-2, they would simply go across the street to Wichita. And so to prevent that and still get the revenue, we'd simply say that the I-2 that we just, I-1 that we just discussed about maybe wouldn't apply in I-2. It doesn't automatically give you car wash for a reason. We still have to look at that process, but you'd feel more inclined and favorable towards approving those if that were in that specific area. I know two council members, I guess you guys saw that video. So this is something that we discussed. I'm not going to go through all the analysis. I'm just going to jump straight to this. You guys saw, some of you saw this last year, but this is us in 2000. We were shot at Green Bay. We were shot at Blooming and Donner. So this is our area. At 2025, this is the area. And we projected, based on growth trends, what was a reasonable extension of Wichita into 2050. What would the next 25 years look like? And we did a sort of methodological projection based on reasonable trends and growth elements. So we said that's maybe what Wichita would look like by 2050, if we didn't grow, obviously. So, and there's some provisions in there.

This is missing Rachel Burke Estates too, because we talked about this before.

And it is obviously not there, Rachel Brooks. So I threw those in, so you'll see it here. So you threw it in there, but that's the strategic gross on the purple. The purple is saying, hey, green is wished off currently, blue is goddard currently. Purple's a strategic growth area. We can't say that zoning's automatically applied in that area. We've determined that with attorneys, that's not allowed. But we said, hypothetically, if a developer picked a spot in the purple, especially one that's closer to us, and they wanted to rezone it, and they want to rezone it for duplexes, we felt that maybe it would be reasonable to simply waive the provisions of what we had just discussed in that area so they don't just go across to Wichita and do it now you have those duplexes right across the street.

You're still driving by them every day and they're a part of your community, but you have none of the benefit of it, which we already have at least two examples of that now. I'd argue we have even more of it as you look further east on Kellogg.

So there's two parts to that. One is looking favorably about future rezoning in those areas and also considering the possibility of not imposing the resolution of the design standards and everything else in that area. So those are the two parts of the strategic growth.

So, the purple areas that are west of 167th is not already, those are unincorporated?

Unincorporated, yeah. Everything in purple and everything white is unincorporated in seven counties. Except of course, guard planes for everyone else, but basically we're looking at Goddard and Wichita. We're not concerned about Grand Canyon.

And you're not coming all the way to 183rd, you're coming to... Yeah, we're about halfway between 167th and 183rd.

It's the half mile line between 167th and 183rd.

And then everything east of that.

Maybe you see the 167th street development in Palooza. That kind of gives you a good idea.

And Pawnee.

Just for understanding, what drove this versus going a little further south and north? of Goddard as well? Like, what was the deciding factor and why?

It becomes financially uneconomical to go that far out. Now, it may be a different conversation in 50 years, but...

Right, right.

Yeah, we wouldn't have heard developers say, well, this is perfect, we're going to buy this, and we know Goddard's one of the favorite playbots in rezoning, so let's do this. And then we're like, well, now we have to drag water and sewer, you know, a mile to run with it.

I'm also curious, the MacArthur feasts, those are east.

That is, the reason we like that is, well, there's a couple of reasons, but if you look at that area compared to the area further north, look how much more unsubdivided those tracts of ground are. You got bigger tracts of unsubdivided rural land, 80, 150 acres plus. on many of those and it would be easier for us to unilaterally annex some of those as well because of how far away our neighbor cities are compared to us. But you can see one of the reasons it's just the way it is is because the higher value land that's developing more quickly is further north. There's going to be more unincorporated area to the south.

And in that north area, there is an overlay for the expressway.

And that's kind of... You can actually see a bush on the right here.

So the purple, none of it is annexed into Wichita or into Goddard. And so you're saying if developers come to us in these areas, potentially we would be more favorable toward it.

You're simply kind of making a statement. That's all you can really do with that overlay because you can't, like I said, you can't say, yes, we will, we shall grant a dollar point. We can't do that. So, because you have to go through the process. And so you're simply saying we are looking, we are more favorably inclined towards a rezoning in this area as a statement.

To rezone it and not apply all of the covenant.

Correct. More market driven approach. Even with that being said, developers, obviously if they buy this, let's say, they can still go to Wichita. It's not like they have to come to us. That guarantees that.

Well, I mean, to your point, if they go up in that corner and nothing, we would have to supply everything to that point and we would have to do that down here too.

We're getting a little closer to the north than you think with some of the stuff coming in the pike. I mean, we're already a half section or half mile line from the next section north of Central.

um on 167th and there's opportunities in the works that could further that alone 21st really not far away and we're always considering i know that you are this is probably a really dumb question but i'm going to ask it so you're we're always considering like do we not want any resources if we were to stand out

like as we expand out and if we were to through these we were thinking about the resources yeah the city is very well positioned because of the decisions of this governing body over the last three years to invest in our water distribution our water supply we are very far along on the planning process for our new well for the ground we bought that's another 140 million gallons of water We've got our Rural Water District 4 pump station. We're actually going to be bringing you guys some work from Burns and Mack, our engineering firm that we've been working with on this. That's discussing our water reuse future plan. We're budgeting for 2027 to begin the 10-year CIP specifically for sewer and water reuse. which also includes treatment to soften the water. So we're being very forward-thinking with all of us to prepare for these opportunities. We want to be well positioned to be able to say, yeah, we can serve you when they come.

And there's conversations maybe

would the county write to make sure that the fire department could continue to serve or if they would have to I know that that's not a city problem so taking it this way every time we add a rooftop there's another person who is paying property taxes toward the fire district so they're going to their revenues are going to grow and they're going to be able to expand their service as a service demand increases just like we are And as you know, likely they've been having a lot of conversations about making some changes that would make them have even more resources to better serve the county.

The fire department in the past, they're in favor of us growing. Because when we grow, they're protected. When Wichita grows, they're not. Every track of land that goes to Wichita, they have no fire department. So they gave me a long, very sad story in 2021. about protecting their young and up-and-coming firemen and hope the city will continue to grow. This is the county fire department. Right, we're a part of that.

Yeah, but Westside's got their own fire department, so they're all in favor of us growing.

We're super blessed to have that combo facility in town. It's a nice facility.

I think that anytime that we can grow in this way, like, yes, God, we want to protect and make sure that we have nice things, but if it's a matter of if Wichita's going to be able to grow in their tax base before we get it, I think that's just a no-brainer because the more people that are getting taxes,

I think if the sentiment of the group is to move forward with the overlay district we mentioned in some of our correspondence with you kind of what that timeline looks like I do think to accommodate some of the concerns that our city attorney shared just about If we were to waive the provisions of the design standards for everything in the growth zone, something that would make me feel more comfortable is maybe if we created a new zone class that allows for how our tubes already allow the day without the restrictive covenant. That would be just applied to the strategic growth overlay area. That's the beauty of the comp plan process we're going through right now is we kind of worked through some of that and kind of drawn the map where we think certain types of land uses are appropriate. So, but I think doing the growth zone overlay now just sends out that signal that we need to be sending immediately as we kind of work through maybe looking at a new zoning class and looking at how we're mapping that land use in our community to the comp plan process.

It's just disgusting that if we're going to offer something different in this, that we keep a few of the standards.

Maybe you just get rid of the ratio, but you keep the standards. I mean, you guys can handle it how you want.

We want to grow. I want to be very careful about how we handle that, but I don't know that waving all of that is the answer either. I would agree with maybe it's on class.

Well, I know the conversation that we had in that meeting, because I went back and watched it today, we had Ginger come and speak to us about all different types of housing in R4. you know there were like actual live work play things you know concepts where you know you had duplexes and triplexes and quadplexes but then you also within those communities you had like retail spaces and that kind of stuff like all of that fits within the r4 concept right

Yeah, generally. Sounds more like a PED when you throw in the commercial aspect. Just keep in mind, I have said this a lot of times, you've got to have that trifecta marriage of the developer, the lender, and the landowner coming together. The market's got to be there. I'm going back and forth, and I know our community development staff are right now with the person who hired into our housing study. We have these grandiose ideas of the type of housing that all of our research says we want, we should have, but we also have to... resonate with the principles that while we want all those things and it's great, we still have to have that marriage between lender-developer and landowner, and they have to be able to absorb those properties, no matter what the land use is.

So the thing, Amanda, that, I mean, with regard to this specific area, if we are not favorable for an adjustment like this, Wichita is, and whether we do it or...