Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I aliance 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, we ask that you be with us tonight as we make decisions for the good and the welfare of the city of God. In your name we pray. Amen. All right. This is item C, approval agenda. So this is to approve the agenda for April 14th, 2025 regular planning commission meeting. I'll move to approve the agenda for April 14, 2025 regular planning commission meeting. Second. All in favor? I I Very good. Item D, assistance comments. At this point, we would allow citizens to comment on anything I deem necessary. Each citizen is allowed 3 minutes. Uh you must state your first and last name. Write it down here and your address. Uh you're limited to 3 minutes. I will let you know 3 minutes have elapsed. We will if you're here for a zoning case. Uh there will be a public hearing on that zoning case. You can speak at that time, but if you want to speak now on any other agenda item, then Mr. Chair, you can open up citizens comment. I'll open up citizens comment. Very good. Well, I won't be bashful. I'll come up. Uh there's there's Yeah. Yeah. There's two agendas tonight. Uh, one is at Maple and 183rd Street about changing that to do duplexes, you know, and they come out and they said, "Well, they're going to do it as a retirement committee, 55 and older." Well, that's illegal because they can't do that. That's

discrimination. So, you know, when he was at the city council meeting, he talked about that they were going to do,00 ft² to 2,000 square ft. So my problem is is that most of it's going to be at 1,100 which is going to be the cheaper side and it's going to make everything trashy. But we've got a whole bunch of duplexes going in cuz you have another one tonight at 199th in Maple and they're going to do nine twin homes. I think it's 24 duplexes and 55 single homes. How many How many duplexes are we going to build in Goddard that I know of? The last I saw there was 800 duplexes to be built or are in the process of being built right now. So if you look at the the stuff that's going on 167th, which is Witchah, which is close to our our area, those things are dinky. They're really little. You know, the the the county has raised my property $220,000 in four years. And so we're going to start diminishing the value of properties by just all the duplexes that we're putting in because the duplexes aren't going to be the value of a single dwelling home depending upon the sizes of them, you know, and and so I know everybody's upset with the county with what they've done. And you know, as as far as mine, I've protested it cuz $220,000 in four years. I mean, holy crap. what what's it going to be in 10 years? You know, they're gonna they're going to make it to where we can't afford to live in our own homes. You know, that's not you guys's problem, but that's my problem. But so here we are. We're going to fill a town full of duplexes and then all of a

sudden we're not going to have valuable homes in this town anymore or what we do have is is going to be run into the ground. So that's that's my concern and and my complaint. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Um, I came to speak for my neighbor, so I can give you my name and my address. Um, but I'm here for another neighbor. What What would you prefer? Your name and address, please. Okay. Uh, my name is Candace Sipple and my address is 2016 North Clearstone in Gddard, Kansas. And my neighbor couldn't be here. He's the one that got a letter for the duplexes at 183rd in Maple. And so he just wrote a quick note that he wanted me to share. He's out on business. Um, he said he was at a previous city meeting there. He was told there would be no more duplexes in Goddard for 5 years. Um, he said he believes the land should be for single family homes as it was as it is currently zoned and was when he purchased his land. He said, "These duplexes are going in my backyard and these developers do not live here and see this every day like I do." That's his statement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tim Haywood. Um, my address is 1805 East Elkridge Avenue in God. Um, I live next door to the gentleman that Candace just spoke about. I feel exactly the same way. My backyard will look straight into all of these duplexes. And the other issue I'm having is I challenge anyone to try and go down 167, sorry, Maple and 167th on a school morning or a school afternoon. the infrastructure isn't in that area for you to put extra housing in there at a duplex rate. That's my concern. Thank you. Thank you. Do anybody else have Mr. Chair? At this point, seeing no one else, we may close citizens comments. All right, we'll close citizens comments. Very good. We're going to move on to ease this consent agenda. So this is to approve the minutes from the March 10th, 2025 regular commission meeting. We had a reszoning case number zone 25-1. We had the pre-plat for Willows Ridge development. We have a final platform for Wills Ridge development and a project development update. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from March 10th. I have a second. Can I just ask you spell my name correctly in those minutes? Did you write down your name? Did you come up and speak? He did. Yes, last

time. My name is We will add a modification to the minutes from the previous. So, Mr. Uh, chair, if you can ask off commission to make that motion with a modification to the minutes from the previous meeting to include a correction to the last name of Mr. Paul Jonas. I I will make that motion to change the minutes to reflect the proper name of the gentleman's vote. Second. All in favor? I I thank you very much. This item F zone appeals F1 reszoning for March owner development bill is FTRC case number zone 25-2 actually MKC engineering submitted an application to reszone around 45 plus acres on northeast corner of 183 Maple from R1 single family residential R4 high density residential it was then presented on March 10th before plan commission after some deliberation it was voted 3 to three on a split vote which constitutes a no vote and went before the city council on March 17th 2025 and after some deliberation it was voted no on 3 to1 vote denying a reszoning request for case 25-1. On March 18th, 2025, developer resubmitted another application for a reszoning request to reszone the property to R2 instead of R4. Developer also met with members of the planning commission city council on Wednesday of April 2nd at the Presby development in Bair to showcase his plan for the area of God. Planning Commission is considering reszoning the property to R2 family residential. Notices were sent out to the public per state law and be published in the city newspaper. The final consideration will be before the city council on April 22nd at 12 p.m. So the following requirements are found in article 13 amendment section 100.8.1-17. These are the golden rules. Feel free to interrupt at any time if you would like. These golden rules are

going to be very similar to the previous golden rules that you saw. I will note that black is the question that's asked of the golden rules. Purple is my answer. you see green, it's because when they switched it from R4 to R2, that answer changed. And so I marked it as green so you can see it how it changed from R4 to R2. But what are the existing uses in their character and condition on subject property in the surrounding neighborhoods? The subject property is farming ranch operation with improvements. The land use to the east is farming ranch operation with improvements and duplexes. To the south, the land use is single family residents detached and farming ranch land with no improvements. To the west, the land use is single family residents detached. to north landed farming ranch improvements. What is the current zoning of the subject property that is from neighborhood in relation to the request and the subject property is zoned R1 single family residential. Land use to the east is zone R2 family residential and RR rural residential which is a county classification. To the south the land is zone R4 high density residential and R1 single family residential. To the west land uses zone R1 single family residential to north land use RR which is rural residential. Is the length of time the southern property has remained undeveloped vacant as known factor in these considerations. No property was county before in the original property owner passed the land went up for auction. So it was in the county before it was annexed and became under all regulatory authority. Would the request correct an error the application of these regulations? So no land was not governed by the city prior to these reszonings and annexation. Is the request caused by change of change conditions available to subject property and if so what is the nature of significance such change or change of conditions? So yes, government has experienced higher residential growth in housing of all types and all income brackets has become apparent. Um, do adequate sewage disposal, water supply, and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or can they be provided to serve the use that would be permitted in the subject property? So, yes, sewer and water street are all readily available. This is on the northeast corner of 100 in Maple. Any additional infrastructure will be brought in through the petition process through special assessments on the property. Would the subject property needed to be platted or replatted or

dedications made for rightway easements and access control or building setback lines? So yes, the lane is unclatted and we would have to go through the platting process after the zoning process. Would a screening plan be necessary for listing or potential uses of the subject property? So I marked it as green because originally when we were talking about R4, there was potential for triplexes and quadlexes which is defined as multif family. So screening would be necessary. But when they do R2, it drops down to one family and two family only. So screening is not necessary because our regulations only require for three units or greater. basically the rate of land or buildings available or not available for development. It currently has the same zoning as requested. So Harour accounts for about 2.4 uh of zoned acres roughly 77.74 existing acres and then for R2 it's roughly about 33 to 55% around that day. If the request is for the business or industrial uses are such uses needed for to provide more services and employment opportunities and so does not apply is residential do so 10. Yes. And this is to regulate to restrict the height, number of stories, the size of buildings and structures, including the distance from the LA street right away percentage of each lot that may be occupied by buildings and other structures and size of yards. To protect property and historical values and conserve energy and natural resources to provide traffic for adequate light, air and acceptable noise levels that avoid undue concentration of population behavioral traffic to prevent overcrowding use of land or public facilities. Facilitate adequate provisions of transportation, water supply, sewage disposal, and schools parcel and public improvements. to provide adequate public notice on proposed changes in these regulations, zoning maps and an opportunity to be heard on such zoning matters to staff to provide procedural board zoning appeals to consider appeals daring conditional uses and exceptions and to implement the goals policy and proposals of the comprehensive plan for the zoning jurisdiction. So staff believes that this development is conformance with intent and purpose of the sub regulations. So is a subject property suitable for use to the current zoning to which it has been restricted. So perhaps R1 does not allow for multif family but does allow for duplexes as a

conditional use. So R2 won't allow for duplexes as proposed. It would just have to go through a conditional use for each lot. So R2 does allow for duplexes and R1 does allow for duplexes but you have to get a conditional use permit if it remains R1 to extend the rule restrictions i.e. the approval of the zoning uh request detect on the properties in the neighborhood. So the introduction of additional cars can create issues on maple for traffic during peak traffic times as mentioned during citizens comments. Obviously need to introduce more housing units. Typically they see about two cars per dwelling unit. So that would increase the amount of cars that's put on 183rd and the amount of cars on Maple and 167. Would the request be consistent with the purpose zone district classification and attain the purpose of these regulations? So this district is established to permit medium density two family dwellings with both public sewage and water supplying to allow certain community facilities. It is not intended generally if single family residential use except as incidental to the area. So under article 1.101 purpose these regulations intended to serve the following promote public health safety morals code for general welfare obtics and redevelopment of redevelopment. So staff does believe this to be in performance with the zoning district purpose. Number 14 is requesting conformance of the comprehensive plan as a further enhanced implementation of plan. So on page 16 of the comprehensive plan as a goal to promote continued residential development, enlarge tax base and strengthen municipal capacity to provide quality public facilities. Page 17 of the comprehensive plan outlines housing objectives to include providing for multif family dwellings, retirement housing on specialized housing as required to meet the needs of defined user groups within the community. Page 16 comprehensive plan shows the future landings area's future residential development. So what is the nature of opposition to request? So general support comes desire to increase the tax rates of city as well as diversify the housing stock provide housing for seniors for different income brackets. General to see if statements like change land use composition of single family attached housing. Is there any information or are there recommendations of this request available for professional persons or persons with related expertise which would be helpful in this evaluation? So residential development of all sorts provides much needed tax city's

long-term maintenance cost. Static cities or shrinking cities have to wrestle with the demand of existing services and the cost of those services over time. Diversified cities can spread the costless services over more people such that increased service costs are not carried by the same people over a long period of time. So by comparison does a relative gain to the public health safety or general welfare elevate the loss of property value or the hardship imposed upon the applicant by not approving the request. So this development for residential use and does not pose a serious threat to health, safety or welfare. Typical arguments against reszoning for higher use is common answers. This is something that's come up before. The plan commissioners have asked me to address some of these common answers and questions and concerns. So it will decrease property value. So the appraised value of the property does not look at duplexes or multif family for determining value. It looks at similar properties within the neighborhood or if necessary outside the neighborhood for comparison. So the county has three parts. It looks at what's called bricks and sticks. So if they take your property and tear it down and build it back up, what's the cost of that property with with modern day costs? Number two, they look at cost comparisons. So they take your neighborhood code. So every neighborhood, for example, St. Andrews or Spring Hill or Elk Rage or any other development has a neighborhood code assigned to it. They'll take houses within that neighborhood code and compare it to your property. And then they'll say if they can't find comparable property, they'll reach outside that neighborhood code to other existing neighborhoods of a similar composition. And then they do what's called a multivariant regression analysis, which I don't need to know the details about, but basically it takes a valuation of different factors over time to make a determination of value. And then they take those three and they average it. They say this is your property. This is your property value. So as nowhere in those criteria does it say what is the proximity of your property in relation to a new place they will overrun the school district and decrease quality of the school. So new residential developments do increase school attendance but this is something the school districts will have to contend with by issuing bonds to add additional buildings and classrooms. So as cities grow over time school districts by proximity also have to grow over time and so they will issue bonds

like the one that's been coming up to add additional classrooms. So this is just a healthy part of growth and this is something that school districts of course will have to contend with over time as you see coming up with the school bond issue. Renters in the family are in transient and do not engage in the community. So it is often the case that individuals who are unable to afford a home in the moment will rent in the general area where they will want to eventually buy a house. It is not a serious consideration that if somebody is renting that they will not attend fall fest or a national night out or engage in social activities. So there's no reason to say it's just because somebody's renting a property that they will not actually engage in any social events that the city would be hosting. The road should be approved before the development goes in. So roads require significant cost uh to install or upgrade a marginal increase in traffic. There's not a justification for the expense when the traffic count is less than several thousand cars per day on average. So as cities grow and developments grow in proximity to the streets and the roads and cars tend to you know start using those roads as to be expected the city will then modify it as needed. So basically as the as more and more cars tend to get on the road you start seeing queuing and congestion issues then the improvement to the road happens. You don't improve a road or increase the quality of a road when there's not a lot of traffic on it. You don't pave a county road to middle nowhere. You don't build a bridge to nowhere. So that's the whole point is that first you have the demand and then you provide the supply quick okay questions related to validity of senior communities as it as it pertains to the legal authority. So the fair housing act was passed in 1968 which prohibits discrimination on community housing based upon certain criteria one of them being familial status which is a proh prohibition on discrimination in housing against families and children under 18. In 1995, the Housing for Older Persons Act was passed, which allowed a developer to build communities that are specifically tailored to seniors, allowed and restrict housing for those 55 and over. In order to comply with the HOPA, which is the Housing for Older Persons Act, a development must have 80% of their users

be exclusively for those over 55. These communities tend to have services and events tailored to those who are over 55, such that they should be clubous that have events for seniors instead of playgrounds for younger families. A developer might say they are building a community, and we want to make that distinction. The developer might say they're building a community that seniors could live in, which one must then make a distinction from a community that's being built almost exclusively for seniors under the housing for older persons act. So in this particular case, we're talking about a development that's built under the housing for older persons act. So sometimes people will say, did that one developer once upon a time say this is going to be a senior community? And you have to make that distinction that is he building houses that a senior could live in versus these are being this is a community for housing almost exclusively for seniors. And so under the Housing for Older Persons Act in 1995, you can build a community exclusively for 55 and over if 80% of the units are housing people who are 55 and over. So in this case, they are creating a housing community for people 55 and over. And so it's at 183 Maple. And you can see the general layout over here. There's going to be 172 units. Two of them will be single family, which are these two over here. This is the FEMA flood plane. So they'll be detaining that you're going to have any kind of duplexes in this layout over here. I know you're looking on your side because this is north. So it is recommended that planning commission have the planning commission chair both open the public hearing and receive comments, close the public hearing and then improve the reasoning application case zone uh 25-2. So, I do have a developer here who will present a little bit of a slideshow to you guys and answer any questions. But before I have him do that, I would like the chair to go ahead and open up uh the public hearing. Okay, we'll open up the public hearing. Very good. Anybody at this point may speak on the matter and speak first and last name.

Good evening. Um Paul Jonas 318 North 183rd Street uh gutted Kansas. I own a property just to north of that. Uh I think I spoke last time I was here. A lot of concerns about the creek and the flood plane and how sensitive that area is to that. Uh still still the same concerns. Um actually it was the first time I did see a plat what was promised. Um, so again, I said we were told by the developer that it was going to be a single, you know, for for seniors, which I don't have a problem with. It's just how we're going to buffer it between the other neighborhoods and we're talking about single family residences as the buffer between. Of course, I had no a plaque to go see. So again, I think it to me I think it's a little backwards. You approve the reszoning before you know it goes in it and then if it's approved, then they can do what they want. But it is what it is. Um, I just also wanted to note again is the um the issues you're going to have with 183rd Street. And I noted that um since Elkridge came in, I'm not saying Elbridge did anything wrong, but there is about four or five different places where it uh floods across 180 Street today cuz I see the water as it comes downstream. Uh Second Street and 183rd Street typically sits underwater cuz it backs all the way up to the north again. So, just all I'm going to try to say is I know when you do these zonings, right, the developer only has to to address the area with inside the areas that's that he's developing. But I do ask you all to be very considerate and with the developer of what happens downstream to us. Um saw the record height on the on the flood plane last year about 4 and 1/2 ft above uh the surface. So again, you know, I ask you just uh be considerate of what happens downstream and um at some point in time, maybe it's not at the minimum we approve, but uh please take it any

heart, do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Amanda Treadwell. I'm the acting volunteer director of the Gddard Senior Center. I'm also the chairperson for the Gddard Senior Citizen Advisory um board. So, I'm here to speak on specific data and results from a survey that I did at the end of 2024 regarding our seniors. Um we currently have 500 seniors that are members of the Goddard Senior Center currently. Um and that continues to grow. Um we did do a survey at the end of last year. um which at that point we we had around 300 seniors um and over 100 of them participated in the survey. That survey included transportation portion and a housing portion. So I want to share some data with you regarding our seniors because this is specifically what they're asking for. Um so in the survey results we talked we asked about income levels. So between the income levels of 3 3,000 to 4,000 plus um over 50% of those seniors that filled out the survey make 3,000 or more. So it does support that there is um seniors that can't afford this particular housing. And this was based off of one senior's income. So if there was a hospital two then that's going to be more. Um the additional survey was what are the most important factors when considering housing needs? Overall affordability was number one. Number two was safety and security. Number three was the proximity of family and friends. Um and number four was proximity to public services. Five was accessibility and six was social opportunities. Um so you can see um what how they rate um what they're looking for in housing and what's the most important factors. Um specifically we asked, do you feel that the current living situation you have now meets the needs now and in the future? Overwhelmingly that answer was no. um and it was a open box for them to leave

their response. There were several that would say we want to move to a senior community. Um that came up multiple times. Um wider doors um and actually accessibility was part of that which my understanding is this this project will include all of that. Um a lot of them were thinking about downsizing and needing homes. Um and it kind of leads into the next question which are is there any specific concerns that you have about housing currently? Um and what options are available? And overwhelmingly it was a lack of senior housing options in Goddard. We have a lot of seniors that want to downsize. They would prefer to stay in Goddard. But right now their only options are the Goddard senior apartments or God senior homes which is only income based which they're on a 2-year wait list right now. Um the other option is going to be medical lodges or your um dub estates or silver linings which is at that level where they have nurses. So that entry level is $7,000 a month. We don't have anything in between. our seniors don't want to live in a regular duplex community. Um they want to live in a senior housing community. And so this fills this that gap in our Goddard area. Um as well as hopefully future projects of apartments or such. But I feel like we have to have at least one option at each of those to be able to provide our Goddard residents the option to be able to downsize in Goddard and not move away because then we're losing we're losing more people in our community. Um so that these are actual survey results. I'm happy to share the whole survey with you guys that you can see just there. All of them put their individual responses of what they wanted and what their challenges were. Um, but overall, I don't want this to be looked at as a duplexes cuz I'm also against just duplexes in general, but this is a 55 plus community. When looking in town and going around, all of our 55 plus communities are on weight list right now. So, this gives Goddard the option to keep our residents here and gives that option for them. Um the facilities that the developer has um my understanding is that there was a tour of them and those are 20 year old and they look in great condition. Um it's

different when you have a local um management company, a local owner that that manages them versus somebody out of state, but they're they take better care of them. Um the seniors will be forced to move outside of God. We mentioned that survey results. Um the amenities, what I really liked about this is they actually have a full-time staff person that's going to provide activities. Um, that's a lot of what we're doing at the senior center, but we're really stricted by facilities and by what we can hold and that's 500 seniors already and we're busting out the scenes. So, this is a great option to provide those services, those activities right there on site. Um, including pickle ball. We do pickle ball at sandbox. We have 23 people average every Tuesday that play pickle ball. So, that that's going to fill another need of interest at that senior level. Plus, any of them that they have um at the facility that are living there and renting um since it's accessible, then anytime that they have to get on a ladder, they are going to take care of that. So, changing light bulbs or doing any of that stuff, yard maintenance, all that's taken care of. That's what our seniors want. And we do not have that right now. So, please look at this as a senior community, not just duplexes because it does fill the needs that our seniors are saying that they are wanting. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. There we go. Stan Chapman. I talked to you earlier. So 183rd I believe is controlled by the township of Adica and from from Maple to Cynica or I mean to central because they're the ones that come and graded. So, I did notice that there's uh lines

down there to see what the traffic flow is on the the road right now to see if there's enough because like the gentleman before me talked about when we get a lot of rain, there's there's places in the field north of of Elk Ridge plus where the the pond is that goes over the road. There's several places where it washes it out, you know, and that's been one of the things that people have talked about for a long time is to get something done with that road to uh upgrade it because there's a lot more traffic on that road now. And and just like the gentleman talked about, the the traffic at the corner at school time is terrible. And and right now with the construction going on at uh 183rd in Kellogg, you might as well if you're trying to get off of 183rd on Maple, you almost might have might as well forget it in the morning because that traffic's just stupid because people have to go out of their way to to go instead of being able to go south till they get it open. You know, the street the street's not made for the kind of traffic that's going across there. It's like Maple right now. There's a lot of traffic on Maple that that people haven't thought about. So, here you go. You're you're dumping a whole bunch more houses and and vehicles that's going to dump out on roads that aren't aren't meant to handle anything, you know. And the city commissioner stood up and said they they put a moratorum on duplexes. the city council has said that because there's too many going in right now, you know, so that's something that you have to think about. Thank you. Anybody else at this time? Yeah, I would

like to speak. First, last name. First, last name and your address. Uh, my name is George Lee. I believe at 227 North Spruce and GDDARD. Um I also serve as the mayor of Goddard and I just wanted to clarify that uh back in October we did uh consider a moratorum on duplexes. Uh we did not put a moratorum in place at that time. There is no limitation from the council's perspective on duplexes. We are concerned about the numbers like everybody's expressed. We also realized that when we do build things in this community, they need to be nice things. And uh I think there was a there was a in the article in the paper here, there was a correction to the spec. So right now off the top of my head, I can't remember the day of the meeting, but I think it was like September 16th. I think it was at 1 hour and 33 minutes where that vote took place. So if you want to go back and check, you can look, but we did not pass more on duplexes. There is no mortorium in place. Um we are concerned about the traffic. We've had traffic studies done. We're looking at a 10-year plan that's going to include things like how we address those intersections, how we move traffic as the community continues to grow. That's part of an overall plan of trying to manage the growth that we have. I will point out one other thing is that Witchah is already annexed across 167th north of Maple and there is nothing that is going to stop them to continue to move west as they continue to grow. So, uh, we can we can sit still and do nothing and then we'll be like Eastboro and we'll be surrounded by Witchah or we can make some efforts to manage this process and try to create the type of community that we all can be proud of. So, I just wanted to clarify that point. There is no moratorium on duplexes and things. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Okie dokie. I am required to read any

letters that are sent to me as the planning commission clerk. So, this is from Natalie Bush. Uh she's at 1922 North McCrae Drive. Uh she has a strong opposition to resoning request for the land parcel located at the northeast corner of 183rd Maple. She said, "Dear Board of Zoning Appeals and City Council, I'm ready to express my strong opposition to the proposed resoning of the parcel general located on the northeast corner of 1 of Maple from R1 to R2. Our community is already struggling to keep up the rapid growth and this change would only worsen existing challenges. Our schools are already overcrowded and we are working to pass a bond to build new ones. Adding more high density housing would put additional strain on a school system and has already stretched too thin. Additionally, our property taxes are increasing substantially and I am deeply concerned that reszoning is partial lead to further financial burdens for current residents as the city struggles to provide adequate infrastructure and services. Beyond school and taxes, we are also facing a severe water shortage. The city is already purchasing water rights from the rural district. Yet, even this is not enough to support the population growth caused by previously approved housing developments which contain an excessive number of duplexes. and still adding even more high density housing. Our city needs to focus on critical infrastructure improvements such as new water tower that has been recommended for this very intersection. Our community needs this water tower far more than we need additional duplexes. Additionally, I want to highlight the issue of developer accountability. The parcel of land across Maple was originally proposed as a 55 plus community but has since been switched to something else entirely. This kind of switch development erodess trust and proves that developers do not always follow through on their promises. Our community has been misled before and we cannot afford to allow it to happen again. Thoughtful transparent planning should take precedence over rushed approvals that only serve the interest of developers rather than the long-term wellbeing of our residents. Furthermore, we need to prioritize development of affordable single family homes rather than two family homes that are often priced so high that renting them costs more than a mortgage on traditional single family home in our town. Sustained growth should focus on meeting the needs of current and future residents, not just maximizing density

density of the expensive infrastructure and quality of life. For these reasons, I strongly urge planning commission city council to deny this reszoning request. Our committee's long-term well-being must come before unchecked development. Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your commitment to making responsible decisions and protect the interests of current and future residents, Natalie Bush. So, I have read that from her. This at this point, I will bring up whoever lost I suppose from the sher development team. Just real quick, turn it over to Jesse Shelonberg here, but Joey Deni and KDC um agent on behalf of the applicant. Um you know, last time we were here, we're going for R4. Um you know, after some consideration, we were kind of discussing that, you know, we are looking more at the two family attached uh product. Um we had some concerns about some of the bulk regulations. So that's why we were originally going for the R4. Um but after kind of you know looking at the layout um as you can see we do have a plaque that started that we're going to kind of submit here um pending the approval of the zoning. Um but uh we're thinking the bulk regulations some of the sidebacks we'll be able to adhere with that R2 and we'll be able to um come back with the plat with with some of those setbacks and some of those regulations in that R2. Um just quickly on drainage, we'll kind of discuss it at platting, but we are look looking at it at this time. Um like I mentioned last time, we are not going to affect that flood plane there. Um that's going to be a big uh buffer actually to the west for those residential lots as well. Um but we will submit a full drainage report. Um it'll get approved by the city of Goddard. So and uh they'll be able to comment on that on that at that time. But with that, I'll have Jesse come up. He's got a presentation. Yes, Jesse Shoenberg with Shoberg Development Company. Um, boy, I feel like I don't have a whole lot to add after covered a lot of things here, but

we've just got kind of a little presentation to kind of explain a little more about what our product is. Um, I know some of you guys have been out at the last um showing out at Bills at Pressbook there in Goddard. And so some of this will be a little repeat, but just kind of give a little presentation about what our product is. Um I think a big misconception a little bit is just what what the most important part of what we offer is creating a lifestyle for our 55 plus. Um a lot of it does start with our clubhouse. Um, this becomes a big meeting area where we have many different events, um, potluck dinners, uh, birthday parties. Um, it gets used, I'd say, three at least three times a week, um, by by our residents. Um, on our next one, we'll be offering a pickball court. Um again this is what is in Bair but we uh will have um pool workout room and all this is just included with um the rent with our with our residents. Um, and typically, again, this is our third our third community that we've we've uh built. And like the timing of our clubhouse, we always do like in the first phase. And so, we don't have that time exactly, but I would say after the first handful of buildings are done, then we would start uh the clubhouse. And these are just some of the pictures from our Christmas parties, our birthday parties, grilling parties. um just the different events that we do hold out there and that is one thing that does set us apart. Um we do build quality stuff. Um we had started in um Arbor Creek I believe 2 to 3 years ago. Um and that's kind of when we first started our relationship with you guys.

Um, and I like to say that with our amenities and stuff that we do build, we do build uh quality and you can see that in our in our product. Again, just some more pictures. This just gives you an example of kind of what our floor plan is. majority and we'll know more as kind of platting and some of this begins. Um they are more so slab on grades. We may have some basements. Um majority of ours will be 1,200 square ft. Um we are looking at oh kind of a second option where it's a little smaller. All these are two bedroomedroom two bath um twocar garage. And so we also have like we call it secure storage where it's um is a full concrete uh room. And so that offers for, you know, there's bad weather um or stuff for our for our residents. But our our other one that will be just a little smaller, it would be like a two-bedroom, one bath um single car garage that just kind of opens up for maybe there's widows or um just offers, you know, another product. And that wouldn't vary whether it's smaller or this size unit. um the quality and everything that is part of that stays the same. Um and including this you have, you know, appliances that we take care of. Like Amanda said, anything that requires putting on a ladder, we take care of exterior mowing. Um and even in our landscaping design, we take into consideration uh buildings surrounding us, the location of trees. Um we usually we saw everything so you have that immediate gratification. Um we do spring and fall cleanup where we replace shrubs or you know fluff the beds or keep it looking fresh and nice

throughout the year. Um and again the looks of these is what we would be bringing to Goddard. Um it's good clean fresh look. Um and we even exterior painting we have it to where you know every roughly it's about 8 years that we um will paint exteriors or things are starting to look a little rough. We do keep that we don't just bleed things out to um not have to do deferred maintenance or those type of items. So we again we want things to look good longevity all of our stuff um you know we typically sit and hold and so again we we want it our names on it our names on the construction here we've got our construction people the engineer company um the leasing so we got our whole team here that we can answer any questions that that would need uh we also on this we will be selling some of these um and it would all be under the same regulation you know even though you can have 80% uh um has to be 55 plus. Ours are 100%. You have to be 55 plus. Um and so that that goes into other different things. And here's kind of a list of our some of our amenities that included with the the units and just like with the clubhouse and some of that. Um but one thing I need to make clear that on the the units that we would sell um it would only be a certain amount. it would be part of an association that takes care of the grounds, takes care of everything, the exact same as all the other units. Um, you wouldn't be able to see it any different from the the other units that we would rent out and they would fall under the exact same guidelines. It would have to be 55 plus. There'd be no subleasasing. There would be no anything like that. So, it would be um tight restrictions on that. Um like Amanda had said, you know, a big thing that I think that in some areas

that um kind of gives a bad taste in people's mouths is we are locally owned and locally operated. So we have developments here. We're here frequently. We hear complaints. We, you know, we work with the city. So I think that's something that does set us apart um versus people that areas that's owned by people in Texas or Cal California. So that makes a big difference. Amanda kind of touched base on some of this data regarding uh 55 plus like the growth on some of that. So I won't you know hit on that like uh she was saying that just here in Gddard this gives you an example of just the the rent rates that are here and here the you know the niche that we're kind of trying to hit with our price market and this would deter residents from you know leaving Goddard because there's just not this option here and this we view this as you know filling that gap of what what Goddard needs. Um, a couple other things I do hear that, you know, it's going to affect school school districts and traffic is a big one with our age group. You know, they're not going to work. Most of them are going to work at 8:00 in the morning, coming back at 5. It's it's a different clientele. So, I don't think you're going to see that that big traffic impact um that that's being talked about. Um, I think that is everything. Any questions? Just curious why why choose to sell some if you're going to keep the restrictions identical to what you would do. Um, there's just that the market there's there are still some people that want to own um just not have to take care of their property. They can go travel. Um, so it just opens that up for that little

bit of that market that people are wanting to still own um with less maintenance stuff. So then when they you sell some of those, I'm assuming like the same covenants restricted those can't be bypassed by correct session. Correct. Yep. There would be like in the covenants and those things that would hold it tight to that. Okay. Assuming this this gets approved, what's your time frame? I mean, how soon? What what's your time frame for going through design and start? Do you have an updated? I know before um I think roughly streets were going to be completed by the end of the year. Um now some of the stuff back so maybe I think we're set back month. So February, January, February when streets will be completed. If we can do it sooner, we'll do it sooner. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, sorry I didn't get to touch on it and he I thought he would touch on it here, but just to kind of give you some population information. So in this Gddard city limits, there's 1,073 senior citizens that are 55 plus in our in our city limits. And when you look at the Gddard school district, um it doesn't let me break it down um for 55. It just has 50 and older. So if you look at 50 and older, meaning that those 50 year olds to to 55 or 60 that will be 55 with the

next 5 years, we'll have 90 9,728 seniors that are in our Goddard school district um within the next 5 years. So that's a lot of seniors that are 55 or older. So that's why when you look at the population and you look at the seniors that we currently already have, that's why I think that this fills that gap. So I just wanted to give you that data because that is to go over our Thank you. Thank you. Anything else at this time? Seeing none, Mr. Chair, you can close the public hearing. All right, we'll close the public hearing. Very good. So, the financial small publication cost for the public hearing and an ordinance after consideration of the city council and this label approved as form. Once again, it is recommended that the pling commission approve the reszoning application of zone 25-2. So 25-2 that's case right now can't deliver it when we met last month there was talk about potentially paving part of 183rd. Yes. Is that still Yes. We're in communication right now with engineering firm and developer to pave up to the west entrance of that development. So right now, let's go. We can go back and look at it. So we will probably force them to pave up to this section right over here. So that would be the west entrance for them. At some point, as mentioned, this is owned by the county. And so our 2011s are typically owned and managed by the county. And then local are owned and managed by the township and you have residents that actually jump onto them. So, we'll be working with Sud County for the continuation of this as we continue to grow north on 183rd and we'll slowly annex that road and continue to pave it and manage it, maintain it as we move forward. So, there'll be some

consideration for how much of 183rd we want to annex and we'll take that under adisement and move forward from that point on. But, we will usually typically require them to pave up to the entry point of their development. That's a joke. Who or when makes that decision? You is that something that comes up during the the platting or Yes, we can consider it during cladding. We can consider it at any point really after the fact. Usually the county reminds us that they don't want to maintain their own roads and so they force us to annex the roads as we move forward. So county they always at some point just tend to knock on our door and say hey we want you guys to annex these arterial roads because our costs have greatly exceeded the amount of infrastructure that we have and so we want you guys to annex. So at some point we'll consider how much of the road we want to annex and that will be a deliberation internally with city staff and then consideration with the city administrator and city council about how much of that road we want to annex and how far. But we also have to talk to a county. Answer all your questions. Y good one. Yeah, I was looking for a motion. I'll move to approve the reszoning application case zone five zone 5-2. 25-2, please. Oh, I'm sorry. 25.

Mhm. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, very good. 620. No opposition. Okay, unanimous. Thank you very much. Um, you guys are welcome to stay the rest of night or if not and have a good one. So, this is G old business. There is none. H, new business. This is H1. This is the preliminary plat for the Maple Tree development. So, quick background. Both company has submitted a plat application for the Maple Tree Development off of 199 Maple on the southwest corner. The reszoning for this development was considered on July 8th of 2024 with case number zone 24-3 and approved by the planning commission. City council approved the zoning on July 15th of 2024. Planning needs to be considered first by the planning commission and the final bite goes before the city council for final approval. Planning commission is review for the maple tree development. There's 88 total lots. Nine lots for twin homes which are lots 24 to 32 block B. 24 lots for duplexes lots 33 to 56 block. 55 lots for single family detached lots 123 block B lots 133 block A zoning was approved as R2 reserve A is a detention pond for the site to manage storm water so that blue definitely washed out but there is the reserve for the for the um storm water we're going to have R2 for the whole thing but right now the duplexes over here twin homes over here single family are going to be along these areas most of the exterior financial rese Predest form is recommend the park commission approve the plenary plan for the maple tree development. I do believe we have Bman. Wave your hand. Don't be shy. There he is. Bman is right there. So we do have agent for the applicant. So if you guys do have any questions for Bon, they are available.

Is that meant to be a pond or retention? Mhm. Or, you know, I always get those mixed up, so I apologize. Retention versus detention pond. I believe Tina, correct me. Which one is it, please? Oh, it depends on it water or if it lets it absorb into the soil. That's your determining factor. That is a determining factor. So, it's going to be a wet pond. So, if it's holding it, then it's a detection pond. It is a detection pond. I'll try to remember that. Is Maple Street paved all the way past here? Yes, Maple Street's paved all the way to Actually, let's go back. I think Maple Street's paved all the way. How far is Maple Street paved? That's about right. Sounds accurate. 250. I had two choices. What was that ratio again on the single to the 2000? We saw an initial look at this. No, this is the same layout as when the zoning passed in 2024, right?

Far. practice. Now find the robots. Anybody have any questions? Comments? Make a motion to approve. And I will second. All in favor? I I oppose. I thank you very much. 5 to one. So instantly financially legally approved this form and the motion was made. Number two would be final plat for Maple Tree. So they want to approve these concurrently. So you're going to be looking at the same thing. This is just the final PL. The company has submitted it. The reason zoning was approved. Council needs to approve it. 55 lots, single family, 788 total. This is the final plat. I'll make a motion to approve the final plat for the maple tree development. Second. All in favor? I. All oppose. I. Thank you very much. Motion passes 5 to one. This is H3. This is the preliminary replat for the daughter trails in second edition. So Garver has submitted an application for a replat of the daughter trails endowment. Original plat had a

section lots 3 through 43 block 3 amounting to 35 lots that the developer would like to develop into duplexes. However, the developer signed restrictive covenant limiting the number of duplexes to 80 duplexes or 40 whichever was less of the development and this was a requirement of the resulting process. Developer asked city council resitation on duplexes which was denied. The developer would like to add additional single family lots into the next phase. The new plat would add additional four lots totaling 39 for the new second edition. Three plats are treated just like a regular plat with preliminary in the final plat. The final reflat needs to go before the city council for final consideration. So the plan is reviewing the preliminary reflat trails on second edition. The new plat is 39 lots. So originally it was 35. They're introducing 39. Zoning is R2. Land use is single family. detention pond can adequately carry the additional lots according to Garber. So, Bar Trails End second edition. This is the area that they're replatting. The layout is generally the same, just the introduction of four additional lots, tall single family in this area. So, how did they take the same area and get four more lots out of it? They make a lot smaller. Exactly. They just shaved about 10 ft off a couple lots and then you can slap it into a brand new lot. So then you have some additional lots but it's uh like as mentioned they're just trimming some of it and then you're able to reintroduce it through the engineering process and then platting and then you have to do the replatting to introduce it and there you go. So you have four additional lots. I believe Garver is here as well. Agent for the applicant somewhere. Don't be shy. They're right behind me. So, you'll notice that we did have Baffin Garber and MKC in the room

at the same time. So, they will fight for your amusement at some point. But Garber is here agent for that. If you guys do have any engineering questions, I will gladly excuse myself from answering those questions and defer to Garber. So, what what will the new percentage be? I know that the max is 40%. But this new plaque, what what I'm going to have to do some hurt and you have a calculator in your back pocket. Yeah, it's on my phone. So, originally I think there was 205. Do you know? So, I don't have to. I think the original was 205 lots. So now they have 209. So we'll just say that's your new denominator. So let's say they're at 38% duplexes. So they dropped from 40 to 38.

Any questions? I make a motion we approve the reply got our trails in second motion. Second. All in favor? I I Any f. Thank you very much. Motion passes 5 to one. This is H4. This is the final reflat of God trails in second edition. So it's going to be the same thing. This is the final plat. Same criteria. Final plats go before city council for final consideration. After they go before city council, then they are taken to the county and they get signatures on a myar and they bring the myar over and Mr. Chair will sign that myar and I will sign the mileing. The mayor will sign the myar and it'll get reported. I'll make a motion to approve the final reply for Goddard Trail sec. All in favor? I I oppose I. Thank you very much. 51 motion passes. This is H.5. This is a site plan for the Bridger and Maple Clubhouse. So, Bachman Company has submitted a site plan application for the bridger at Maple Clubhouse. Site plans are typically approved by the planning commission with the architecture and engineering approved by the metropolitan area building construction department or MABC. Once approved by the planning commission and MABC, a general contractor can pull a building permit to start construction. High technician is reviewing the site plan for the Bridger Naple Clubhouse. The zoning is R2. The land uses the clubhouse and pool. Gross floor area is 1,800. Gross track area is 173,000. Percent of the lot coverage is 0.010. There's about 10 parking spots of

ADA. Here is a review and over overlay of what the clubhouse looks like. You have a complete site plan package included. And we do have Bofman once again here as an agent for the applicant. If you do have any questions for Bachmann, there's a pool around the bench and or there's a fence around the pool. It looks like a fence around the maybe the back patio as well. What What are the Has it been decided what the fence is going to be made out of or what the what the fence is going to consist of? Chris Revenue Agent for the applicant. Uh I'm not 100% sure I was going through this. Uh I did not work on these plans so I apologize. Um, I'd assume everything that I've ever seen has always been some sort of a decorative fence, uh, brier or whatever you want to call it nowadays. I don't know why they would put any kind of wood fence up or solid fencing up there. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I just the only note that's on here says 5 foot full fence shell because I want the local codes for safety and access.

Okay. Mhm. I'll make a motion. to approve the site plan for the bridger at Maple Clubhouse. All in favor? Oh, sorry. Second, sure. I'll second. Who second? I'll second. Okay. All right. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. 6 to zero. Motion passes. Thank you very much. You're welcome to stay the rest of night or if not. Okay. This is H.6. This is an administrative review of site plan for an otter penguin exhibit. So, B&B design submitted a site plan for an addition to the honor pen exhibit at Unico Wildlife Park. All commercial buildings and additions must submit a site plan. Under some circumstances, community level director being myself will review site plans internally to expedite the process if he deems it appropriate. The building is addition to an existing building and is surrounded by the park such that the potential urban impact is missile. At that point, I would have made a decision to inform my basically inform planning commission. I'll be reviewing it administratively under the authority given to me under article 11.102B and I'm just going to be reviewing this small addition to the otter penguin exhibit at Tanganiki

internally to help them out with the process and review. That being said, this is the current otter. Actually, I think sloths over here too. So, don't don't want to discriminate against sloths. There's sloths over here. There's otter and penguins and I think I'm going to find my island here as well, but they're going to add this addition over here. So, I was hanging to go up. So, this is the addition to the honor and penguin exhibit. As mentioned, it's an addition to the commercial building. That's why we're doing it internally and it's surrounded by the park. So, the urban impact is pretty much non-existent since the park surrounds it. I actually not legally approved as foreign is recommended just receive a file note that I'll be reviewing an auto penguin exhibit. If you have any questions related to that, feel free to call me at any time or you can stop in my office and take a gander at it. H7. This is a site plan review modification. So periodically the city should review it zoning sub regulations to see if there are any changes that could be made to improve the quality or expediency of development in God. City staff has reviewed the site plan many times under article 11 and has come up with some proposed changes that are believed to be reasonable. The planning commission can propose additional changes or reject any of the proposed changes or accept the changes as presented. The final decision is made before city council. So planning commission is reviewed and proposed changes to subject regulations as it pertains to site plan criteria on article 11. And site plans are often tentative in nature as the architects and developers don't know exactly where all the elements projects will be. Site plans are often submitted with contractors sending in additional information after initial submission as they obtain contract work or survey work. Site plans have two parts an exterior site plan and interior site plan. Planning commission will view the exterior site plan and MABC will review the interior site plan. Removing the additional requirements of landscaping screening without removing the ability for the planning commission to ask to see additional landscaping and screening if they want those provisions. remove leftover language as pertains to channel 7 of the news and remove any additional language pertains to design new committee. So these are just some of the things that I'm proposing to be removed. I don't know when we've ever used channel 7. So I just wanted to throw that out there, but it's still in the

sub right. So I figure we should probably remove it. U back in 2019, we did remove the design review committee, but there's still some residual language that needs removed that references the design review committee. I've also moved a lot of additional information off the site plan because I want to make it as simplified as possible. Still allowing the planning commission to add additional stuff as they see fit if they wanted to see any additional information. This is criteria that you actually see presented on the site plan. I left the ones I like to see in black. The ones I want to remove are red. The ones that have additional information I add agreed to it. So scale ignore there. What address the site? Usually I address it after the fact. So that's why asking for the address on the front end seems a little bit erroneous. Proposed zoning district, we know what the zoning would be. Land use designation. We already know the land use designation would be based on what the applicant has submitted on the application we received in in the form that they required. These all going to stay the same. Building height percent of lot coverage, gross track area, gross floor area of each building, all property street pavement lines existing proposed contours. This comes up a lot because they'll show proposed contours and then they'll modify it as necessary. So I feel like what's the point? yards and building setback lines, fire lane easements, and this comes up a lot. They're like, "Where are fire lane easements?" Fire lane easements, they say usually 20 feet wide. So, they just leave it like that. You're like, "What's a fire lane ement?" Well, fire easements only if you don't have a direct access to the site itself. Fire department usually requires two. So, if you have only one access point, then you might need a fire lane easement for another access point if if that one access point is shut out. If that's the case, then you should outline on the site plan where that second fire lane easement is. Something I added if necessary because usually you have two ways in and out of a development. So I thought I should throw that out there. Sidewalks and pedestrian ways. I like those. Utility units and lines. I like those. Storm water structures including possible retention detention. Okay. And facilities reserves triangles. I don't like those. Boundary elevations flood plane if applicable.

Building and minimum pad elevations. I like those. If parking is involved obviously proposing egress to the site including on-site parking areas I like those location isolated trees I don't really like those and so existing landscaping that we retained and proposed most of Kansas is flat and it's crab grass and so anyway like the trees don't identifying trees that are going to be removed anyway I just think I'm not 100% sure why that would be relevant location of long listing to remain proposed buildings on the site most of the sites are I mean identifying a site that you're going to destroy building on anyway I'm not sure if we really want that or We did call that out on the Casey's one because they had House of Blues and so they did identify that they weren't going to remove House of Blues which I thought was obvious but I mean like I said it's up to you guys if you want to still see those location of all existing remaining proposed lighting standards completed routing of electrical supply and ISO foot cam diagram. I will mention that Ryan Track who he's now employed in the city. He came from Valley Center he used to do planning and zoning up there. He said he wanted to still see that. Um, I thought I would like to see it as necessary because in some cases they don't have any of the cover lights. All the lights are on the side of the building anyway. They're not proposing any lights. So, I thought perhaps I don't put it on there. But, if we wanted to see that cuz we thought there might be an impact from a commercial building on the surrounding residential area, then we could require that of them. So, that's just something we want to put. Now, remember all these things I marked off. You guys can say if you want to keep it, just say you want to keep it. Or if you want to say you want to see it, you still could ask to see it. If somebody's moving it, submit a site plan. Location of seismologists need to prove freeze any signs. I definitely want to see that because we want to make sure that they still have the monument signs as is required by our sign regulations. Financial need approved as a form. It is recommended the public commission approve the changes that I proposed to subject regulations as it pertains to article 11. All of the changes would have to of course be finalized by city council at the next billable council meeting. But as mentioned this item is particularly interesting to commissioner parks. So feel free

to add, subtract, keep as much as you want. And I I personally feel that the site lighting diagram is a good thing to have. Um I would prefer to keep that just the for the reason you mentioned. Um very good. So if we make the statement if necessary, how does that how does that help the applicant? How does that enter the applicant? I mean is there really any is there any reason to make it stated as if necessary? No going to make that determination. I think that so maybe this is just for me but when I first started I was like what what's a fire lane easement? So I was going back and forth and we kept talking about it. So I I it was almost like do I require them to write fire lane ement on the road to let them know that the fire lane ement has been identified as the road. And so then I thought maybe I should put it's necessary and I thought if somebody's interpreted this in the future maybe they'll say what's if necessary they can question it. that I honestly it's just point of reference on how do you interpret the code? And so if we were to look at that on on on the lighting one as well like if they don't have the necessary lighting to justify anything do they just skip over it or Yeah. Typically, if they're not proposing any, usually we call them cover lights or if they're not proposing any illumination for a parking lot, which is typo did, obviously, Casey's did, but small commercial buildings, you know, Brian Lali's storage units, etc. They don't have Cobra lights all the time. So, the ISO is not even required because they're not going to have any leakage. It's just going to have lights on the side of So, there's nothing they're required to do. Just say we don't have

it. they can just get it. Yeah, I would just put not applicable the site plan on their development checklist. I say not applicable because they don't have any cover lights, but um it doesn't m like we can include it, you know, just to make sure. Right. I like the thought of including I just wanted to know what true the applicant was required to do to say they don't need to fill it out. Yeah. No, I mean when you look at the site plan, if they're not proposed in introducing additional lights that are freestanding lights, street lights, then we don't there's no ISO necessary. Yeah. But it's true. That's a good point that Commissioner Milligan made is that, you know, if if you guys aren't here and I'm not here and somebody else is reading it, they might not even ask to see the ISO, so perhaps we should keep it. What's an ISO? And they go Google, what is an isometric lighting metric? And then they go look it up and go, oh, we should probably include this. And so having it on there could trigger it, which is a good idea if you wanted to keep it. Future interpretations, that's good. So there's a lot struck out. Is is anything added or No. Okay. No, this is more of a reduction. Okay. And then I added if necessary that in the packet there's like a section on all this all these trees and stuff and there's like a section about uh landscaping. Yeah, landscaping. Well, there's also a section about like building design and exterior or is it so landscape. the trees. They gave a long list of um local trees that they thought would be appropriate if you wanted to do landscaping and they wanted you to call out if you were proposing a landscaping plan. And I felt like that was somewhat necessary because we don't go out and monitor typically if somebody approves a site plan. Let's say we the site plan gets implemented and

everything else. I'm not going to go out there and count the number of palm trees that they have or the fatunias that they planted. It also asks that it calls out the scientific names and I'm not going to go cross reference all the scientific names it's called out of the site plan either. to make sure that it corresponds to what's been planted cuz I'm not modernist and I'm not going to identify you know a red bush sage which is a a pine tree sage versus you know and they want all those called out and I thought that seemed a bit much for a landscape especially if a lot of people are not proposing them that landscape or landscaping somewhat minimal so I struck that but the design criteria was specifically added in 2020 2021 when we talked about roll metal buildings and so we left I left that in there where that's what that's the requirement for facade If you have a complete metal building and the front is touching the street or overlooking the street and you have a side that's has it's a corner lot and you have two sides touching the street and it's an all metal building then we require that a facade be presented to planning commission so that you guys can approve any changes to the facade to as it pertains to all metal building. So I left that in there. Mhm. That's the only comment that I had elimination. I will add him back in. I think that's a good idea. Any comments?

Best assessment. So, I don't know if it matters to you like a an A under building construction uh Y under one the location and size of existing and proposed freestanding signs is crossed out in our packets. So I don't know if that's how you left it in up here. Yeah, I left it in up here. I think originally it was proposed as being removed and then I wanted that back. Okay. Just making sure you have it on yours. I do want to include that one still. I I thought about typically you'll see them most of the time they're not proposing freestanding signs but then the bigger ones on the furniture do like Starbucks like uh bronze they will still propose those freestanding signs and I I do want to see them sometimes which I'll allow them to be flexible they'll submit a site plan without the freestanding sign and then a contractor will submit another site plan to be approved administratively for the freestanding sign once they've identified the contractor that they want to use and we'll work with them. But Casey's proposed a freestanding sign on that site plan. We saw that it was a pyong sign. We said we can't do that. So they modified it to make it a monument sign. So yeah, I I went back and forth on that, but I still want I totally agree. I just want to make sure like it's crossed out. I do want to keep it in there. Yes, I do want to keep it in there. If they're not doing a free stain, they don't have to do freestanding sign if it's just, you know, remodel or something of that nature. in an addition. You don't need to add an additional monument sign every single time. And I think we have the latitude

to consider that. But I do like to see them. I definitely want to see them because I sometimes I feel like they want to assume that they're going to do a pylon sign and I we don't want them to do pylon signs on the furniture. Well, 54, I should say. So, are you retaining screening? So screening is as necessary, you know, as to be determined, but I took screening off of there simply because typically when they present a screening plan, it's after the fact as you saw today, they don't know what they're going to screen it with. And so when we say that you need a screening plan, usually we tell them you need a screening plan and they say, "Well, can I submit the site plan without the screening plan and then I can consider it after the fact?" And I say, "Yes, show me what you're screening it with." And they submit it after the fact. So once again, it goes back and forth. And screening is to be determined by me anyway under article 11. And so I go, do I need do I want you to screen it? Do I don't want you to screen it? What kind of screening do we need? So typically I don't say you need a screening plan, but I want to see your screening layout in terms of how you're going to screen it and what material and that's usually done administratively because they don't know they don't know what they're going to screen it. They don't know what the fence material is going to be. So they they could put something there and change it as long as it's considered conforming. They could switch it to pick it if they wanted to. There's nothing against it. They can't switch the chain link for sure, but that's kind of why I kind of go back and forth. Am I going to be stringent on the front end or stringent on the lake, you know, how do we want to deal with that? So, we could say once again per what Mill Commissioner Milligan said, just say identify, hey, you need to screen it if it's multif family or commercial three units or greater. We could say that, but it still says you have to in the subsidy regulations anyway. So it's I mean no matter what if I say no screening necessary on the site plan that doesn't mean you're not required to screen. It just means I don't necessarily need to see it on the site plan. It means I can see it anytime means that I want to see

it. Just gives a little more flexibility. Yeah. It doesn't remove that requirement. Okay. It just removes that provision from the site plan. This is a good question. And if you feel like you want to see it and you're like, "No, I do want to see more materials. I want to table a site." You guys can do whatever you want with site planes. If you're like, "I do want to see how exactly you're going to screen it." You could table a site plan. Say, I want to see a full screen. That's to consider perfectly acceptable. But then again, that's kind of why I've reduced all this stuff. But like I said, you guys can add whatever you want to it or you can see whatever you want. You could ask whatever you want of the developer. So kind of in the future if you're thinking well we'll be here a long time you can still lean on that but if you felt like all your seats you know down the road you know who knows if you in the future and you want to be sure that the future planning commission might want to see that you could ask as Mr. Hayden said just keep it keep it on there in case there's any uncertainty. It definitely doesn't hurt anything.

Anybody had a chance to get through it? There's no further comments. I'll make the motion to approve the suggestion changes with the modification to add in the to retain the information about the light plan. Second. All in favor? I oppose. Thank you very much. And this is our staff report. So this is city of Goddard complete residential development listing. I think this is interesting information. There's a lot going on here, but I included it in your agenda. So you guys do have a complete listing. This is everything residentially speaking. Includes everything that was everything that is or everything that could be. No, I'm just kidding about the last part, but anyway, it's include everything that is and everything that's on the books right now. And it's going to have the breakdown. So you'll have if you see a development listed twice, it's good because you're going to have multiple land uses under that development, the number of buildings, uh the number of units, and then we have a multiplier of three people per unit. That's typically what I use on average. So the number of people is just simply going to be three times the number of units. And then the building phase. So if it's building permits, we'll list the number of permits that have been pulled. If it's at an infrastructure stage, there's not going to be any permits pulled. entitlement stage, zoning, platting, etc. So, you'll see infrastructure stage, meaning that there's like pipes being placed on the ground. Entitlement stage is kind of what you saw today with zoning and platting. And then it's going to have the number of certificate of occupancies under those building permits. And the percentage of permits pulled and then the percentage that have a certificate of occupancy. And then you'll have a complete breakdown at the very bottom between single family, duplexes, and

homes, which are lumped together, and then multifamily plus um commercial care centers. So you'll have like uh medical lodge etc that have bigger units that are a big group center. And so that's a complete breakdown if everything is taken into account and we assume that this will be a full buildout by 2030. We'll be around 12,423 people or closer to 13,000 people by 2030. So let me just give you some additional information. At this point we'll move on to item J planning commissioner comments. But as I said, that full report is in your agenda packet. If you guys have any questions for me, feel free to reach out individually. We can talk about it and hopefully I can get coffee with you guys as we move forward. But any additional comments, you mentioned cases a couple times. Yes. How are they? Good. Good. Casey's moving fast, which I'm really happy about. We uh awarded the contract, which is a low bid, and we had a pre-construction meeting. um when they are ordering the parts and they will we'll see things breaking ground. Actually, Tina, do you want to give a better update on that? Um yeah, those feel free to come up. I know we like to speak public. Yes, we had our pre-conference with uh No Construction and um they will be starting construction about April 29th. Um they're waiting on some material approvals, but they're sending all of their structures to Witchaw Concrete Pipe. So before they want to start their working day count, they want to have all those structures prepared and delivered. So April 29th. Very cool. I I just want to say I appreciate the developers investment in Goddard. I mean, as you show there with the last with the last slide there of the of the interest in investing in Gddard. Um you know, and the various products being offered. I think that's critical as well

as we look into the future with our growth plan. Um, and then to second the mayor's comments, um, you know, it's I I much rather be in the position of controlling what's going to happen instead of being controlled. Um, and that we have the opportunity right now to be in be in the driver's seat. I don't want to be in the position where, as he mentioned, Witchah is going to start surrounding us and all of a sudden now we're landlocked and there's and there's not that option. Um, and I think now's the time to invest. Now's the time to offer different products at different price points, attracting different markets of people. Um, you know, all the way from the entry- level home to the senior home, etc. Everything in between. Now's the time to do that. I don't want to be stuck in that duck again behind the Aball. Um, you know, 3, four, 5, 10 years, however long it's going to be. Let's be in the driver's seat. Okay. I just want to add on to that. I appreciate the Shawnberg team taking the time and and and the feedback that we had from the previous meeting and making the changes and coming back. But but thank you for doing that. Well, I also wanted to thank all the citizens that came out to to speak. I've only been on this commission for a little over a year now. This is by hard to or by far the hardest decision to make. Um, I know there's a lot of people that build strongly both ways and um, we're all we're all doing our best to keep the city growing and keep things moving. Any other comments? Journment will be now obviously then May 12th will be the next meeting at 7 p.m. So, Mr. Sure. All right. I have a second. All in favor? I Thank you very much.