Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

quite a few. We'll get started shows up. You can join us. All right. Congratulations. I pledge 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. Dear heavenly father, be with us this evening as we do the business for the city and the community. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. This is going to be item C. This is approval. This is the approve agenda for April 13, 2026 time.

I'll make a motion we approve the agenda. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Very good. This I basis comments. At this point, we would allow anyone who wants to to comment on anything they deem necessary. They're allowed three minutes. The state of first and last name where you reside. If you're here for any of the variances, lot splits or anything of that nature, we will have a formal hearing for that agenda item which is allowed to speak at a longer length of time at a particular time. So, um, Mr. Chair, at this point conference, we'll open this citizens conf. Very good. You guys want to speak during this conference or do you have a particular item you want to see during

okay? Okay. Very good. You know those gentlemen in the back so close. We'll close this. Very good. This I it consent agenda. So this is to approve the minutes for March 9, 2026. And just as a reminder, we have a site plan for over the property group and a variance from setbacks for 216 West Swan Drive. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from March 9, 2025. Second,

all in favor? I thanks for being patient. No, you're good.

At all, there is none. New business. This is G1. This is the area of influence expansion. So, uh, discussions have arisen recently regarding the city's area of influence and the possibility of modifying that area of influence. Uh, timing seems appropriate given the new comprehensive plan formation, including the area of influence map in that comprehensive plan. With that being said, there are a couple of points of clarity that should be made. The area of influence is not the same as the extr territorial jurisdiction. Uh, the extr territorial jurisdiction known as ETJ is defined by state law and functions in a similar way to the urban area of influence, but it has several different provisions. The ETJ allows uh the city to have regulatory authority in the form of zoning over the three-mile area. If the county has not adopted zoning regulations, which they have, and so if the city administers the subdivision regulations of the county within the 3M range, they must have two members who reside outside the city, which is why we have Walker Parks for that very reason. So that if the county decides that they don't want to regulate everything around the city, then we can step in and say we're going to regulate what are some regulations. That's under state law with the ETJ. Uh the urban area of influence is saying the county recognizes that the city is growing and that certain provisions may came up come up like conditional use permits or reszonings, things of that nature, which that the planning commission should have review of before it goes to the board of county commissioners. And so that's what the urban area of influence is. It's a negotiated area. It's not defined by state law. It's just however we want to define it. And then if the county agrees with us then it gets adopted. So for what the planning commission is reviewing submitting an application to the metropolitan area planning commission to increase the urban area of influence. The planning commission has to be the one to agree to submit that application. Um this is per the provisions of the county. They're saying that initiation of an amendment request uh for an enlargement must come from the planning commission um of the city

within the county. So for you that you guys if you guys want to submit that staff is asking that you do consider submitting it and we'll show you why. So this is W as you know which has grown significantly over the last decade. Now it's jumped over 167. So this be 167 right here. Just jumped over it. And purple was our negotiated urban area of influence in 2020. I remember because I was here when we did that. We negotiated with the county and said hey we think this is more reasonable. Yellow is our current city limits. Um, so as you can see, we're encroach we're breaking out of the boundaries of our purple area, which is our current area of influence. And we've grown out this way, and we're going to grow to the south and north and the west. And so we're going to probably quickly eclipse our urban area of influence. And so green has been proposed by city staff as our new area of influence. And this dashed orange line would be our extr territorial jurisdiction. If we were utilizing that and the county said that they didn't want to have subs and regulations within that area, then that would be our extr territorial jurisdiction. Right now, what planning commission is considering is green. We're saying, hey, we would like to go this big. Um, we have exponential growth and we will see that exponential growth to continue. We do realize as staff that puts more of a burden on planning commission because you guys would have to see more conditional use permits in the county, more variances from the county, more reszonings from the county. So that's just something to take into consideration, but we feel it's appropriate since our growth is is what it is. Financially, none uh applications for modification must come from the city planning commission per Shelley Woodard. She's a one of our city attorneys, and I had her review these regulations in contrast to the state law. She agrees that state law doesn't really say how it should be played out and since state law doesn't say how it should be played out the county dictates how that's played out and the county says it has to come from you guys. So it is recommended the planning commission approve the modified area of influence and allow staff to

submit the application for the amendment to the county. So is there any questions about that? So if let's say that let's say this is submitted and approved as is um if it's in our Goddard's area of influence can it be annexed by witch hall or would this is this book

yeah it can still be annexed by witch hall so the green witch can still annex to green there could be a discussion potentially about annexation but usually just because we have an area of influence doesn't mean we have exclusive rights to annexation it doesn't give us that exclusive to annex only that green area. But it does give us more of an argument against other cities. Let's say Garden Plane was like, "We want to annex this green area and we had this adopted by the county." The county would talk to us about that. Be like, "Does this make sense? Does it not make sense?" Especially if it was an island annexation. That's kind of a key point there. If Garden Plain was like, "We want to annex this area, but they're not touching it in any way and it's an urban area of influence," then the border county commissioners, which makes that final decision, would probably deny that island annexation for Garden Frame because they're like, "This is in God's urban area of influence. You're not touching it and it's not in your growth area, so why are you annexing it?" And then they could potentially veto that annexation. So there's a lot of kind of interplay that happens between cities of second class and Witchah and county because county and witch have sort of that joint ownership. But Witchah it doesn't give us exclusive right. So if Witchaw was like we want to annex this and they're touching it they'll just they'll just annex it. So I hope that answers that question. I don't really see where we could go wrong by doing it. Yeah, I agree.

As well, some of you have seen some, you guys have seen, well, some of you have been here longer have seen conditional use permits for boats and RV storage. That came up a lot three or four years ago. So, you saw several conditional use permits for that. That was a lot. 10 10 years. 10 years is what it is. Yeah. On the 101. That's right. Off of 199 in Maple. Y

Yes. Yes. And so a conditional use permit, for those of you who don't know, there was a conditional use permit approved for a boat in RV storage that came before the planning commission. And it was one of the rare situations where conditional use permit. It was this room was generally full. It was like half full. And almost everybody was in favor of it except for one indiv except for one couple that was against it. And so the reason most people are in favor of it is because all their boats and RVs were stored there. So they county was like, well, it's a conditional use permit, but it's in the city of Godd's area of influence. And so even though you don't have the final authority to deny it, if they had if the planning commission at the time had denied it, said we're not in favor of it, it would have went before the board of county commissioners and forced a super majority of them to have to vote in favor of it. So, but since it was generally passed with favor, it just required a simple majority of Florida County commissioners to approve it. So, but yeah, Mr. Klein is correct. But that one had 10-year limit on it, which was something unique because I've never seen that before conditional use permit. They had actually put a disclosure on it after 10 years.

They would have to come back and ask for another one. So, so can we see that again? Yes, that's something to think about. It doesn't give you ultimate authority, but it gives you more provision and oversight. And I work with Witchaw quite a bit on with the planning staff. And so we would have that dialogue. So that's a good I guess that kind of leads to the other question I have is what what you you mentioned that um so that um that case came came before planning commission even though it wasn't in the city or it was in the it was in the area in influence. What other what other items within the area influence would would be under

Yes, good question. Variances, conditional use permits, and reszonings are most of what you're going to see. So, um they have a provision on their website, which might be a typo, which I mean I was going to ask them about, but they list conditional use permits and they also list conditional CUPs, and they have them as two separate paragraphs. I don't know if that's a typo on their part or if they're trying to make a distinction between a conditional use permit and a CUP. I don't know what that would be, but they they mentioned that CUPs, conditional use permits, variances, and reszonings would come before the planning commission in the area of influence. Platification as well, if it's in our area of influence, they would say, do you want to serve this with water and sewer if it's in the county? So if a county is platting, they typically, and I don't always see this, so I don't know how that triggers, but on occasion, they'll submit it to us and say, "Hey, this is being platted within your area of influence. Do you want to serve it with water and sewer?" Now, sometimes that's kind of, you know, we just don't have that capacity to serve it with water and sewer. If it's 2 miles away, it's just not cost effective to serve it with water and sewer. But sometimes if it's close enough that could be an internal discussion if we want to serve it with water to store but if it's way out here it would be it could be difficult to serve that economically unless it was like $2 million houses that maybe so

is there any benefit to annexing the land especially on the east side of the green so that annexing it yes there's I always am in favor of annexing as much land as possible um because it gives us more authority annexing just I mean that locks up at that point, then you just have wide discretion. If anything happens on that land, it has to come before planning commission. Right now, the green is just like, hey, we might have oversight, but you might not. If you annex it, you would absolutely have full authority with like approaching on us. I don't know if that would be beneficial at this point.

Highly highly benegicial. The more land we can annex, uh, the more regulatory control we have over it, we can build it the way we see fit. within our comprehensive plan. So yeah, highly beneficial. So how does land become annexed? Is it does the homeowner have to is that the avenue of the homeowner or not homeowner but the land owner coming to the city and saying is that the main avenue for

that's like 99% of it. Um so there are several avenues for annexation predominantly and it falls under what's called KSA 12520. Uh so that's a state law that says hey you have these different ways of annexing property. There's there's a petition for annexation and there's unilateral annexation. So those are two umbrellas under which there's all these different provisions that we don't need to get into but there's those are the two umbrellas. Unilateral annexation and a petition. Petition is hey city I bought this land on auction. I want to develop it. Can you annex me? And we go sure why not. You know unilateral annexation says hey property owner do you want to be annexed into the city? No I don't want to. too bad, we're going to annex you into the city. So, those are the two options. So, unilateral annexation comes up on occasion um especially if the city's already providing service or water or if it's deemed appropriate given our growth and our and our urban influence, then it's sometimes it's considered appropriate. If we're paying for the roads, if we're paying for the water, if we're paying for the sewer, they're benefiting from it, then sometimes it's deemed appropriate to unilaterally annex somebody if they're benefiting from those from that infrastructure. So, that's something to consider. that accounts for like 2% of our annexations. The vast majority of our annexations are petition and so somebody says, "Hey, I'm just I bought this land. I want to be annexed." It's been happening more frequently where individual property owners have been asking us to annex them, which is kind of tricky because sometimes a property owner is 2 miles away or let's just say they're half a mile away and they want to sell their property and then the bank says you have to get a water well inspection and a lagoon inspection and the property owner is like, "Ah, how much is that going to take?" And so they go get a quote. It's $10,000. So then they call me, they're like, "Can you manage me now and provide sewer and water so I can sell my house?" And the answer is usually no, of course, because that's crazy. We can't mix a bath ass water in 48 hours. It's just not realistic. So, so that's come up like

seven times in the last seven years, I guess. So, every occasionally people are like, I need to sell my house and I need water. See, we're like, no. We're like, I can't do that. That's not how that works. So, yeah, those are the two big ones, unilateral and petition. Thank you. Yeah. Trying to figure out where we are here. Is that Kell with the line down the middle? Uh, this right here. Oh, yes. Right here. Yeah. So, this would be Casey's would be right over the kind of corner to that with the the bigger triangle down to the right. Is that 23rd? This right here. Yeah. 167 development is right here. The trail. Okay. That's why that triangle.

So, the area just to the east. Why would we not close that in

this area right here? Uh, that's a little tough. Some of that is, I mean, quite honestly, some of those are mobile homes developments and so the county doesn't want them, which doesn't want them, but generally we don't want them either. So, we kind of avoid mobile homes, but it's not impossible to say that we wouldn't consider that. Um, some of it also is just kind of industrial land or a land, but it's not usually we're what we were trying to fill in is more green field, what we call green field, which is raw land that has a higher potential for being developed. Some of this is already kind of locked in. So, it's it's a little bit difficult, but it's not possible. We could consider it, but it might create a conflict between us and what's in that particular area, but it's not possible. It's something that we could consider. Just curious. What is the one little tiny square just above that?

Right. You just passed it. Go back right there. No, down. That's not No, down. This one? No, just to the right. This one. Right there. Um, that that two is that those two houses over there off 167.

So, yes, this is 167. This is right here. This is um Maple Village, which is mobile home park. And then there's a couple of houses right in there that are in the county. And I think there's like a um automobile shop there or something on the southeast corn 167 Maple. There's that little area as well. But I'm not I haven't looked at all those properties in depth, so I don't know how many exist in that area. Yeah, that's 16 on the southeast corner of 167 Maplewood. I passed by that lot. I think it's an automobile shop, but I'm not 100% sure. I see

some machine shop. Machine shop. It might not be an auto shop. Shop on the corner. Yeah, machine shop. Okay. 10 years from now, this area is going to be a highly desirable commercial area and development that we have. So, I mean, something to consider. Why wouldn't you want that area there that corner?

We could bring it up. We Some of this was kind of a negotiation internally between staff. And so, for me, I was trying to consider more green fields. Um, city administrator, the W city administrator considering more greater advancement. So, um, this one didn't particularly come up. We could I could ask just see if maybe they might be more inclined to having more of that area, but I haven't really looked at it in depth to see if it was reasonable or not. There's honestly all that's whether or not it's whether or not the county is going to agree to that. That's another question though. So, we can mark everything green we want to. The countyy's going to push back on us. This happened in 2020. The purple was a negotiation originally. The purple was like this square area and the county pushed back and so we had to have a negotiation with them about what we thought was reasonable given our growth. So the green even though we propose the green they may push back and this green area will shrink. So sometimes if you go big and they push it back and so we try it comes back again. So it's going to be a dialogue for sure. We have to go have a hearing with the board of county commissioners and metropolitan area commission to see if this is would you guys accept this or not. So that's going to be that's going to be a conversation. They may for one I mean that might just be contention. They may be like why are you guys trying to take this and we're not going to take that. So sometimes it's easy just to say hey can we just have all this and all this and you know we won't take that. I don't know instead of trading that makes sense. Are we up for a motion?

I think so. I'll make the motion. I recommend

second. All in favor? I any opposed? Motion carried.

Very good. This item G2. This is a preliminary replat for 167 West edition. Uh so B company has submitted preliminary replat of 16 West for the introduction of a new road. Uh this replat will allow new road being introduced to connect with a dedicated easement granted by Kansas Department of Transportation Koff which will run to land just to the west which is actually east of Dur. uh by moving forward with this type of land is now viable for being developed allowing the city to work with developers to continue potential residential development in that area by replotting the development loses one lot but the city gains an additional 68 potential development but I actually I don't actually know if that's true they lose a lot we can gain one

we gain one lot actually so we don't actually lose one lot we actually gain a lot I think I put that on there thinking we did lose one but it's probably better if comments on that because they have a better understanding of it planning commission reviewary refish allowed for a road to pass through the property and across Kot right away to land just to east of L makes more sense. So this is what we're looking at. K dot gave us this as a temporary access point because the fire department requires two access points. Uh K granted a permanent easement here for us so that we could put a road through here and over to this land so that we could potentially develop it. You can see that it's land blocked here. Without these two access points, it can't be developed. Um, Boffman is replatting 167 so that this road can get punched through on this on this purple side over here. And that's what it looks like. Chris Rosman is here if you guys have any questions for him.

So the Carbella Street is is what is what we're approving briefly. You're approving the whole plat for this section. The dark line shows the weed platted portion. Um, but the whole point of a weed plan is to introduce a new road. Yeah, but for now that road just contin

the access road to Ko, how would that work out for that neighborhood? I guess for this neighborhood, yes, this would be emergency access only. So be gated only.

Gave out wants that gated. They were very adamant that if they give us temporary access here, it' be for EMS fire and police only. And so it be gated with a padlock um and gravel. And then once this comes into play and potentially more development happens over here, there's a second access point over here and this would go away. But for now, this would be the main entry point into this area. If it gets developed, this would stay there with the gate crosses access this way, but it wouldn't be for traffic. What's driving the shape of both of these kind of same question?

Yeah. So, this funnel, this funnel right here was for, if you can imagine a diamond, if you can see my grain jumping on the roof ceiling here. So, it if you imagine this as sort of a diamond, then this was going to tie down 54 was going to be a fly over that ties down. You can see my green, but it would tie down to is that K42 down there?

Yes. So, K42. So we go from 54 down to K42 and then this way it would fly up to 96. So this is a 96 bypass is on the north side of 54. There's also a 54 K42 bypass which is on the south side. So this funnel was sold in the KO a long time ago and that's why we have to get permission from K for this temporary access here and this permanent easement over here and KO has already granted these two. Um but then of course you need to replant this area here which the developer had to agree to for this section connected to it. that the funnel was for that. If you can imagine a diamond will fly over highways for that very reason. Is that ever gonna happen? Uh, don't say never.

I can't say. I have no idea. It's been in the works since the 80s, I think. I'm not sure. But, um, I got I was with Kop today and they needed an answer. So, I was on a team's meeting and wasn't sure. It's hard to say. There's a lot of uh energy behind it to make it happen. At least the 96 one, not necessarily 42 one, but the 96 one. But I don't It's really expensive. It's at this point I think it's close to like 800 million. So it's a lot. So they're just wanting to put a road from one to the other. That's right. The road we would have to put the road in and it would cross here. But this replat allows us to have this road be dedicated to us. And they're losing one one.

Actually gaining a lot. We gain a lot. I think we I thought we were losing a lot, but I think that was wrong. I think we were actually gaining a lot. Those lots on that corner there since it tapered were kind of large. And I think that with the replat, is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. With the replat, the lots were actually being able to be reformatted to more traditional lots. So, we actually gain one, which is interesting. block one at Dora Street and Carmela Street. Uhhuh.

Just looks awkward. How would how would that work as far as the front would the driveway come off Dora or Carmela on that? We leave up to the home. Okay.

The setbacks would be like any other setbacks, right? You had the side setbacks, the rear set back, and the front set back. But if they felt like Dora was a better access for their orientation of the house, then they could have their approach going to Dora. But if they felt like Carmelo was better, then they could have off. You're right. That doesn't make awesome. You'd be surprised at how they make it work. So, as long as it's 20 ft off the private line, then they're able to make that work. I don't have a problem with

I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary replaced. All in favor?

I I Any opposed? G3 is going to be the final plat. So, we don't have a onestep final plat. I'll probably present that to you guys in May. And that's the possibility of if you have a small area that maybe only has less than 10 lots and it's less than like 10 acres or something, then you guys consider just doing a final flat instead of having a preliminary flat. But we don't have that right now. So I have to do a preliminary and a final. So now you'd be considering the final flat which if you look at them there's some differences between preliminary and final but for one has cont some of that stuff gets removed before it gets reported but the information is all the same. This is the final. This would have to be approved before city council after approval by commission. I'll make a motion to approve the final plat. Second.

All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Very good. This is G4. This is a street name change for the Garden Galleria. Uh so Dwayne Dugan has submitted an application to change the name of the road that runs through the Garden Galleria which is being built right now on the south side of Walmart. Uh he would like to change it from Season Street, Second Street, and Sixth Street to Galleria Drive and Gateway Street. Uh the city doesn't have a formal street name change process staff has mimicked the process for Witchah. So I just I created an application based off Witchah and kind of I'm going through the same process as Wah. Uh the process involves an application followed by plan commission review and final app through by city council with adoption of the ordinance finalizing that change. Uh so plan commission street name change for Galleria. Season street will be Galleria Drive. Second street will be Galleria Drive and Sixth Street Gateway Street. And here's the map. So the green it would be the area that's being changed. So Sixth Street would change a gateway as it drops down on the seasons and second street it would change the Galleria Drive. What is the name of from Sixth Street going east? Sixth Street the whole way across.

No, this is private. This is a private drive. There's no

So that's private, but public. Yes. So this is all public and this is private over here. Well, I think it's a good idea. Thought it was confusing that North Season Street was across Kellogg from Seasons.

The county has a nomenclature process which basically says that if a road is running in parallel to another road, even though it's three miles away, they're going to adopt the same name. Um, I've run into conflict with that over the years and so we can since it's in our jurisdiction, we're welcome to push back and we can have our ownation process. Whether or not it's a street, an avenue, a drive, you know, a circle, a court, and whatever else, we still generally follow the same process in the county depending on how that road is laid out. But Galleria Drive, the drive is a bit of a stretch because typically you see a drive inside of a residential subdivision. Now granted, we do have some residential projects along there in the form of apartments, so there could be a justification for that. And since the curve is pretty soft, it's not a sharp curve, then it still can be considered a drive gateway. Obviously, this is Sixth Street, it's changing to Gateway Street, so the street stay the same. But yeah, I understand we run into that issue with street a lot when it comes to county relations. I'll make a motion to approve the street name change. I'll second. You said first and second. Two seconds. Very good. All in favor?

I. I.

Very good. This is item H, Board of Zoning Appeals. This is H1, the height modification for the CT general business district. So just as a quick background uh as city entertains more urban projects that question of bulk regulations comes up from time to time. I should probably advance these slides. I just realized I haven't done that in a while. Um CT general was just question of what would be an ideal maximum height based on reasonable parameters. As always, a recent project has requested a variance to allow a height maximum increase and it is believed to be reasonable at some point for others to ask for the same thing in the future. So, city staff has reviewed the maximum heights of other cities within the general commercial zoning and compiled list in this agenda packet for reference. City staff is proposing a city increase maximum height from 62 and a half to 75 ft within the C2 zoning classification. Um, these are the cities we've looked at. So, Witchtown, Derby, Belair, M, and down center. Um there's a variety um of different height maximums. Um wish obviously having the greatest being at 80 ft, but they do allow additional 2 feet for every uh for each foot additional setback. So if the setback is 20 and then they go 22 feet, then they can go from 80 to 84 for their height. And then if they keep moving back from their setback, they can add more height to the building. So that's kind of something that's kind of interesting there. Um, I'm not sure 100% how I would feel about that because in terms of density and and urban standards, you you kind of want to maximize your buildable footprint as much as possible. So, the more you set the building back, even though that helps with pedestrian engagement, you lose out on buildable area. So, I mean, there's something to be considered about that. Derby uh has 65 se feet except that communication structures, etc. um can go up to 80 without a special use permit which implies that perhaps you could use a special use in

the business district. I'm not sure. I haven't gone through all of Derby's regulations. Bair had multif family districts at 75 ft. The right set structures are set back from all property lines the distance equal to or or greater than its height which that not particularly keen on that. Maze had 55 ft for a multif family district plus one foot of additional height for each foot of setback beyond the minimum required setback. So they were kind of going something similar to Witchaw and then Valley Center had 35 the general business district at their maximum. Uh financial small cost notes as well as ordinance adopted by city council. This would have to go to city council final approval. Uh it is recommended that plan commission one open the public hearing uh receive comments from the public close the public hearing and approve the changes to C2 general business district to allow for a maximum height of 75 ft. So all there's going to be a lot of changes on these next couple agendas. I'm gonna ask you to open up a lot of public hearings. Close public hearings. So, but this particular case.

All right. We'll open a public hearing. Very good. Wouldn't be easier for this particular case, but um All right. Close the public hearing. Very good.

Just to make sure I remember correctly, we were talking about the apartments. We're still going to see a site plan. We're still going to have You've already proved the site plan continues about a variance. I'm just saying in general, we would still see a site plan. Oh, yes. We could review the height for the location and things like that. Yeah. Anything that's commercial, including multif family, has has to have a site plan. So, you won't see site plans for single family or two family, but as soon as you go three family or greater, you have to have a site plan. And if it's commercial or industrial, you have to have a site plan. And that includes additions as well as principal uses. So anytime you see a new building or an addition to an existing building, there has to be a site plan.

So what is the setback? Is it 20 ft or what? 35 in commercial. Okay.

It's 35 in commercial. Setbacks can get um a little sticky sometimes because you can pl our our regulations are unique. At least I think they're unique in the sense that under article two of our subs regulations, you can plat a different setback than the zoning would allow, which is kind of interesting. So, usually if somebody's asking for a reduced setback, I would say you have to show it on the face of the plaque and then planning commission could be aware of it because then you would see it on plaque. We would call it out during plaque review. But the previous one that the new saw, there's no change on the setback. This is standard 25. So there's nothing special about that, but our subdivision regulations say that hey, if zoning says it has to be 35, but you plat it as 30, then the plaque has ultimate authority over the zoning regulation for the setback. So that's just something that's a little bit unique here, but typically on our C25. Are we anticipating the 75 ft building coming up?

That's hard to say. Honestly, I was a little bit surprised about the 66 and 10 in one. I thought that was a little bit surprising. I because they didn't call it out. They some architects only they put the height on the elevations as the eaves and I so I had to ask this architect from the property group to put it on the elevations as the peak of the roof and then when you put it on as the peak of the roof he it called it out at 66 ft 10 in and I was like that exceeds our maximum. So that was kind of interesting. I've never seen that before. Uh the Hampton is only um 52. So I mean for perspective the water tower is 100 ft maybe 120. I'm not sure. I think it's about 100 ft. So that's that's different. I think it's going to be a while before we see a 75, but I think we might see some more apartment complexes in the future that are over 62 and a half. They they called it a 5 over one. A lot of cities have what's called 5 over one. You have a commercial floor that's concrete, which you put parking and retail strip center underneath it, and then you put five levels of residential on top. It's very possible accuracy exceed 65 70 ft but I'm not sure.

I like the one at Andover. Yes, the one at Andover. That one called Skyoft. Yeah. Yes. Just like Sky off. That's a very good example. Five over one. I don't have a problem with it. So, we still have questions. So, yes. I'll make a motion we approve it. Approve the change to the C2 general business district to allow for maximum height of 75 ft. I'll second. All in favor?

I opposed. Very good. This is H2. A variance request. This is D26-2. So, Mr. She has to submit a marriage technician for the property located at Port North Lane main for the purpose of reducing the minimum lot lot size requirements for the purpose of splitting lot to add of the house and the second lot created. Um so under article 107 C authorized variances from the provisions of these regulations shall be granted by the board only in accordance with the standard set out in section 107D may grant only the following assistances and no other. So what this is basically saying is that hey to ask for a variance you have to have one of the eight. You can't just ask for a variance to put a house in the middle of a street. You can't ask for a variance to put a satellite on top of a your something of that nature. There has to be has to be one of these eight. So in this case, we're going with number one to vary the applicable minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth requirements. Uh so the board may grant variance upon specific writing findings of fact. And so we go through the findings of fact here. Uh as mentioned, you guys have seen these variances before. The city attorney said, "Hey, this is for reference." It's not like you have to check the list and say that we need all these in order to approve it. You guys can approve, deny, table, whatever you want. When it comes to variances, variances are approved by the planning commission and the planning commission. If somebody's agreved by a decision of the planning commission, they have to take it up with district court. They can't go before the city council. So in this particular case uh that the we're going to go through one through five that the variance requests arise such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found the same zoning district and is not created by an action or action of the property owner or app. So my answers are in orange. It's not particularly unique other than it's an older lot. So the lot is 75 ft with a depth as opposed to traditional 100 or 120 or 140 like you see in some of the newer subdivisions. But no actions have been taken by the property owner at this time. That granular various amount adversely affect

the rights of addition property owners or residents. So there are no adverse impact on adjacent property owners. There is a potential for more property valuation increase. When we spoke with Jack Manion, I was I've talked many times. Typically when you have an empty lot next to a property or if you create an empty lot in this particular case and then you build upon it, it actually increases the value of the surrounding property. So that's just something to take into account. Obviously, anytime you introduce any more residential units that's going to have more cars, um that's just something to take into consideration that the strict application of the provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship on the property owner represented in application. So, in my personal opinion, based on the property and its location, I don't think this is an unnecessary hardship. So, this is something that they're asking to do, split the lot, potentially create a second unit, you know, but it's not necessarily a necessary hardship. Usually a necessary hardship would infer that the lot that was purchased was in such an abnormal shape it's almost impossible for something to be built on. That's typically what you would refer to as an unnecessary hardship because subdivision regulations usually when you consider they're dropped from the sky on the whole city. So when you drop subdivision sub subdivision regulations from the sky on the whole city, at some point you're going to have somebody who has an unnecessary hardship because they're used generally across the board. That the variance desire will not adversely affect public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, general welfare, and that granted the variance will not be opposed to general spirit intent of these regulations and will not affect health, safety or general. So not affect public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, general welfare is not against the general spirit of 10 of these regulations. So splitting a lot and creating another unit is not abnormal. Obviously we see that a lot when it comes to duplexes. People will split them in half, create a twin home or somebody will split a lot if they are allowed to and create an accessory dwelling unit or another rental unit in that particular case. So that's not at

all. So this is the property 400 North Main. This is Third Main Street. Right now there's 100 ft on the width and then 75 on the depth. So potentially they could split it somewhere around here and allow 2 and 1/2 ft set back as is required and build a second unit in this area. Um obviously they still have to be set back 20 ft from the property line here, 2 and 1/2 ft here, 2 and 1/2 ft here, and 11 and 1/2 ft here. So this would be our buildable angle in this area here. Public notice given current small cost legal considerations approved as form attorney opinion of Robert Plton decision for additional use of variance by planning commission final cannot be appealed to the city council must be appealed in 7 court case 12759E is where guidance does not need to be met in order to bring varian so that's just what we went through KSA 1259E is one through five so it is recommended the plan commission open the public hearing receive comments from the public close the public hearing And the staff recommendation is approved request case number B26-2. So Mr. Chair, at this point we can open the public hearing.

Okay, we'll open the vote here. Very good.

I am Steve Burns. Uh I'm just a local builder. Can we come up here, please? Come on up. First and last name right here and then your address. All right, gentlemen. I am Steve Burns, local home builder here in the area. Uh, I actually own the 400 North Main U, which is a rental home of mine. Uh just looking to a lot's pretty good size. So just looking to build either a possible another rental to add to my portfolio or if I can't build it cheap enough, we would obviously sell it and uh make it a property for a homeowner.

Just a single family home. Single family. It would probably be depending on what we get away with in terms of the lot size. It'll probably be two bed, two bath or potentially three bed, two bath with a single car garage. What was the lot? 35 ft wide or 45

the lot. So, we're not sure if it's going to be 35 or 40 yet because we're not sure exactly where he's going to split it. So, right now the variance request is pretty open um because we're not 100% sure where that split's going to occur. The depth of the lot regardless is going to be 75, but the width we can't say at this moment. The width I'd just be looking to maximize it is pretty hard to build a house that's too small. You don't want too small. So, we' be looking roughly,000 square ft. Going to have to be a T house. Yeah, cuz you're going to have to have your setbacks on your side, right?

Mhm. Yep. We are currently building two of them. I think I got a blueprint already figured out for the lot. Uh currently building two of them in El Dredo on similar size lots. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Eric Gator, 143 Sport, and I own the property at 418 North Main, which is right next and to the north of 400 North Main, the property in question. All residential properties on Main Street between Third and Fourth Street are 100 ft wide with one house per lot in the yard and large lots. Crabming a small house next to the existing lot and the split will hurt the look of the neighborhood and won't follow the city of God's minimum depth rules. Because of this, I oppose this variance request to write your name and your address down, please. Thank you.

Well, I I wonder about

Okay. first and last name where you live. And if you have a question, um, just form it as phrase it to the planning commission as a statement so that they can receive it. I'm Denita Bader, Eric's wife, and um I've lived in Goddard for about 48 years. started out on Brazil Street. Now we live on East Fourth. We're the one with the Christmas decorations of Christmas and to music and all that. And preserving Main Street, it seems to me, has been Goddard's main objective, getting Main Street right. And this house being on Main Street, I feel that, you know, you're going to have I don't know how how they would get a garage and cars parked back there, too. So, you're going to have cars on Main Street. And I know he's a builder, and I, you know, I don't know if he brings any of his trailers and that kind of stuff. I just think it's going to screw up Main Street's whole idea.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. I guess we'll close the public here. Michael, what is this area currently zoned? Or what?

So if we split it, would that doesn't R1 have like a 3,000 square foot? 4,000. That's why the variance is four.

Okay. Yeah. So it's setbacks and lot size. So both those combined. Sorry, not setbacks, lot width and depth and total lot area. I don't Make big enough myself. You have anything down there?

I think I share Mr. Funn from the street view. It does look like it' be pretty tight.

Are we ready for I sure am going to make it. I don't know what's on the history line, you guys. Well, I'll jump in. Um I guess I I I share with their several other members some in that uh it just seems too small and this is our main street and I know that main street isn't the best isn't it main street doesn't have a lot of high-profile newer houses especially further to the north but um I I think we should try to be making it um making it look nicer not that adding a house would make it look nicer But I think splitting a lot is not the right decision for this this location. So I will make a motion to reject the variant request case V26-2.

I'll second it. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

All right. Motion's denied. Thank you for grabbing it. Appreciate your time. Appreciate you. This is item H3. This is a variance request B26-3. So on March 9th, 2026, Oakland property presented a site plan for consideration by the planning commission for an apartment complex located south of Wall on the west side of 183rd. During the reviews mentioned that the proposed building was 66 ft tall, which exceeded a maximum amount of 62 1/2 ft. After deliberation, the planning commission expressed that we feel comfortable reviewing the variance with increased height. With that knowledge, developers subarance application for review and approval. Uh so once again we're going through the variances. In this particular case they're varying the applicable bulk regulations including maximum height lot coverage and we're going to go through KSA 12759E which as mentioned before this is for guidance not necessarily check boxes that have to be met. Um so that the barance request arise from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found in the same zoning district and is not created by action or actions of the property owner of applicant. So it is not unique to the land in question. Certainly in this particular case for the overland property group it was the gabled roofs. They wanted to go extra high on the gabled roofs which gave it a more aesthetic appeal. Um no actions have been taken by the owners at this point except for of course that they've submitted site plan which is approved contingent upon the variance. Um the brand new varian adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners and residents. So there is no adverse impact on adjacent property owners. It's largely a commercial area as you remember it's south of Walmart and the strict application the provision of these regulations from which a variance is requested would constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the property represented in an application. So this is not an unnecessary hardship or the property group as mentioned that gabled roofs that were extra tall added an aesthetic appeal. wasn't considered an unnecessary hardship um other than reworking the architectural layout. That the variance desire will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, or convenience, prosperity, and general welfare. And that the granting of the variance desire will not be

opposed to general spirit intent of these regulations. Um and that will not affect health, safety, general welfare. So in this particular case, given it location and discussion that we had in previous plant, um it's not going to affect safety, more order, means, prosperity, general welfare, and it's not against general spirit of these regulations. So this is what you saw uh last month. So they marked it here as mentioned before they were putting it right around the truss and so we asked them hey where's the peak and they marked the peak is 66 ft 10 and a half in which exceeds 62 1/2 ft. So that's why we said okay well if we're considering increasing height in the C2 district you should also submit a variance request as a separate just in case. And so they've done both. So in this particular case we we've approved the 75 ft increase but also here's a variance as requested. So public notice was given current small cost. Um once again you've seen this before but a decision for conditional use or variance by planning commission's final cannot be appealed since the council must be appealed instead of county court. Uh court city attorney KSA 12 bee for guidance was not going to be met variance. So it is recommended the plan commission open public hearing go through similar steps as before. Mr. At this point public hearing the public hearing. Very good.

You guys want to talk about apartments? No. Public hearing. Do you guys want to talk about I I just want to know how tall the Steven's apartments are. Stevens apartment. Stevens are only three stories. I want to say they're like 45 ft. And how many stories will each be? These ones are one commercial. Go back to your picture for a second. Yeah. Three residential. So commercial here, three residential, and then the gable roofs are really really tall. And the there so there won't be any like loft or up in that top part. Not that I'm aware of. I think it's three stories of residential, one commercial story.

So question two. So if we pass this variance which is going to get another 66 feet 10 in are they limited then to that height and because we just passed the other has to go to city council doesn't it? The height increase has to go to city council for sure the 66 it doesn't set it just lets them exceed the 62 and 1/2 ft. So it doesn't say you shall not exceed 66 ft 10 inches. It just says you're allowed to exceed 62 and 1/2 ft. So we didn't set a maximum on them, but they've already

So we're not like I guess my question is we're not restricting them by passing this variance or it' be better that they just wait until No, no, at this point, no, it's not going to set a maximum. Okay. It just allows them to exceed the 62 1/2 ft. Um, and they've already gone through NADC. Um, so Oh, sorry, excuse me. They're going through NABCD right now. So I believe the 88 they're already set at 66. Okay, that's why I was just curious. I mean, we've granted or we're in the process of giving them more or anyone more. No, I that's a good question. I mean, we could engage them to see if they wanted to go higher potentially. I mean, but city council would still have to approve that 75 ft before, but I think really right now they just want to build. Okay. And so that's fine. Yeah.

If it doesn't set a maximum and then city council passes it at 75, they still don't have to meet that though. Same. The variance would allow them to exceed that as well. Yes. Yeah. So either way, and let's say I said council shot down the 75, they still have the variance, so they can go they can exceed 82 as well. Well, yeah. I mean, in theory, you know, we didn't set a maximum on that. So So could that I So theoretically, they could put a 100 story building on this. Yeah. I mean, granted, they've when they submit their site plan, their site plan was approved. you guys approved site plan. I was

so when you approved a site plan, if they change their elevations, if they change the whole site plan, that's a significant change from what was approved by planning commission. So yeah, you're right. It doesn't set a maximum of the variance, but you've already approved the site plan as as presented. If they if they go and submit to A&E and then they submit a building permit, we're going through the process and they're 80 ft, that's a deviation from what was approved by planning. That's right. Okay. they would pull their building permit. I'm not trying to just curious. No, you're right. It's a good question. But yeah, they have to come back to the plan.

They would because if they start building and you see them put like a fourth and a fifth and a sixth and a seventh, we'd be like, "Wait a minute. That's way too many trusses like what's happening here. These studs are going up too high." You know, so that would be a significant issue because their site plan was already approved. My planning commission at 66 ft 10 in. So a deviation from that would be you don't get that's what I have to do that when I got the building permit then they cry so that's what happens which has happened before so so could we I mean could we vote I mean if we were worried about them exceeding 75 ft could part of this approval be approving to a max of 75 ft

yeah you could but again 66 so they I mean really at the 11 in I mean they're not going to that that picky but that exceeds what we said and we could actually question you could have we've we've covered that I forgot about that

no it's a very good question site plans are approved for that reason once the site plans approved by planning commission it lays out the elevation everything on there those a draw architecture engineering drawings are submitted as part of their total package to MABC so if there was ever concerns that somebody was going to try to throw on what I know layer residential on top of that. I mean, that would be a significant issue that we wouldn't have to, like I said, I I don't mind being the bad guy. I've been the bad guy before. It's just, you know, typically people don't do that. So, once the site has approved, they move forward.

There has been issues before. So, just be fair. That has there's been situations where people have mediated and then I have to be the bad guy. But I don't mind being the bad guy if it's necessary because obviously if commission approves something, then they've approved it. You know, we we want everybody to abide by the same rules and regulations. So, Basically, it was approved through the top of the building above the roof. No, we approved and this was approved, but we knew it was 6610 when they came in. That's where they came in. Okay. Yeah.

Now, originally when they submitted this, like I said, they had it marked here at the trust level, which I think some which I was talking with Commissioner Parks about that because sometimes architects will submit it, they're like, "It's this tall, right?" And you're like, "But our regulations say what's the peak?" And so I said, "Hey, what's the peak?" And then they said this and we saw 6610 and a half that this is what they recent. This is what you guys saw at the last planning commission meeting. I said, "Ah, this is that's too tall." So, but then planning commission said, "We're okay with it being that tall, but you guys still need to submit varants." So, now you're seeing,

but this is what's being packaged and sent to me as is like this. So, yeah, I mean, it could technically it could be 66 feet, no 10 inches, you know. I mean, it might sink a little bit. Maybe it's 66 ft 10, you know, 11 in or something like that. You know, slight deviations. We're not going to go out there and take measure. But if they try to stick another residential on the top of there, that's a significant deviation to what was approved in the plan. Are we ready for I think so. I make a motion we approve the variance request case B AR 263. Second. All in favor?

I vote. This is H4. This is a modification to the R1 single family residential and the introduction of modular homes. So under appendix C article 2, the city's daughter has a definition of mobile homes, manufactured and modular homes. One of the key distinction, at least as I can see, is that modular homes are pre-fabricated offsite, brought to the site, and a fixed to the foundation. So they have a slab or they'll have footings and they'll affix it to that foundation. The the difference between that and a mobile home, it seems that a mobile home is brought in, dropped on maybe like cinder blocks and not skirted. And then a manufactured home is basically the similar as a mobile home that's brought in, dropped on cinder blocks but then skirted. And so that's at least the definition that I'm comfortable conveying. But the definitions themselves in the subject regulations are laid out here. As you can see, mobile home and manufacturer generally consider the same with modular home calling out um assembly and site foundation that it's transported to that it's connected to public utilities. Permanent foundation is the key word there. Permanent foundation plan is a modification to R1 single family resation to add modular homes to separate uses. Right now R1 says single family detached manufactured but it doesn't say modular and it doesn't say mobile which we're not asking for mobile to be introduced. Mobile homes have its own provisions within the sub regulations. So these are land use types taking some of these pictures. I went visited these two uh downtown Witchah by the developer. Um this one is off 54. This one's actually in the city of currently. So, I make that distinction between mobile manufactured here with the skirting. I would consider that more manufactured when you have a skirt around it. And then mobile, you kind of see that it's it's still got the the hitch on it. It's kind of exposed underneath. Modular, these are the

concrete foundations that they're affixed to that. They're not they're not meant to be once they're dropped in place. So, um, we can't obviously if if modular is introduced into the R1, I won't say that they're always going to look like this, but I won't say that they're more of a permanent type than the manufactured, which is currently allowed under R1. So, that's just something to take in consideration. Public notices given current small cost legally, it's approved as a form. It is recommended planning commission once again open the public hearing, receive the comments from the public, close the public hearing and approve the modification to R1 residential for that modular homes after deliberation. This will be presented to city council next council meeting for approval. All right, we'll open the public hearing.

You're welcome to talk. You don't say anything? I'm shocked. Not till I close it. We're close to public hearing. Very good.

Is is there a reason we need to allow manufactured homes? Can we could we manufactured are already allowed? Yeah. But do they I mean you mean modular or manufactured? Manufactured. Can we could we strike that and replace it with modular?

Um yes. Yes, you could. you could because the ordinance hasn't been adopted yet. I have to modify the ordinance. So, if you wanted to introduce modular and you said, "Hey, I want to remove manufactured. I can modify the ordinance before it's adopted by city council if that's what you wanted." Um, now city council would have to approve that. If they want to keep manufactured, then they would they could change it per the recommendation and change it around, send back to you guys. There's different ways that can act on it. They can table it. They can send back to you. They can approve it as is. They can approve conditions. So there's different ways that council can act on an item. But yes, if you wanted to remove manufactured as an acceptable use, that's something there as well.

Is there a way that we could make it to anytime somebody wants to put in a manufactured housing, they'd have to come to the planning commission? Yes, you could do it as a conditional use. You could say that I won't manufacture as a conditional use because then conditional use permits not have the permanent qualifying condition. Go back to your picture. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm sorry. Modular homes. Anytime. Oh, modular. Anytime there's a modular home that somebody wants to put in the city,

they need to come use permit. Yeah, you could definitely consider that as as if you want to have them under a conditional use, which a conditional use is just an acceptable use with conditions. So, but we manufact when we went to visit, I looked up the land records, it was off of Estelle Avenue in downtown Witchah. So, when you click on the parcel, it says single family detached, which was shocking to me because I thought modular would be more like a manufactured home. So when you click on the parcel, it says the land use is a single family detached traditional home for a modular. But if you go click on a mobile home or manufactured home, it says manufactured home or it says mobile home park. So the counties making a land use distinction on mobile land records. They consider the ones on the right as no different than season hill and St. Andrews. The ones on the left, they're making a different land use distinction in the county, which was kind of interesting. So, in theory, the developer who we were walking through the two on the right said that they can build them at $130,000, but then the bank appraised it at $200,000 when it was built. So, in theory, the ones on the right will appreciate value just like a traditional house, whereas the ones on the left, they'll appreciate a different level or maybe depreciate depending on how many home loans are received by the county.

Are we expecting a large influx of these into the city? Modular I can't say if that would be a largest one. So, I've talked to three developers that have talked about modular homes, but I haven't seen any of them being like, I really want to move forward with 300 modular homes. In my opinion, it seems like something that could be more of infill in Oldtown, but that would be it's hard to say. I nobody has said to me that they want to build 300 modular homes. They've said, "What does this do you think about modular homes? How's this defined? What does this look like?" And so, no, but I don't know. I think it would fill some lots in the old part of town potentially.

But then on the other hand, same thing we just rejected, the lots are smaller. They're not deep enough. These lots are Yeah, these are 50 by 75, I think, in Witchah. So that's something to think about. But yeah, I mean, they don't really need to have that. There's no obviously there's no garages on these. They in Witchah they just drive off the road onto gravel which we wouldn't allow gravel in gard you know but they would drive off the road onto a page parking area kind of like big art development

with no garage but it's just something to be considered in my personal opinion that what I was looking at is that modular seems to be of a higher quality than mobile manufactured and since manufacturers are already loud if we introduce modular perhaps we can encourage more modular versus manufactured since they seem to appreciate uh you which is where I Yeah. You sent that just a video from the gentleman everybody, right? To everybody. Did you see that? I didn't take a video yet. They went to everybody's the planet mission. So, your email, your planet, I can send it back again.

You can see all their models. And I was I mean, after our conversation, I was skeptical, but I was highly impressed with the visual that they did in their video. this particular developer which was um brought up to my attention first by Christian Walker and then later by Kathy Saxton who used to be a city administrator at Derby and so I went checked them out with other cities Maze Derby Valley Center and we went and walked around and you can't I can't guarantee the quality though once you got the land use and I want to be clear about that I can't guarantee the quality of the modular homes these particular ones are of a higher quality but just because these ones are nice doesn't mean we accept set module that all of them will be in one light. So that's just something to be but you can't accept all I mean you can't guarantee that quality on anything.

No, I can't and I want to be clear about that. I can't guarantee quality on anything. We have to have some pretty severe restrictive evidence to make that happen. And so we're trying to work that out right now which is a I'll bring that up at the with the um city planner comments at the very end is that we're trying to work out some of the quality issues that we have of duplexes right now. So if in theory once that we deal with the duplexes if we can adopt something quasi judicial with duplexes maybe we can adopt something quasi judicial with modular homes but that's just something to consider and we should look at these

I think to me it's it's you know there's a lot of hesitation around duplexes currently with the amount that we have coming on board to me this is the step before you get to the full single family home it offers offers a a um entry level single family residence that's not a duplex and I think I think it's a good price point option for people and for growing the city I think it's a good I think it's a good option yeah I just I think it needs to be strongly considered as as something to to be looking at

I agree and I mean these are some small examples of modular homes You can build them very large as well. Absolutely. And I've walked through some uh we looked at you building one at one point and I felt they were built better than the home I'm living I'm living in currently. So they're very sturd. Yeah. I don't I mean I don't know why we would when wouldn't if we're currently allow manufactured homes why we would not allow modular but I think we should consider we would want manufactured home new manufactured homes. manufactured home is a module or a mobile home with skirts. Yeah. And so why don't we ban why don't we remove those remove that

modular with manufacturer or just keep manufacturers and make it be so put in so I I have bad anything because we have different income levels. They'll just make it a conditional use. That was kind of I liked his idea. They allow a module to do that. You probably do mobile and manufacturing. Yeah. Make those additional uses more. So mobile homes right now are not allowed under R1. We have mobile homes are not allowed actually in the city at all. They're all grandped.

Okay. Yeah. So any you see a mobile home, there's very specific provisions in our sub regulations that says if you have a mobile home and you remove it, you only have about 6 to 8 months to replace it with one that's at least can't be older than 6 to 8 years old, I think is what it is. So, you have basically I might be mixing that up a little bit, but about you have basically half a year. If you remove your mobile home and it's 6 months elaps, you can't replace it. If within 6 months you do replace it, it has to be one with one that's no less than eight years old. Um, basically if you take an old one out over here, you got to put a new one in. Yes. So, we had to replace that one with one that was newer.

We were very strict about that. We made that very clear that you can't there's no if somebody submitted a plaque to me right now and said I wanted mobile homes, there's nothing there's nothing you can do. We say, you know, we just you have to try try again. You pick a different range. That's what I would tell them because there's no there's no zoning classification to apply for to even put in a mobile home.

Um other than a PUB if you said, "Hey, I want to do a PUB and do mobile homes and then define in that PUD that mobile homes are allowed." That's the only way you could do a mobile home. But even then, the still the regulations would still apply. They'd have to be brand new and you know, if you demolished one, you couldn't replace it within after six months. all of those things still go by. So yeah, mobile homes are that's kind of why the area of influence goes back to the area of influence. You can see why Witchah and Goddard are doing this because nobody wants the mobile home parks, right? I think I probably talked enough,

but it sounds like it sounds like you could do a mobile home park and put skirting around the bottom and call it a traction. You could on R1. Yeah. So that's that's where I backed that. Yeah. I didn't They said by lot. So a mobile home park though is one big lot. Yeah. Right. So that's you have to be very distinct about that. If you submitted a plaque to me and it was one big lot, I would be like, "No, you can't do that." But if you submit a plaque to me and they're all subdivided into individual lots and you're like, "I'm going to put a manufactured home on every single one." That would be allowed under one. Yeah. So that's a little technical.

So I would make a motion that we put conditional use on manufactured homes and we make modular homes part of our I'll second. All in favor? I any opposed. So manufacturer would go to as a C condition use permit. Yes. And modular would be considered accept. Yes. Final consideration would be performance and cancel.

So H5 is the same thing just for the R2 zone classification. And the reason I'm doing R1 and R2 and not R3 and R4 is because R3 and R4 adopt R1 and R2. So R3, we have what's called cumitive zoning, which mean it reaches back behind you and pulls the land use behind you and brings it forward. So R3 reaches behind it and grabs R1, R2, and it grabs R2 mostly and brings it forward. And R4 grabs R1, R2, and R3 and brings it all forward. So with R1 being adopted, that works for R4, but R2 would have to be changed to allow for it to be happen in R3. So I'm asking for module to be reintroduced to R2. Okay, we'll open the middle here.

So, it would be a duplex, a modular duplex.

No, no. R2 is a zoning classification that says you can do single family, manufactured, two family, but it doesn't say you can do modular. So, under R2, like I said, this is kind of it's cumulative in the sense that, like I said, it reaches behind you. So, R2 reaches behind it and grabs R1, brings it forward and says you can do everything in R1. Um, and then but R2 says it goes a little bit further. It says you can do a two family. R3 reaches behind me. Perhaps R2 says you can do everything in R2 plus multif family. And then R4 says you can do everything behind me. R1, R2, R3 and lots can be smaller and you can do you know bigger apartments, condos and higher and lots going to be smaller. So it changes that. So that's what's key. It kind of passes on to the next level. So R2 is not saying that the manufactured and modular have to be duplexes. It's just simply saying if you wanted to do a modular home that was a duplex, which it was in that previous picture. This one was a This one I believe was No, maybe not that one, but there was one that was a duplex. So, this one I think was a duplex. So, this is R2 is saying you could do a modular home that's a single family or you could do a modular home that's also a duplex. So,

but it would also bring the the manu the manufactured housing and have to have variance or conditional if you want to. Yes. All right. Before we get ahead here, let's open the public hearing. You want to talk about it?

All right. All right. We'll close the public hearing. Okay. So basically the same as an R1 but but have to have a conditional use permit for mobile homes manufacturing. Right. The same the same motion would carry this. Yes. Is that your motion? Yes. Okay. I will second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Okay. Be before we move on though, does could if you had an R3 or R4, could you still do a manufactured home without do we without a CP? So, are we now locked it down? Do you have to do a CP?

Once you do a CUP and it's changed on R1 and R2, then R3 and R4 are saying whatever's in R1 and R2 applies to R3 and R4. Okay. So if R3 says all acceptable uses in R1, then that means you wouldn't be able to actually do manufacturing. R3 and R4 has its own conditional uses. So R3 and R4 says you can do modular. You wouldn't be able to do manufacturing. We'd have to change that to say conditional use permit for manufactured homes within R3 and R4. Right now it only just inherits the acceptable uses from the previous study classification. So if you move manufacturer to conditional use under R1 and R2, R3 is only going to take modular, single family, two family and will take it will take manufacturing.

Thank you.

You're welcome. This is item H6. This is official zoning map change. So city staff is presented to the clinician the possibility of removing the R1A zoning classification such that if annexation continues there's no concern about the R1A being used in the teacher for the default zoning classification. So I let me just kind of explain that a little bit. Um at the previous plan commission meeting um I mentioned you know that I read all the sub regulations all the time and so as I'm reading subs regulations it says when do you annex land the default zoning classification shall be the most restrictive zoning classification. Now, when I go through planning commission minutes from previous planning commissions from before I was here and other my predecessors were here, everybody was interpreting that to mean R1. And so, I continue to interpret it as being R1 as being the most restrictive. There could be an argument that doesn't mean it's a strong argument, but it doesn't mean it's a bad argument. Doesn't mean it's a good argument. Doesn't mean it's bad. That's just kind of in the middle that you could say that R1A is the most restrictive because it's very similar to R1, but it's got a minimum square foot requirement of 12,200 ft. So you could say that that's more restrictive than normal. So maybe that's the default zone classification. So that caused some consternation among city staff and so we were kind of discussing that, you know, and the thought was why don't we just remove R1A just like we removed R1B. And so then during that conversation, I said you could remove R1A. However, if you remove R1A, this denominator is a little complicated. So feel free to interrupt me anytime if you guys have any questions. If you do remove R1A, you create almost immediate nonconformity in autolaze because Autoblaze has got 86 lots that are zoned R1A. You can't just strip a zoning classification out from under a lot and have no zoning classification because the zoning is what justifies the land you said sits on

top of it. So I'm like you will create nonconformity. So the question came up well can we just reszone all of a glaze that has those 86 lots and the answer is yes you can. Back in 2020, I had this conversation with our city attorney and I said based on KSA 12757, at least my interpretation, which the attorney agreed with. If I reszone one lot, I need to notify everyone within 200 ft, right? Publishing the city newspaper, notify everyone within 200 feet. But what if I reszone a 100 lots all at the same time? Is that the same thing? And when I was discussing his attorney, he said, "No, there he based on his understanding and based on my understanding, there's singular reasonzoning and there is general reasonzoning." General reszoneing would be when if you look at the zoning map and you decide that this whole area want and you want to reszone this whole area, you can change the official zoning map and reszone that whole swath of land without sending out letters to everyone and just publish it in the paper, taking the zoning map to the planning commission and then having it be adopted by the city council. And so that's kind of what you're looking at right now as it is what you're looking at right now is reszoning auto blades to R1 so that it doesn't become non-conforming. And then at the next agenda item removing R1A so that there is no confusion about is it R1, is it R1A? And also the question is is R1A even necessary? I mean we're not seeing anybody asking for an R1A. Nobody asked for R1A. Everyone asked for R4 PUDs. So R1A might be somebody antiquated. So that's just something to consider. But that's the background. P commissioners are in a general revision. General revision meaning obviously more than what the city attorney has said 10 lots is what he was saying. That's not a hard law. Just to be clear, the city attorney was like,

"Well, 10 or more seems like a general revision. There's 86 lots here, so I think we're well clear 10 lots. Here's 86 lots. They're all zoned R1A currently. City staff's ask them to reszone to R1 and then if we remove R1A, they will be considered nonconforming. Is there any questions about this one? We're going to have to go through of course the same process receive cards, etc. But here's the attorney opinion. This like I said this conversation happened six years ago. So I'm just going back to my policy 10 laws are impacted be treated as a general revision consideration given to whom would be impacted to change shifts from residential commercial. We're not shifting from res. This is a good point. Obviously doesn't apply in this agenda item but it's still a good point. You guys could change a whole swath of God from residential to commercial. That could cause a serious issue. But in this particular case that's not what we're considering. But technically that is allowed. General revision looks treated differently than individual properties zoning on because like I said one block 200 you know 200 ft letters go out. General revision you're just changing the zoning map. Letters don't go out but it is published in the city newspaper. We wait 20 days we take it to you guys for consideration. Mr. Chair at this point I ask you open the public hearing. Thank you very much. close the public.

I think the only question about is this does this change their tax? No face at all.

Not really. Taxes are going to be predicated on three big things which everyone you've probably seen all the online chatter. So the three big things obviously are going to be comps. Comps are going to be comp, you know, comparable properties that have sold. So, if your property, you buy your property for $200,000 and your neighbor buys their property for $250,000, you're probably and it's a similar layout as your property, you're going to see the taxes go up. Zoning is a justification for what sits on the land. In theory, if you reszone it as commercial, they could potentially see the property taxes go up, but it's largely based on comparable properties. Okay. I wasn't.

Yeah. Another thing is going to be the material composition of your property. So, if you take your property and you tear it down to nothing and rebuild it in today's price based on, you know, today's current prices, would it be worth more? That's also a consideration. So, you know, you could build a house maybe for $150,000 and you did and then you tear it down and you build it today's prices, it could be worth $250,000. Your taxes are going to be higher. So, there's different things to be considered. I want to disqualify myself and I'm not a county appraiser, so I don't but I do talk to them a lot. I think that's it. But Autumn Blaze is full, correct? Yes, Autumn Blaze is full. They're not adding another ignition or anything. So, what's the purpose of all this? To remove R1A. Okay.

From Autumn Blaze. To remove R1A from the whole city. Okay. But since Autumn Blaze is R1A, the zoning to be included.

Yes. I I I don't like nonconformity for that very reason because banks want to know if if we stripped out R1A from autolaze and just let's say we did away with R1A and we didn't reszone auto blaze they would be sitting on nothing for their zoning and then if a bank or an appraisal reached out to me and said hey are they allowed to have a single family detached house on that lot I would say I have no idea zero idea that doesn't make banks feel very comfortable about underwriting a loan on a house that could potentially go away and not be rebuilt. So that's a serious concern. And R1A was a minimum of,200 1200 ft. Mhm.

So R1 is going That's a good actually a good point. Another provision of the general revision is that in under state law KSA 12757, it says, are you going from um a less restrictive to a more restrictive zoning classification? So we're not. we're going from a more restrictive to a less restrictive zoning classification. So that's just something to consider as well because if we were going if we were stripping out R1A but we were making it I don't know something more restrictive then we would have to notify all the property owners that hey your house is going from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zoning classification whatever that would be. Yeah. You know so that's just something to consider.

That's good questions though. That's good. I don't have any problems on it. I'll make a motion to approve the changes to the official zoning map. I'll second. All in favor? I

I opposed. Very good. Final consideration has to be before city council. So that's just H7 is the removal of ROA from the zoning regulations. So we just kind of explained all this a little bit. It'll only take effect after publication council makes the final determination. But we're asking our way this is our public notice is giving current small cost form. Um open the public hearing.

All right. the boat here. I won't close the boat here. Maybe Doug wanted to say something. You didn't need time to respond. I'll make a motion to approve the removal of R1A from zoning regulations. Second. All in favor? I

I All opposed. Motion carries. Very good. Moving on to staff report. So, uh, resolution two family development. So, we've been working with the city council on adopting certain provisions that would require duplexes or twin homes to have um a more stringent review process when it comes to building permits and construction material. So, we were going to have it first as a restrictive covenant that developers would have to adopt and then we decided during the last council meeting that we could consider a resolution that would just have a blanket resolution over the city. That as developers asked for resonings, that blanket resolution would be in effect saying that these duplexes would have to have at a minimum tree planting facade requirements. other considerations in terms of garages, sound barriers with the two with the one hour fire rate wall on top of that. Um, and these standards would apply to all new developments that have are asking for that reasoning. So, that's just something that we're working through right now with city council and city staff internally. Um, number two, comprehensive plan is underway. Emails have gone out to individuals to schedule one-on-one interviews, including planning commission chair and vice chair. So, uh, with Chair Coin and Chair Walker, we should got emails from Olsen saying that they would like to talk to you about the comprehensive plan. So, hopefully that would be constructive. So, we're underway. We've sent out a lot of GIS data to them to kind of start that process. And, uh, city council did explicitly want shared beyond that comprehensive plan review. So, we're working with shared woods as well for a housing study to go with that. All right. Jay, plan commissioner comments.

I'm assuming the new RV place going to get a sign for that. They're going to tear down their existing That's not true. They wanted to tear down their existing sign. Um, and then they decided to turn it into a monument site. So, they were going to tear it down and put it in a different location. And that's what they originally told me because we mentioned that, hey, it's time for you to conform. Um, and so now they've changed it around where they're going to turn it into a monument sign. So, and um, I've been working with different sign contractors who are trying to get on that project right now, asking what the provisions of the monument sign are. And so, I'm happy to get that deal. No, I'll mute.

I think the only comment I would make is as we just ask that you relay to the city council as they go through this resolution process that make sure we're realistic and not too restrictive. I know it's it's a frustrating scenario with all the duplexes, but we also have to try to remember to grow a little. Okay. And that's existing on or not the existing ones, existing ones that are being built. No. So the resolution would only apply to the ones that are for new development. So somebody who approaches the city and says, "Hey, I want to reszone 80 acres and I want single family and two family." They have a plan on those. We can't

told ones were already platted and everything. They've already gone through entitlement this so they Sorry. Go ahead. That's I was gonna say I love the idea. I mean, I know we had multiple conversations about the one we just didn't do and and that was a big topic. So, I I love the idea. I just hope I hope we can come to a happy medium where we get the quality we're after and not be so restrictive that we deter them from coming at all. Sure. So, I think that's that was conveyed at the last council meeting.

I think it's pretty. I love it. We are trying to hire a building inspector to um try to get out from an MCD. There's been some conservation myself personally with MABC in terms of sort of inconsistency. Some of our inspectors are really good. Some of them may they don't even get out of the car. So there's been some issues. Um, so we're trying to uh work get our own building inspector and if we do then we can any type of covenants that are go above and beyond the IRC the international residential code that building inspector can add it so we can have somebody actually enforce it because I'm not qualified to do inspection that would be good. Anything else? Next regular commission meeting will be May 11th 17. I make a motion. Second.

All in favor? All right. All right. Thank you very much. Yes. Got a good one again.