Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Absolutely. quiet the same time. All right, the chair at your leisure.

All right, we'll follow you 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. Dear heavenly father be with us be with us this evening as we do the business for the city and the community in Jesus name we pray. Amen. So the item see this is approval of agendas. This is the approval agenda for today January 12th 2026. I'll move to approve the agenda for January 12, 2026.

Second. All in favor? I very good. So item since this is comments at this point we allow anybody who wishes to to speak on any item they feel necessary or allow three minutes and say the first and last name of where they reside. Um I believe everybody here is for agenda items unless any of the council members or former clinic commissioners wish to speak. Go ahead. Come on. Mr. Chair post this as comments. We'll we'll open them and we'll close them.

Very good. This is it I consent agenda. This is the approved of minutes from December 8th, 2025. Just a refresher, we had an agenda layout modification which you are seeing today and light industrial facade um changes to the Evansville company discussion and about core and common and the comprehensive plan update review. So that's just how we view the minutes from December. I did have one correction. I I was not here for the December. Very good. Looks like there probably smoke in there. Make that correction.

So I ask for an approval with that correction to remove Commissioner Milligan from the minutes. Somehow it's stuck in there. I'll move to approve minutes of December 8, 2025. Second. All in favor? I

very good. Item F old business. There is none. G new business. This is G1 planning commission voting on chair and vice chair. So according to the planning commission bylaw position of chair vice chair must be decided by the decision of the planning commission annually. This is done by selected individuals from up to existing planning commission members. Uh according to page one of planning commission bylaws which is adopted in December the 10th of 2015 which is amended February 7th 2022 with ordinance 883 the new planning commission shall organize the annual the first regular meeting after the annual appointment of new members which is normally the first city council at December. Commissioners are appointed the mayor and confirmed by city council a term of three years staggered basis approximately one third of commission report each year. The commission shall elect chairperson and vice chair person person from among the appointed members at the annual organization meeting. The officer shall serve for one year. So planning commission chair and vice chair serves for a year and you guys vote on them. So at this point, Danny, I would ask that you switch over to the monday.com and I would ask that planning commissioners feel free. You guys should have gotten a link to monday.com only to you. Please vote on chair and vice chair. the chair first. I want to see chair first.

Thank you. There we go.

Let's see. How many votes? Five. Missing two votes. There we go. So, congratulations, Jamie Coin. You are chair for another year. And please switch to vice chair. That's still chair. Vice chair. One more. That's still chair. Vice chair. One more. There you go. All right. Ryan Walker, congratulations. You are vice chair for another year. So, would you guys feel comfortable in serving for another year as vice chair and chair? Congratulations. Thank you very much. All right. Switch back to the PowerPoint and continue on. Your just So we are recording the vote down by the planning commission now G2. This is the primary flat for the public works building addition. So cities in the process of plotting land north of the wastewater treatment plant anticipation building a new public works building a new police station. Is anticipated that the public works building will be finished this year in December with a police station being finished sometime in the future. The land is being platted as owned by the city but since it is unplatted needs to go through the formal platting process with a preliminary and a final plat. This item is for review of the preliminary plot with the final plat on a separate agenda item. So plan a preliminary plan for the teacher public works building and police station acres are around 18.85 square ft is around 821,000. There is a FEMA flood plane in that area which is being taken into account by our city engineer. Energy has easements recorded are reflected on the plat in that area with overhead power lines and due to the amount of impervious surface city will have to install detention ponds for storm water. So this is the area that's being platted. this purplish area over here. This is 199. This dash line, this is our city limit. So, we're right on the edge there. Wastewater treatment plant is right down here. This is an energy substation right over there.

So, this is the preliminary plat. As you can see, there's a FEMA flood plane that cuts over there on the northwest corner. We are calling out detention areas on the southeast corner over here and on the northeast corner to have detention for the amount of impervious surface that we're introducing which will exceed 1 acre. These are the drainage plan. This is a drainage plan put together by Ced. We do have Har as city engineer. He is president. If you guys don't have any questions for him, the city attorney will have to sign a flat for KSA 12-41 and is recommended by a motion to approve the plumbing plat for the bottom public works edition. We also have Jason Collie. He's our new public works director over here. We have Greg Cross. I think he's our city administrator as well. And Harlon as mentioned. So Har, do you want to come speak? Very good.

Yeah. Green for the arrow.

Okay. Okay. Um, good evening, Mr. Chairman and and council members, commissioner members. I'm Harland 4acre with certified engineering design and uh we've been asked by uh Hutton Construction to help them with the civil portions of the gutd public works project and so then uh it was just uh also requested to uh uh prepare the preliminary and final plat for the gutd public works. So feel free to ask me any questions with regard to uh the development as as Micah has mentioned there but consisting of just two lots. Uh we do have the drainage plan shown there and uh as you can see there is the flood plane here and then we're uh we're uh controlling the storm water discharge by the implementation of two detention ponds. one here to handle the present uh proposed uh public works building and then this detention pond to handle the future police station which is uh in general in this area. Um I will say we did get a little uh feedback today from EverGee. Just today we got a letter saying that they would like us to maybe adjust uh a couple of the um utility easements so that we're not within I think 25 ft of any of their structures. I think that is something that we can accommodate. We'll be visiting with uh uh Hutton and the future utilities cuz we're needing to extend water and then possibly gas and then uh communications obviously from 199th into the site. Those utilities are coming in down in this area. Uh and then there will be also an access drive here with utility easements on that side. But I don't think it's anything insurmountable. uh it would be something that we just they've given us a contact person that we need to speak with to kind of work through the details of that. So um that would be one item that uh the plat would need to be uh if you were so inclined to

approve the plat would need to be conditional approval given uh for us to work out those utility easements before we would obviously bring it back to Micah for final review and before it could proceed or anything like that. So there is a a bit of a uh method for checking to make sure that we get that implemented uh as requested. I don't know that we've had any other comments from any utilities and and like I say, this one just came in a little bit late today and uh we we can certainly we've already been talking and notified Hutton and we think we can take care of it. They have been visiting with EverGy and about some other uses like what can we do underneath their overhead power lines and that sort of thing and there's really been no restrictions there. They just want us to keep any future utilities away from their um tower poles that they have out there. So, um that pretty much hits the high points of anything that might be um I guess controversial perhaps about this, but um we we are working with Hutton and the and the site plan and you'll be seeing the site plan probably very soon, maybe in February

perhaps so for the for the public works building so that you can review and comment on that. But this is kind of the first step to getting the the plat rolling so that we can get it on down the road a little bit ahead of the site plan. So, uh I'd be happy to try and answer any questions that you might have on the plat. Um and uh if if uh there's any other information I need to provide, I'd be happy to do so. So, where's your uh retention ponds to? They're bringing to the north. Uh the the city this is the city lagoon. How do I get back to the mind of the tunnel?

Okay. Um, might go one more. Can we go? Oh, well. Okay. I'm sorry. Go back to that one. Maybe it's Danny. You're the one. You're the the I'm thinking there's a gremlin in here. Uh, here is the uh here's the one the catchin pond. And here's the other one. And they will be draining onto city property and into the drainage way. The drainage currently comes up the west side of the lagoons. There's a a fairly significant drainage ditch and then it curves like this and up along the west side and then into a natural uh drainage way that discharges from the property. I don't know right about here. That's also where the lagoons and discharge and the wastewater treatment plant. So, we'll be we'll be taking the water onto GodD property

cuz they're going to put in a lot of black top and there ain't going to be any right anything. Right. We're going to collect that. We're going to collect that. We already have calculations here. We're going to collect that that increase in runoff and then we will uh meter it down to a level at or below. We actually try to try to be uh a little conservative and actually restrict the flow a little bit so that we can say that we're actually uh discharging it at a lower rate and that's how we prevent uh downstream issues is by restricting the flow from those detention ponds. Thank you.

So lot lot two is the public works building and then lot one would be the future police station. Yes. Yeah, lot lot two will be totally contained or the public works will be totally it's positioned roughly in this area is where the building is because current salt storage is over in this area for the salt storage facility that we Jason your public works director just recently completed so the police station isn't designed yet right how

there's there's a general footprint um and that that aligns roughly with the from north or from east to west its front will typically line up with the God public works building but other than just a concept footprint it hasn't been no further work has been performed on that so I guess are but we're plotting the land we're doing the plot for the police station so when you're when you're assuming for the drainage ement are you just assuming the entire lot is paved and that's how you're

well I I think we have a footprint of the building to get an idea of how many square foot. Obviously, I think it would be a little bit of an overkill to to assume the whole lot's going to be paid, but yes, we've had to make a little bit of an estimation as to uh the amount of impervious area that we might be adding. Uh but with that footprint and and there might even be an outline of the parking uh that might come up you might be able that that might be presented maybe in February when the when this site plan comes for public works you might be able to see that but that's the basis for how we make the calculation of of of uh develop runoff in that case. Thank you. So, I think that's all I have. I'll be happy to answer any further questions if they come up. So, if I understood correctly, we can still vote tonight, but it's going to come up again because it's changing.

Oh, okay. No, we're asking you guys just approve it and then if any changes happen, we just correct them administratively. If these need a shift, we'll just shift them. And then when Jamie, since he needs a new chair, obviously he would come in and sign the mile already, he would see, oh, these have shifted a little bit if necessary. And if we in the future, which I don't anticipate us repling this again, there's the police station we go in, I think Harland's done a pretty good job of calculating what he believes is reasonable with Kirby surface calculation. If it came out that it was grossly over, then maybe we would consider doing maybe a separate instrument to increase the size or maybe reglier if we had to for the retention pond to take into account the amount of the per surface but I don't anticipate that so we're just asking you guys to approve it as is and then we would carry it forward and any administrative changes that happen in between now and the myar with the ch signing it that we house

were there any changes to the energy poles that are running through No we're going to leave them no we're not changing any of that they're existing structures Yeah, they're pretty particular about that. So, they don't want us they want to stay in 25 ft away from their structures, their towers and that sort of thing with any improvements that we're proposing. Appreciate that.

Yeah, they're pretty massive structures. So, they're pretty strict, but they do have dedicated ements on the plat. We're not we're not vacating any of those easements. So, recording them as is. All good. Anything over here? All right. For a motion before

I'll make a motion to approve that the preliminary plan. I'll second it. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Very good. This is G3. This would be the same thing except the final plat. So once again, cities in the process of flooding north uh of the wastewater treatment plant. It's 18.85. This is the cleaned up final plat. So this is what the county sees when they record it. And this is what you if you were the chair and you guys are always welcome to come see the myar. It's a big kind of plastic sheet that's rolled out. it's reported um and the chair would sign it and I sign it. The mayor signs it and this is what it would look like when it goes before the county. So all the contours and any building footprints and any other some erroneous it's not necessarily erroneous. It's good for us to take a look at but any additional information is get scraped off and this is the final this is what was reported. And Mike, I might just suggest I mean if uh if they're so inclined and would uh like to approve the final plat subject to your you know review and approval of any utility easement adjustments.

Sure. That that certainly be a good condition I think to have on any approval they might give. So there you go. I'll make a motion to approve that final plat. I'll second it. Contingent upon any final considerations for average contingent upon any achievement considerations considerations with every still. All in favor? I I any opposed? Very good. Very much. This is item G4. You're welcome to stay if you want or Yeah. I don't know. I'm interested I'm interested in the

seeing the rest of the city new developments.

We do appreciate that. This is GeForce. This is the plary for the daughter North Park. So, the city's in the process of reflotting North Park land accommodate for boundary line changes required to manage a detention pond at the center of the park. Discussions with the engineering in the city led to the decision that would be best to reflect to be approved by the planning commission before the final cut is shown to the city council for final. So, pl commissioners reviewed a preliminary reflat for the future north park development. It's around 9.2 acres. It's about 400 square f feet. There is a PEMA flood plane that runs to the center of the land. And this is it. So, this replat, we're going to have to have this property owner and this property sign as well. And the mayor is also going to have to sign it um as a representative of the city, both in the position of mayor, but also as the applicant because he's the highest elected official. So, he's got to sign it twice. We also, of course, have the city attorney sign it. The chair is going to sign it. I'm going to sign it. Everyone basically signs it. And this is that flood plan which is going to be in the center as mentioned. But it's the big point of the recloud is really to capture additional land around the edge of the pond to maintain it more effectively. This is kind of what it looks like. So you can see the white is where the parcel lines were platted at. It's a previous flat that was done in 2020. We are generally amending it around this to capture more of the pond. So we are getting more land from these property owners with the exception of this portion over here. we're dedicating more land to this particular property owner because they I believe and correct correct me if I'm wrong that they didn't want money, they wanted additional land. So, we're swapping them some additional land to give to them um in return for more land that we can use to maintain that detention pond.

We've closed on that when I get done. Great. So, leave consideration sign for KA 1241 as well. There any property owners recommend planning commission approve plary refer north park second edition. Are there any questions related to this item?

The dash line that's going kind of all the way around the pond and then continues to the north. This one over here, this dash line, that's the that's the flood line. Okay. Oh, that's okay. Yeah, it's kind of hard to see, but you have a solid line kind of in general improvement area. And then you have a cladded line, which is a solid line that's a lighter color. And you have a dash line, which shows the floodway. And you can see up here that that floodway comes over here from the north side. The water run down to the northeast corner. This is running into that one. Yeah, generally it's flowing up to the north and into bridge. Okay. And where does it go from there?

There's the tension problem in upridge. I don't know where it goes from there. It keeps going up further north and then eventually loops back into the cow skin. Um it kind of Yeah. Three left to make a right basically. Okay. about the addition to the east of there when it starts. Where's that water going to go? Do you have any idea? Spring Hill. Huh? Same place. No. Spring Hill has an oversized detention pond and it's capturing the Willow Development. So, the Willow development, which is going to be east of the park, which is going to be over here.

Yeah. when it drains, it'll drain to the south to that detention pond that was oversized in Spring Hill in anticipation of that land being developed. And that pond was oversized in anticipation of that willow development being commercial. So, it's it's been really oversized, anticipating more surface than what's being introduced for the willow development. What about the one to the to the north? The northeast is going to have its own detention ponds and that water flows to the north. So the water that's being captured there when it's discharged, it's going to discharge, I believe, around 133rd and head north. But it's going to have different discharge points as well. It also has a female flood plane. So everyone has to work around the FEMA flood plane right now.

Okay. Can you go back one side to the change in The yellow I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plan for Goddard North Park.

Second. All in favor? I opposed. And this is G5 which is the final CL for God North Park. This is the one that like I said would go before city council for final approval and then reported with the county. Same all the additional data has been removed. So now city will have to sign it. It is recommended by commission approve the final refl second edition. I'll make a motion to approve the final reflat of God North Park. I'll second it. All in favor?

I oppose.

Very good. This is G6. This is the preliminary reflat city center third edition. So we're replatting basically all of G. So this is B company application to replplat a portion of Lance run the Casey's general store. this in order to consolidate the land on a one parcel number for the development of a light industrial district as well as to establish necessary retention ponds and easements for the site. Developer would like to build flex space in this area starting now with two 24,000t buildings followed by more buildings in the future. The road called Traymont Street to the south of Casey's will be a private drive after Traymont ends. Once Traymont ends, from then on it'll be considered a private drive. It'll be owned and managed and maintained by the developer. Traymont, that stretch of Traymont though is going to be publicly dedicated. So what you see out there right now, we have those end of street signs right there next to Casey's, that's all public. Once you leave those signs and it gets paid after that, it'll be considered private. Easements have been called out on the platform water and seal, which will be dedicated to city, but future easements will have to become the city through separate entry as buildings are built due to its scale. So it's one big lot. They've anticipated two buildings currently, maybe a third one they're in anticipation of. The easements have been put into place in anticipation of those two buildings, but they don't know where they're going to put the future buildings if they continue to develop in that area and how they're going to be oriented. So, with that being said, they're asking for the whole thing to be platted. And then they're going to introduce easements down the road, maybe in 2027, 2028, by what's called separate instrument, where they hire Bothman to draft a legal description saying, "Hey, this easement is going to run across the land to this building, this future building, which we don't know where it's at right now." So that's why what you're going to see now is going to have some easements on it, but they're going to have to ask for additional easements in the future. The 8 million are around 29.49. One lot it's around 12 million or sorry, 1.2 2 million square ft. It's currently zone PED and CG general business. Um, as mentioned, we changed

the layout of the agenda packet. So, you will see a resoning. It's just at the very end of today, tonight's meeting, not at the beginning. The future proposed zoning is L2, which is light industrial. There is a FEMA flood plane, excuse me, I2, which is going to be light industrial, but there's FEMA flood plane that runs through the center of the land. This is what it looks like on the preliminary side, and you will see the final after this one. I will mention that this is Casey's. They're not buying this lot here. This is still going to be owned by Ben Healing developer. All the rest of it from the pipeline north is going to be owned by building company. This on the southern portion here is a separate developer. Legally approved as a form. It is recommended commission approved preliminary ref. And Bman is here to answer any questions related to this project. And then this is one easement, right? Not three separate ones.

This is one big re plat with separate. Sorry. Yes. And there's additional easements that they're introducing on it. And like I said, in the future, if they did build a new building like around this area, let's say, but they're not exactly sure where. Maybe it'll look this way or this way. They're not 100% sure. So introducing these at a later date makes more sense than trying to put them on now and then have to vacate them and then put them somewhere else later. So that's why we're doing it this way. We do have the developer here if you guys do have any questions. This new it covers that house and shed that's I guess south of Casey's part of it.

Yes, that's Would that be I guess that would be removed? It is. You're going to actually do you guys want to speak on that? Yeah. You will notice that there is an attention reserve area right here with that shed there. So, that's not going to be like a buoy that's going to have to go away. If you want to talk about that, please. Um, yeah. So, not going to be a little gazebo feature or anything there. Um, for the record, Thomas Joyce with Boston Company agent on behalf of the applicant here. Um, yeah. So, that's that's where our dension pond's going to go. Um, so that will have to get uh removed before we can start digging there. I appreciate it. I was looking at it. I was like, I think that covers the house. Thank you,

Thomas. Do you want to talk about detention? I know that's a big concern. We was speaking with Pat Bower at Bothman. He said in anticipation of this development, they oversize the detention pond assuming that there's going to be a lot of impervious surface. So anticipation of that, they oversize that detention plan assuming that the majority of it's going to be impervious because not only you going to have buildings, but you're going to have the parking lots to accommodate the buildings. And so do you want to speak on that at all a little bit?

Yeah, just general rule of thumb, the higher use you go in zoning, so going up from commercial into glide industrial, we anticipate more impervious surfaces. And so this detention area has been oversized to accommodate that heavier use of of impervious surface. And I did ask Bofman if that impervious surface and that detention pond takes into account Casey's and they said yes. They are capturing the storm water runoff from Casey's impervious surface as well. Where does that water go?

I think it's going to be Oh, yes. They're going to what they call sheet spread it south across that natural flowway across that pipeline ement onto the south. So the water currently does flow south. They are capturing it and they are metering out as Harlon had mentioned but it is instead of metering out through a weir where it's concentrated at one point it's a 16 ft weir almost like I don't know what you would call like a big waterfall overflow area that's just going to sheath out across the land to the south so they are detaining it and it will improve that area and instead of having a concentrated one which might shoot across the land and have maybe a furrow it's going to be discharged it's going to head toward towards the

the trail. It would hit the trail. Yeah. It's currently heading towards the trail now, which is where it all heads today. Yeah. But it's most of it's soaking in right now. Right. Buildings of black top. Right. And so that's why they're overdetaining this because this will actually capture more of it, detain it, and then meter it out over time as it fills up. Is there a structure across the trail? Are you like a box? No. Pat is just there's a at the trail itself there's a large box under there a half mile. Yeah. Yeah. It's a big size box, right?

And and can you share is it uh where where are the first two buildings going if you could just share that? I know that's part of site plan, but yeah, they're they're going um kind of it's going to be easier for me to just walk over. Oh, no. Um, there I missed that. I dropped it forward. Spoiler alert. So, looking at the um grading plane here, I mean, it looks like the reserve A is near the the high point of the lot. Is that is that really where the pond's going to go?

Um, yes. Um, it's not quite the high point, but I get what you're saying. And part of the reason is we're going to need excess dirt to be able to build up our building sites. Um, so there just kind of, you know, that's kind of where we've we've worked it out. Our our engineers have worked out the best location. And by putting it there, we do get access to dirt to be able to build up our pad sites to the elevation they need to be. Is that so? Even though this is kind of a plan, hey, there's a lot of a lot of room to grow in the future, the pond gets put in as part of the first aid. Yes. So, you're going to be taking the top of the hill off is what you're insinuating, right?

And and the house. Yeah. Okay. Is there any need to have any kind of access easement recorded going back to where these buildings are?

No. With them being just one big lot um and with it being um one owner, it it's um similar in a sense if this were a big um Walmart depot, there's not an access easement from the front to get to the back of the store. Um, it's kind of one day owner, one day lot. Yeah, take that. Thank you. Will there be other driveways along onto 183rd or will does everything come in from the the platted street that's there? I think they wanted a spot over here in the future.

Yeah, we've got some access controls there that line up with Walmart. So, we're not going to add any traffic conflicts. We're going to match up with what Walmart is doing already today. Um and then kind of some of the rest of that to the north is a little bit controlled by chaot. Um so kind of working with them and and seeing what we could do, right? There might be one right there in that whatever that lot is. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So that that opening was platted with Goddard City Center second edition with the Casey's plaid and everything. Um and so in our recla we're just kind of matching that opening that's there and I think that was intended to line up with the frontage of across to the west, right? Yep.

Yeah. We're trying to get some of this land right now back from KOD to dedicate it back to us so we have more access control. Um, so we're working through that process. Now, they've generally said they don't see any issue there, but they still have to work through the bureaucracy of dedicating it back to us. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary referenced. All in favor? I. Any oppose? Very good. This is more of the same. So this is the final referation. Generally same information calling out that particular area. This is make a motion to approve the final replay at Goddard C Center third edition. That

all in favor? I I Any opposed? All right.

Very good. This is the site plan for Evans building company. So building company as you know is trying to create some industrial flex space around the faces. Two buildings will start out around 24,000 each. Building height is around 28 ft with a slope roof ending around 24 ft. They have 120 standard parking space and 58A spaces. Total lot coverage so far to date would be around 3.75%. They are in proximity to a house on the fifth floor which is about 280 ft away. The house is surrounded by trees. Given these factors and the need to keep the building exposed, the US4 staff does not believe the screen plan would be necessary. That's just something for consideration. This is the house in question over here. It is a good distance away from the two buildings being proposed and it is surrounded by trees on that side. This is a general rendering of what they're proposing. Elevations. Some of these adobies when I explore them it gets a little pixelated but it looks better on gen packet. You can see the two buildings per phase one here very suspend maybe another two buildings here followed by a fifth building as mentioned this drive be private excuse me this private public up to this point financial considerations are none it is recommended by plan commission for the site plan by building company we do have evidence here if you guys have any questions for them about the building.

What's on the outside of it? Outside the material composition. Yes, the material on the outside. Would you guys like to answer the questions related to material composition?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

He wants to know what the material is. Basically, it's going to be a metal skin structure. Uh, it'll be a a small rib panel on the majority of it. The fascia will be a concealed faster than be a flat panel. And of course, we'll incorporate a lot of glass and stuff depending on the tenants we get. We'll start with something very basic until our real estate guy gets at least. And that will all change in the final plans for those will incorporate glass and whatever brick facade on the front of it.

No. And the other thing is it's not that we're opposing some brick, but with it being a spec situation, whole lot easier to cut an opening in a framed metal panel wall versus masonry. And we need to keep the cost down so we're competitive with the rest of the market and we want to fill it which only helps the city. How many tenants? What's the range of t, you know, one to how many how many tenants could you take in a building?

We set it up where we can have a 3,000 foot tenant. We can have a 24,000t tenant. I just talked to real estate guy tonight. He thinks he may have a 10,000 foot tenant right away, which makes me happy. But that's a way. So, I see the the panel call out of the RPR. Uh is that the frame that that you guys showed us last meeting in the uh Yes. Okay. Nothing changed there.

And we'll have a better colored rendering now that that's been approved, but we're I want to thank the city of God for the action they took moving this as fast. Uh we want to have it occupied uh by July. It's in our best financial interest to be in. That's why we're putting the utilities in ourselves. They'll be designed by Bachmann and approved and we'll turn them over to the city once they're in. Then we'll do the necessary easements by final instrument of locating it. We didn't want to put it on this plat, put the utilities in and they got off of the easement, we'd be back in front of you saying, "Well, we messed up. Now we got to move the easement." So, trying to make it clean as we can. And I don't know who wasn't here the last time I was up here, but we've been in business since 1962. I've been employed by them for 53 years. No one answer any other question. I think it'd be brick on the front of it like all the other buildings are required something other than metal.

I miss December's meeting as well, but you guys discussed that. Wasn't that one of the that was agenda item that you had talked about and

Yeah. And it did. And we just come and everyone was in agreement that was here that, you know, the multicolor the look was not just straight metal. In my opinion, it's on the outskirts of town. It is a um it's not just a normal rib that that you see plane. It is a nice looking profile panel. Well, if that's the case, you can't require any other building to have a brick facade on the front of it. Are we requiring that you like?

You guys can do whatever you want. That's the way it's ready.

The way it's ready is that if a building, what triggers it is that if a building's all metal, then we call out the facade and say, "Hey, planning commission, this is an all metal building." Are you okay with the composition of the facade? Do you want to see anything different? Do you want to see it changed? Do you want to have them submit a variance? We leave it completely up to you guys. We just simply say since discussions about metal buildings have been ongoing for the last seven years. It's definitely was very prevalent with um former planning commissioner Diane Amber and then of course uh Mr. Brain as well. But then discussions came up about cost and cost efficiency. And so it was not that it was never that you needed brick. It was just that do you guys want to see that? Do you want to see something else? Do you want to see eist? Do you want to see Wayne's coating of another type? Or are you happy with the material that's being proposed for the facade? And then we leave it completely up to you guys to make that determination. So at the previous planning commission meeting, um, Commissioner Milligan and Commissioner Klein worked there. Planning Commission reviewed facade rendering. There were discussions about the material and the way it's fastened together and does it hide the bolts and nuts and all that stuff. And the discussion was that they planning commission was generally okay with what they saw that no variance was required, no facade changes would be required. And so now they're presenting the site plan as is with that understanding. We do have one more question. Sorry, I know you sat down. You're fine. You can stay there. Um, on average, what and I don't know if this is if it's this simple, but is it typically more in the 3,000 ft² or more in the 24,000 square foot when you when you when you have tenants? I mean, I guess I guess a better question is what's the average number that you would have in a building this size? Just

if it was all 3,000 square ft, we'd have eight of them in each one. And then I guess overall in general in your experience, what's what's that look like? Is it is three the magic number? Is it five? We don't care. I understand. But I'm I'm just saying in general. Do you I would think if 5 to 8,000 square feet is probably a normal a fairly normal Yeah. So we're going to see three to five.

And I mean basically it's set up where it's all retail on the front. So you got the glass and the parking and and then we got the overhead doors across the back. Uh so if there's truck deliveries and stuff and the way it's set up when we do the second phase where we build another set of these all the truck traffic will be kept inside between the two buildings and then around the perimeter be storefronts. Uh we've been doing this a long time and the worst case you ever have is truck traffic interfering with car traffic. So we want to isolate that. Sure. Okay. Perfect. Thank you.

I wish we would have brought the materials tonight so everybody could see what we're using, but we had that at the last meeting and I thought that was No, you're you're fine. questions.

I'll make a motion to approve the site plan for the Evans building. I'll second it. All in favor? I I

Any opposed? All right. Very good. We do have one more items building company. So this they're going to hang out for a little while longer. This is a site plan for Brandon Wilkins office building construction rental. There he is. Perfect. So Grant Wilkins suspended site plan for an office building rental for his land off of Martin. On September 11th of 2023, a variance was approved for Wilkins for facado requirements for his building. The approval was contingent on the south building being allowed to have a variance and when he was ready to start the north buildings, he would have to come back to the plan solution. What he is proposing currently is to build the southern building, but instead of building an RV storage, it would be office space and construction equipment rentals. Both of these uses are allowed. However, a fence would still be required since you will have rental equipment outside the building. The variance as approved also expired as it lasts 6 months unless requested by the applicant for an extension. Since the intent of the original request has not changed, which would be an escort no building behind a fence on the south side of the lot, staff did not feel that no variance would be necessary. However, if the plan commission feels otherwise, they could require condition of approval. Also, it is completely up to the planning commission if they feel that they would want to see an additional variance, if they want to have this be propon, excuse me, postponed until a variance is approved or if they felt like they'll just be repeating what they did back in September of 2023. Mr. Wilin has also been informed that he estimates to flee the property from view. He mentioned he would prefer that chain link open to viewing for rental purposes which I informed him that would have to be up to planning commission if they want to allow that. And then I'm going to read directly from CP zoning verbatim that all businesses servicing storage and display of goods except for operation of car wash and sales self- service gas station operation on wheel service station and truck stop shall be conducted within completely closed structures or screened from public view unless approved as conditional use by the board of zoning appeals or as part

of an application of special or conditional use. It also reads that if the planning commission may in its discretion temporarily permanently wave requirements for screening and or landscaping if the adjacent land use in resident district may not necessitate or benefit from such a requirement or the adjacent land use may already have provided adequate screening for which additional screening may be duplication or future land use area cannot regularly be determined at this time that upon mutual agreement of planning commission and applicant that the requirements may be waved and the matter reviewed at a spec specified date in the future. In the meanwhile, planning commission shall require either a letter of insurance or cover be submitted to run with the land. And I won't read the rest, but basically it says it's up to you guys to make the decision. So planning commission with office space and construction equipment rental off of Cassad Martins currently zoned general business C2. It is considered I should mention still an acceptable use to have office and equipment rental. It's office space and construction equipment rental. It's around 4,800 ft. It's 24 foot peak to the roof. block cover 6.5 and these and incorporated five parking spaces. These are the elevations provided by the applicant shown the material composition. This is the building that's being proposed today on the southern side of the lots.

Approximately how how far back is that from the from the street? How far is this back? Yeah. The lot's 230t deep. So I would say we got like a 25 ft easement on the back. Oh,

it's 20 foot. Is it 20? Mhm. So be over 100 ft away from street. There's two questions here, right? One is is a variance needed to not have to have to to not meet the facade requirements and then question B is if screening is required.

Yeah, essentially. So there's two the two questions are exactly that. So it's a metal building. He had a variance that was approved by planning commission in September 2023. expired 6 months later. It's generally the same application. Do you want to see a variance again knowing that you approved the last one in 2023? Do you feel like the material composition even needs to have variance? Once again, it comes before you guys. It's an all metal building. It's got a facade with the facade. What is that blue part? This one. What is this stuff here? Much is a wine stud. So when we see material as the rest of the building, it's metal on metal. Yeah.

Yeah. It's metal on metal. So it's still a metal building which triggers the the facade review requirement. So that's a question for you guys. Is this considered acceptable? Is it duplicative? Do you require another variance? Again, once again, it's completely up to you guys. And then of course the screening requirement. So as mentioned, Mr. Wilkins has been informed that he needs to screen it because he's going to have equipment rental outside of the building. If it was all enclosed within the building, he would need to screen it from public view. But since there's an equip equipment rental outside of the building, he needs a screen of view unless the planning commission feels like based on it where it's located and set back the residential in conjunction on the north side. How much of an impact does it have on the residential area? Does it need to be screened for you or not? So I took pictures just kind of give you guys something to think about. Not advocating one way or another, just simply saying that this is the land. The building would be back here. The fence would be up this area over here and this is the residential area that would be potentially impacted.

Can you go back to the previous which lot are we talking about? These three all three. Yeah. And the building would be on the southern southeast portion. This one over here. I'm thinking before we we want him discreet, excuse me, the front and the west side because there's already a privacy fence on the east and behind it. That's correct. Mhm. That's the discussion that happened last in 2023. Yeah.

I think he was proposing chain link with some slacks through it and we had that as a potential option for screening. So now he's asking bas since he's changed it now from boat RV to put a rental screen still necessary impact and I said it's up to commission. So does it have to be replatted since there's a building that'll cross the flat line?

No joins once you have it. Sorry it'll be joined continuously. Sometimes we require people doing what's called boundary line adjustment to kind of consolidate them. It's not necessarily a requirement. It's definitely better for tax purposes so you don't have to pay taxes on three separate lots, but that's not necessarily a requirement. I wouldn't be opposed to chain link on the front and back, but on the west side needs to be privacy. That way if there's future neighbors That way if you're renting stuff, people can see it.

Um, as far as the west side fence line, can we get by with doing a metal fence or does it need to be chain link with slats? I was thinking wood fence. A wood fence. Yeah. Okay. But then last time we was going to do just a regular metal fence. Oh, he's going to put up a metal one. Mhm. Better than wood. It'll last longer. match the same color as the building together. The same side. Yeah, we same type of material.

So, there's residential to the north. What? How's the land just to the just to the west of that housing addition? What's it? Do you know what it's um zoned, Micah? I think it's commercial, but I have to go check. No, just before we take a look closely.

I if it was my neighborhood, I wouldn't I mean I would want there to use screening in front of it. I mean it's a residential area to the north. I mean we know the area to the norththeast is residential. Um there's every possibility that residential but any of the last um it's C2 general business.

Okay. You know the homes do have nice fences and such and then the building next to the three lots to the east there it has a nice wood fence um blocking as well. I think as far as facade goes of the building I think that would be acceptable area. What's what's your thinking? I mean, you don't face Kellogg. Why? Why the chain link so you can see in? Me personally, I think the chain link fence is, you know, barb wire on top is going to look a lot more nicer than a chain link fence is plastic slats and it to me that looks like a salvage yard.

But why chain chain link over something you can't see through? Um that way I can customer people can see what we've got kind of advertisement. I'll park our equipment up front close to that train link fence so people can see what we have. What kind of equipment are you talking like excavators? How tall is the fence? Um six foot. Six. Yeah. With the six foot plus your You can't leave with wire on the the canal levers with the straight wire on it. Yeah, that's another thing. I'd like to have a lower wire top on it. It's more security.

That's what Yeah. More people can jump a regular fence, right? Well, I see some of that. It's like Canada. That's what I think. Mike, in your experience, do you see any issue on the from the residential property value perspective? I mean, anything there that would I'm not an appraiser, so I can tell you definitively. Sure.

Um, I will say we generally know we know that zone commercial, so it's probably not going to his western neighbor is probably not going to be residential, but it's very likely that his northern neighbor is going to be continuation of the existing residential. having discussions with Mr. Dwayne Dugan. You know, the commercial lobster to the north are probably not going to stay commercial. He's probably going to want to downzone to residential. So, there's going to be more residential over there. So, that's just something to take about future consideration. I mean, it would be very difficult to ascertain that just from looking at zoning, but the developer did say, "Hey, we want to downzone everything west of the duplexes for future residential as a potential possibility." So there would be more residential in that area just as a consideration, but I can't I can't speculate on appraised value. Um not even appraising myself.

How many drives are you going to have in and out of just one two? I'll do the far west drive that's already there and the far east and then I leave that center one alone. We have an entrance and an exit. Okay. What about in the center on either side of those? Some some green screening of some kind, some plants or on the outside of the fence? Yes, on the outside of the fence. Yeah. If you want to do some type of shrubbery or something. Yeah. To dress it up a little. Makes it a little more aesthetic. Yep. Do something like that. That is my idea.

So, I guess let's do this. Mr. Parks, what do you want to see? Well, so just discussions of the past um with like the Wayne's code, we've requested that somebody does either like an architectural metal or a masonry. So I I don't know if there's any potential to do that here. I'm not opposed to the chain fence being open. I think the slats do kind of um downgrade it a little bit.

It looks nice up front. Okay. Yeah. I mean, a chain link fence isn't great by any means, but I think when you add the slats to it, it's I'd almost rather see chain link over the um metal siding on the side as well.

Yeah. Yeah. I I don't I don't think we gain anything there. Um, and I think it does start to look like a salvage yard if you put an opaque screen around it that's not like, you know, masonry or concrete or something like that. So, um I would think in my mind, you know, chain chain link around it, barb wire kind of uh that's that might be, you know, a little kind of like a prison, you know, but um if there's any chance of maybe on the north side and the and the west side of the building doing a you know, a a brick Wayne's coke or an architect arctural metal, something that's not the corrugated. Um, Evans has changed that, you know, their two buildings to an architectural metal. It's just got a smoother look to it. It looks a little more appealing. So,

that's just just opinion. So, would there be any benefit to having the building up closer to the front and then the storage in the back? I know people won't get their eyes on the equipment, but that would be more. So, I was kind of pushing the building to the back corner as much as possible to open up as much space, parking space, whatot people turning around inside. It would be a lot easier to build than driving around the building.

What about rod iron instead of chain link? that and that would accomplish the same goal of being able to see through it but would look a lot nicer than chain link not fake it's like chain link with the barb wire yeah deterren

yeah it's more of a deterrent but there's other ways to deter that other than um it's like a prison or something I think that would be a lot more visually appearing for the visually appealing to the neighbors. I was I I while what made me think of it, there's that Superior Rent right on 21st Street. Um I don't I I I think it looks nice. That's what they've got there. They've got and that's I think we can all agree 21st Streets is probably a more prime place than than rural Goddard. um at least I would think it would be. Um but they've got uh broad iron and then and and then just some low bushes up front so you can it looks nice. You can still see all the equipment. Um so I mean they they use a little bit of landscaping and rod iron and it's look better than chain link and um bar wire. Y

I agree that it would be better aesthetics if they could do a rod iron things and um building that's fine. Um I go either way on the back side. So I get the rest of that concept, but I agree with state here. Which one?

I like the idea of under in the front sides. Doesn't really matter. Tinkling's fine, but I still think they need some plants or something out front. Agree. agree with what's okay with that. So what do you need from us now? Thank you. Thank you. So it was recommended approve the site plan for grand welcome development and deliver a verdict on the screening requirements. So it sounds like you came to the verdict on screening requirements.

We remember all that now. Wait, let me see here. So, so I think what we've what what the discussion and the agreement's been here is that we'd like to see rod iron in the front in the front and and the west side. Yeah. With with some landscaping with landscaping in the front to our discretion or to theirs or do you want to specify specifically a landscaping plan? They could either resubmit or

that's up to you guys. I mean, if you want to see additional additional landscaping site plan, um, if you want to see a screening site plan, then you could approve the general site plan and then ask contingent upon a final screening and landscaping site plan, that would be nice. If you wanted to say you want to prove a contingent upon him building a raw iron fence with some hedge row on the front, put it that way. Let's conclude at your discretion. We took out the landscape requirements.

Yes. Yes. Which generally is more favorable for me personally because we don't want to have a bunch of scientific noe across the site plan specifying A&Z's and everything else and the developer back asking for road dendras causing a whole bunch of conflicts. So I don't see how we can replace the landscape. Yeah, I think the rod the rod iron is a great idea and then with continued the building is fine how they propose the building because it's sitting back.

Well, can can we discuss that? I guess I What's that? What's the reason you can't add You can't ask for question. Right. Is that how we rewrote?

But no, we rewrote that landscaping was no longer required for the site plan. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was not required at all. Just that if it's for screening purposes, they can still require it. But we left it up to the planning commission largely for this reason so that they could discuss it more in a transparent fashion as opposed to just the most straight way authorizing it. But so the way we've seen it, Harland put together nice landscaping plan for some utility work we recently did, but you guys could improve it with the screening plan to have a rod iron fence plus some ornamental bushes or trees every x amount of feet around the perimeter. And Mike could work with him on make sure that that is follow through on that way. I don't have to come back to you guys and resubmit again. Sure.

Pay somebody to go illustrate all that map. Are you ready for a motion? Are we done discussing? Well, we've got 316 foot across the north side. Do we want to say a percentage of that needs to be screened with vegetation? How much of those sticking up my driveway? Um, well, an approach is 25 foot wide. We have two of them. Three. Three of them. Oh, yeah. You're leaving the one in the center. Yes.

So, they're 75 ft of out of that 300. So, we have 235 linear feet. I'd say just along that north side if they set the fence back or something and and landscaped out in front of the fence like left a five foot buffer. I know that's taking of some property away. Maybe it's threefooter, but I think we need to give them some direction as far as how much to set that back and how much of that needs to be vegetation or we just say landscaping along the north property line 4T wide. This all of them everything that's covered by an approach. That that make sense?

It does. Okay. So that way it has that curve appeal. The building sets back. So we're not so concerned about that thing. So we're looking at landscaping. Wherever they put the fence, I guess they have 4 ft of landscape in front of it. Right. Okay. Fair. And that's rot iron on the north and the west. Correct. Correct. Now someone just has to say it out loud. You return

uh vote to approve the site plan on the contingent that uh um no variance is required for the u for the building to be metal panels. agree with that. So, that's part of the motion. And then also that um the fence on the north and the west be rot iron and that um the north side of the property have um vegetation across 100% of the front where there is not. I'll second.

All in favor? I I any opposed? Very good. All in favor? All right. Colleague have any questions about that? You welcome to stay with us tonight. If not, have a good one. All right. Thank you.

This is item H. This is board of zoning appeals. As mentioned, the agenda is inverted now a little bit where you have the zoning on the end of the agenda items. So, this is H1. Evans building company reszoning case number zone 25-5 company estimate application for the reszoning of land generally located on the southeast corner of 183rd 54 the applicant like to res land from C2 general business district and PUB planning and development from light industrial I2 reason the reszonings for light industrial flex space was released to tenants on case by case basis ranging from commercial to industrial type land uses zoning case was published in the city around 20 days the last prior before being brought from the planning commission today letters were sent out to everyone within 200 ft for KSA 12-757. So, I'm now going to subject you guys all to the golden rules. So, prepare yourselves accordingly. If you have any questions, feel free to stop me at any time. A lot of you have seen the golden rules before. There's 17 of them. I'm going to go by it. Like I said, stop me anytime if you want. Purple is my answer to the golden rules. Black is the golden rules that's being passed. The golden rules comes from the Golden versus the City Golden Park, the state law. What are the existing uses in the character condition on subject property and the surrounding neighborhood? on the subject property is a bar/tavern/ lounge/commercial highest and best use/farmmy/ ranchland with no improvements. The land use to the east is farming ranch operation no improvements to south and land use is farm to ranch land no improvements. I will stop real fast every time you hear no improvements. It doesn't mean this has come up before so I just want to reiterate that no improvements doesn't mean that ranching and farming is of no value or improvement to society. It means there's no building on it. So I just want to make that spec specifically clear that we're not saying that it farming and ranchland has no benefit to society as a whole. We're simply saying there's no building on it. So just to make that clear that's come up with boards. This is homeless to the west of Langus is department store warehouse supertore convenience store to north's road passenger transit transportation. What is the current zoning and subject property that of the surrounding neighborhood relations with request? The

subject property is on C2 general business district and key plan development. Land use to the east is zone C2 general business district. The south of land use is zone PD planning and development to the west land use is zone C2 general business district. North land use is US highway 54400 and then further north are R1 single family building is the length of the time that subject properties remain undeveloped vacant as a factor into consideration. So the previous property there was attempting to sell land for commercial purposes which is acceptable under the current zoning. So that's just something to take into account. Um but it's not one of the reasons why it was unbelieving to it current zoning is not in violation of zoning regulation. So this reszoning request without asking for a correction. This is not what they're asking for that. Is the request caused by change or change conditions in the area of the subject property and if so what is the nature and significance of such change or change in conditions? As city grows more land use types are being introduced that city has not seen before and this is a very normal process and indicative of a healthy economic activity. So this is one of the reasons why we're seeing this freezoning change. Do advocates disclosure and watch find all the necessary building facilities including street access exist or can it be provided to certain uses that be permitted on subject property. So we kind of went through some of this during the platting. It is readily available sewer and water. They are platting it. They're putting easements in place. Um after Traymont Street ends it'll be a private drive. So that is all being taken into account. Would the subject property be declatted or replatted? The answer of course is yes. We just went through the replotting. So that was good. Would a screening plan be necessary for existing or potential uses on subject property? So staff doesn't believe that one house off US4 is close enough to the property just by screening the proposed development of the lot. Well, of course, we leave it up to the planning commission. So the residential lot in question has trees surrounding it and is around 280 ft away from the property line. So that's just something to take into account. Isol vacant landings available or not available for donar has the same zoning as is requested. So I2 is a new zoning classification. So zero land is zoned I2. So this is a brand new zoning classification that was adopted on November 10th of 2025. So there is no

other land in the city known as the Halves. I do is impressive business or industrial uses are such uses needed to provide more services or employment opportunities. So absolutely in this particular case industrial development is more likely to generate job opportunities than city limits. So that would definitely be job creation opportunity. Is the subject property suitable for the uses concurrent zone which has been restricted and that depends. So C2 has limited land uses which that could or would not allow light industrial uses, but that's something that would have to be changed administr or not administratively, but through the zoning amendment process. The PUD could be modified to allow for those proposed land uses within the plan unit development side of things. But ideally, it makes more sense just to reszone the whole thing as opposed to just kind of arbitrarily stating plan unit development is allowed. If the C2 would have to be reszoned, it's better to resone the whole thing. To an extent with the removal rest of i.e. approval of the zoning request actually affect other property in the neighborhood. So, it is uncertain what neighborhood Texas could have at this time given its location because it's next door Casey's a Walmart um vacant land and a dilapidated house on 54 which was had fire accident at one point. So, negative effects potentially I mean you would have maybe more commercial freight. So, that's something to be taken into account on the third. Would the request be consistent with the purpose of industry classification intent and purposes of these regulations? So under article 4.111 the district established for the purpose of accommodating moderate intensity manufacturing industrial commercial and and supplementary land uses staff the development is in performance of design district purposes article 1.101 101 purposes as followed. These regulations intend to serve the following to promote public health, safety, morals, comfort, general welfare, and protect and control the steps development of new developments. The status of writing zoning district classifications of use of land and buildings with varying intensities, uses and standards whose inter relationships of boundary zones form a compatible pattern land uses and buffer areas of each zone. To regulate, restrict the location, use and appearance of building, structures, and land use within each district zone for residential, commercial, industrial, and other purposes including flood plans. to regulate restrict height, number of stories and size of buildings and

structures including distance from any lot line or street right away percentage of use lot that may be occupied by buildings and other structures and size of yards, courts and other open spaces. Protect property and historical values that conserve energy and natural resources. Provide adequate light and air and acceptable noise levels to avoid undue concentration of population traffic and overcrowding. the use of land and public facilities. facility with adequate provision of transportation, water supplies, sewage disposal of school parks and other public improvements. to provide adequate notice of proposed changes in these regulations and zoning maps. An opportunity to be heard on such zoning matters to establish or provide procedures from the board of zoning appeals to consider appeals, variances and conditional uses as exceptions and to implement the goals, policies and proposals of the comprehensive plan uh for the zoning jurisdiction and staff does believe that it's development purposes of the subdivision regulations is requesting informance of the comprehensive plan as an enhanced implementation of the plan. So, the city is currently revising the comprehensive plan as you guys are aware. Um, the current one had a 10-year life cycle. Staff will use the existing comprehensive plan for these questions as obviously we don't have a new one. So, page 61 of the comprehensive plan and I read verbatim industrial growth longridge land use forecast indicates the potential for up to 188 acres of more of additional industrial development during a planned period. involved with this expansion expected currently of the major travelways where high-grade access can be available and adjacent to existing areas of similar development such as the existing industrial park. It should be a policy of the community to designate the established areas appropriate for industrial expansion and guide such expansion towards a plan growth with regard for transportation access for the extension of community services. Future industrial development should be encouraged in a manner which will minimize potential for land use conflict and future and adverse impacts to surrounding residential development. The future land use map shows this area as commercial and single family residential. The residential classification was larger due to residential houses existed at the time, two of which have since been torn down. So there's only one house left in that area that was designated as single

family. The rest of it was known commercial as a future land use. What is the nature of the support opposition to request? So general support comes in desire to increase the tax base for the city as well as diversify creation of jobs. and there has been no voiced opposition and I haven't heard anyone call or ask or email me voice any opposition to this study request. Is there any information are there recommendations on this request available from professional persons or persons with related expertise which would be helpful in this evaluation? So I'm going to read directly from the New Mexico State University as it relates to economic based analysis which I think is a great review for looking at this particular zoning considering that it's for industrial. Um, economic based analysis assumes a local economy can be divided into two major sectors, basic and non-basic. The banking sector is made up of those local businesses that produce goods and services sold to consumers outside of the community region. Economic based analysis assumes that sales of basic firms are dependent almost entirely on export markets. For example, intel facility in New Mexico, sales of consumers located all over the world. Their sales to consumers in New Mexico are negligible compared to their total sales outside of New Mexico. The non-based sector, on the other hand, is composed of those firms that produce goods and services that are sold to consumers globally. almost all local businesses such as hairdressers, dentists, restaurants, and drug stores can be categorized as nonbased because they've depend almost entirely on local market sales. And so when you're dealing with industrial in particular and what's being proposed by building companies, even though we don't know exactly who the tenants are, there is a high probability, I wouldn't say high probability, but there's a good chance I would say that some of the tenants are going to have what's called bolts in the ground. So you might have some manufacturing, you might have somebody who's going to be having goods and services that are exported to people outside of just Goddard. So they're not just going to be servicing locally. They might be exporting products that they're manufacturing outside of the city limits of Goddard and then they receive dollars back which they use the salary of their staff and then that staff salaries get spent within city limits of God. And so that's one of the good reasons why we consider light industrial and and by consideration for zoning by comparison does relative gain of public health safety general welfare outweigh the loss

of property value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant by not approving the request. So staff doesn't believe there's a significant impact on public health, safety or general welfare. Um we do typically provide common arguments against rebuttals for resonings for two family and multif family but didn't feel necessary for this particular reasoning since it's for industrial not for multifamily. So that is the golden rules. This is the property being considered for resoning. As mentioned Casey's is over here. This lot is not purchased by Evans building company. It's not being considered for reszoning. It will stay planning the development. Everything south of here will stay planned unit development. It's under a different owner. There is small publication cost of the public hearing and ordinance after consideration by city council. Legally, it is approved as a form. It is recommended the plan mission chair have a clinician chair. Open up the public hearing receive comments. Close the public hearing and then approve the res application case 25-5. As mentioned, Bosio's agent of the applicant and Evans building companies right behind us. So at this point, Mr. Chair, I would recommend opening up um public hearing.

We will open up the public hearing. Great. And all these people already close the public hearing.

Very good. And in deliberation, questions for Bothman or Evans Building Company or staff weird? No. All right. I'll make a motion to approve the rezoning application page zone 25-5. I'll second it.

All in favor? I I Any opposed? Very good. Thank you very much. We now pass on the city council. I'll see you guys on the 20th, which is a Tuesday. Open here Monday night. Okay. All right. You guys have a great night. You guys have a great night.

All righty, moving on. This is staff report. So, this is I1. This is comprehensive plan update. The comprehensive plan of the city of Goddard expired at the end of 2025. A 2 to 7 city council approved request for proposals during the November 3rd, 2025 meeting to hire a new consulting firm assist the city in writing a new 10-year conference plan. RFP has made available to public on November 4th, 2025 and proposals for interest firms were due to receive by December 5th, 2025. The city received four proposal responsive conference plan RFP. These four firms gave presentations to the combined plenty of council on December 15th of 2025. Following these interviews, two finalist firms were selected, Wilson and Helvine. Virtual follow interviews were conducted with both firms by city staff. Interviews were recorded and shared with planning commission council. Along with these interviews, the finalist firms were asked to resubmit their cost fee schedule reflected to project hours between 700,000 hours. These revised schedule will review discussed by the city council on January 5th of 2026. On January 20th, this upcoming Tuesday, the city council will potentially make the final selection from the bench and direct staff to enter negotiation with the finalist after which city staff will work with the finalist to begin forming the steering committee and calendar events all while providing any data necessary to consult them. So, do you guys have any questions regarding that process or anything of that nature?

Very good. Are we allowed to ask the finalists? Finalist who?

It's housing and Olsen. Um according just generally speaking based on review from planning commission on city staff and council council decided the house were definitely the finalist that they wanted to see afterward which like I said they modified their proposals and if there's some discussion on January 5th. Um it is recorded on our YouTube page. So if you guys want to see how council deliberated and looked at how some discuss it on January 5th feel free. Um ideally they will decide on the 20th but it's completely up to them. Item J, planning commissioner comments.

Okay. I I think we I think we set a precedent. Are we still on? We're still live. Yeah. We have an adjudge. Yeah. Okay. Um, so with the with the landscape and the screening and all that, now that we've taken out the landscape, it would be kind of hard to cherrypick who who's required to submit landscaping and who's not. I don't know. I don't know how to get that, you know, back in. If we're going if we're going to start asking people is that or is it just a screening issue that we need to address and fencing and screening?

It's completely up to you guys. The reason I don't feel like it necessarily has to be a cherrypicked situation where you say, "Hey, we allow one person to do it. Everybody has to do it because there's geographically specific cases where it might merit it and another geographically specific case where it wouldn't merit it." Or is it the zoning of that property that merits landscaping as opposed to not? So if it's more industrial, it's maybe it might not be required, but something more commercial really. I think it's more in proximity residential than more than anything else. I mean, so it's a screening issue is what we're I think. So you're speaking specifically with the with the Wilkins property and the site plan as you're talking. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

That one is a closer proximity to relief. The only thing that's close to Evans Building Company, for example, is a cases. So there there's no requirement for screening in that particular case. So So if we're adjacent to residential, then it seems to make then we're going to request a landscape plan. Yeah. Okay. And that's Yeah, you can you can table site plans. You can ask for additional requirements. The only thing you have to be aware of, of course, is that if somebody's agreed, if an applicant's agreved by a decision of the planning commission, they can protest before the city council. They're allowed to do that. They can't do that with variances or conditional use permits, but they can do that with sight fines. That's just the way regulations are.

Sure. I just want us to have kind of a cohesion. Yes. We're doing this because you're building next to residential or across the street from residential so that we sort of lean that they know we're going to lean that way. I think it's a fair assessment, especially given that we know Mr. Newman has repeatedly said to me specifically that they want to downs on their commercial side on the West Clark to allow for more residential. So, you know, there's going to be more residential right across from Mr. Wilkins. So, that screening with the rod iron and the landscaping is very reasonable. If Mr. Wilkins was on the, you know, southside of Casey's, you know, no screening necessary, right?

That's right. So, we just needed a a way to regulate it. Making that decision. The second part of that question I would ask then though is if Clover Reef didn't exist, but we knew it was coming or we knew it was Arizona was on residential, do we need to should we plan for that or should we base it on the current situation? It's totally up to you guys. I understand. I I guess challenging, you know, do we want to go that far as to say, well, it's planned residential, so we're going to be consistent about it. That's what I'm asking. consistent. Just be consistent. Or is it, you know, is it based on what's to come or is it based on what we see at the moment? Yeah, because you can't go back. No, but it could easily, you know, that's why I'm wondering, you know, because I know that that's the plan for that across across town, but it could easily stay commercial.

I very well could. You don't know. But there are there are duplexes that are still considered residential. So, he is across from duplexes. No, currently I just meant, you know, if we came across a situation where Yep. the property across the street was planned residential but nothing had started would we have required them to put up any kind of landscaping or if it was green field would we have said great you know go with chain link I know so that's why I just question it's almost like there's areas in within the city that you would have a landscape if you're you know if you kind of fall inside of this

you would be required to have a landscape plan. Yeah, we would just have to come up with those areas and then follow that, right? And either way, I guess I'm not opposed to the thought of the future development either because if put a chain link fits there, that might change their mind versus if you make it aesthetically pleasing, they're still I mean, you could come up with many scenarios where you would do this one versus that one or vice versa. I was just trying to see where how far we wanted to take it if we're going to try to

just do a verbal in this situation. something to your point if there's the potential for residential even if we don't know that's not Yeah. And that's not going to deter even if it stays industrial or commercial whatever but it could deter residential down the road if if that is vice versa. Yeah. So, since we kind of went that direction, if there's potential for being adjacent to um residential, we would request if you're going to put up a fence, it's rot iron and submitted landscaping, rod iron or wood, something not chaining link. I think we could pick we could have Yeah, the the wood Yeah, I understand the wood fences are very residential, but they kind of for very long.

Yeah. Interior on a commercial property. I'm okay if it's all rod iron. I I would say that I mean the rod iron fences aren't all all rod iron anymore, right? They make PVC and aluminum and you know they're not five times the cost of the chain link fence anymore. So I don't think Yeah. I think we just pick a direction like Yeah. Not like we have to sit there at the end.

It's up to you guys. I like that so that we're consistent. So does it need to be official or can we just have the verbal verbal

unless you guys want to actually see an amendment to the sub regulations but as Mr. Park is saying it's almost sight specific. It's there's certain areas but I'm not sure if I could identify all those areas where it would be applicable and so it would be a case by case. I mean you could mention it maybe in the comprehensive plan even mentioning ideas where there's future development commercial whatnot be like over in these particular areas they will be screened in such a way from residential development with rot iron and so you could call out certain areas within the future land use map and the comprehensive plan which says screening will be required and we rot iron we will require site plan for landscaping that type of thing.

That's great. But for us for right now somebody comes in and they're adjacent to residential neighborhood or future zone res lean towards requiring a landscape plan. So we're consistent with what we did to that. Correct. Yeah. I think I think right okay I will convey that of course say yeah then you that gets presented you can say that to them up front.

Yeah. visa if they're joining if anybody's adjacent usually. I mean there's requirements if they're next to I mean commercial like I said next to residential it varies but next to cases there's no screening necessary next to law screening necessary of course next to seasons yeah screening necessary that's and then we said you're going to have to submit a landscaping plan and it's going to have to be screened with rod iron which is I mean not really a screen but landscaping is going to have a screen which is acceptable if you're going to put up a fence then it would need to be iron Right. Raw iron consistently, right? Consistently. Yeah. Yeah. Anything adjacent to a residential neighborhood that you're going to put up a fence, it'll be rot iron.

If you're not putting up a fence, you still have to provide the landscape plan. And then I guess that's is if that's a strong requirement for the screening aspect of it too, which we can put in a comprehensive plan, there always needs to be provision in there for them to escape from that requirement. that escape apartment be do they submit a variance? Is that an acceptable? Oh, sure. Okay. Yeah, maybe that's something we Yeah, if it's do hardship I know. Interesting. May not want to limit it to just rot iron either because there there's better material too. What if they want to do a pre-cast masonry wall or something that's really nice?

I'd rather become the rod iron capital. I would too. I would too. If they come with stone, we're going to say yes, I believe. Okay. So, they would come with a variance to put in concrete because they want something opaque. Yeah. And then we then then we could approve that. But I of course if I say variance and that means we'd have to codify that. That would have to be the sub rings. I mean at this point we're we're going as a group going to say rod iron. If they come with some sort of structure more than that, we're not going to say no. Yeah. Sure. Correct. And I think it's just so that we're all leaning the same direction. So they have some idea if you're going to come in here. Absolutely.

Hey, these, you know, these guys are gonna push you, right? Minimum is right or whatever. EM we can change it under article three which should just be general provisions which we say if you're commercial and you're proposing commercial development next to residential you shall have rod iron and have a landscaping site plan to escape the hardship of the you know like I said per the central county landscape can we go can we just refer to that sure if you want to go that way I just don't know what the central county landscaping standards are and then do we hold them to it like I said if they want to do patunas and road engines. Are you going to hold to that strong standard? It's not hard. Okay.

It's not tough. It's well defined. They got good charts in there. It's easy to follow. Everybody's used to it around here. So, let me look it up. Cedric County landscaping landscaping site. Uh, I'll send it to you. Yeah. That'd be great. Okay.

Great. I think in the two years or so I've been on the on the on the commission. This was one of the better better discussions we've had. Thank you guys. Thank you. I was going to say the same thing. This is interesting. Feel like I'm learning something. I have nothing.

All in favor? All right. Any of those