Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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.

I see this is the approval of Genesis for the day, August 10th, 1946.

I'll move we approve the agenda. All in favor? Aye.

Very good. Indeed, this is its comments. Mr. Chair, if you want, you can open and close this as comments. We'll open and close this as comments. Very good. This is our EAS Consent Agenda. This is to approve minutes from July 13th to June 26th, for a local commission meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve the fifth agenda. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. All right.

Very good. Oldest is none. G, new business. So this is related to the urban area of influence. This is going to be an update. And we'll also talk on page one about strategic growth. on April 13, 2016 by commission to review the possibility of submitting a request for an increase in the city's urban area of influence. After reviewing that agenda, they voted in favor of submitting an application to the county to begin the review process. The review process starts with the county's advanced plans to review the proposal and submitting a recommendation to the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. After review by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, posted to the Board of Times Commission, which is a final review approval, the city has met with advanced plans, meeting twice now, and both times that item was tabled. The city is trying to advance the new items in the next round, but staff is running into difficulties with how the urban area influence is perceived by the county, staff, and the committee as a whole. City staff is not being able to plan a question on the status of their Mayor of Influence. The next meeting will be September 10th at 10 a.m. at the Ronald Reagan Building. This is some of the issues that we're running into and I'll kind of just explain it. This item is a receiving file, just kind of a question on the status of it as we move forward. Purple is our current urban area. As you can see, we're touching the boundaries on several points, and then also we've eclipsed the boundaries over here. Green is our proposed urban area of influence. When the county saw this, they thought, well, the green is too big. They also thought that green meant that, hey, everything is going to be annexed into the city limits by 2035, around this time. Wichita has what's called the 2035 urban area of influence as well. They have their urban growth zone, I should say. So they really had to agree and said there's no way that Goddard would be that big by 2035. And we were trying to explain to them that this is an urban area of influence. We're not saying we're going to be this big by 2035. We're just saying as we grow over time, because we are growing, we want to have a view of things that inevitably we will end up either annexing or having a direct view over the future. The Vance Planning Committee said why don't you guys just submit this every year, at which point we said obviously we don't want to waste Planning Commission's time as well as the Vance Planning Committee's time and staff's time to just keep submitting this again year after year after year after year. Also, as mentioned, it's the Advanced Plans Committee, so that's only step one. After that, you have to go to the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners will final review. So we also did mention that to Stephanie Wise. We said, hey, we're stuck at step one. We haven't even been tabled twice. We haven't even been able to advance it yet. Another thing was is they're trying to see how big our school district is in relation to Goddard and also they're trying to get some additional review from Garden Plain. They mentioned getting some review from Clearwater which I don't think is necessary but they're trying to cover all their bases which I think is kind of wiring the project down a little bit and that's kind of some of the issues that we're looking into. So on this map, you can see red is our current, blue is our proposed, yellow is the school district, gray is Wichita, and purple is Wichita's 2035 urban area of influence. We also have our bypass design overlay right here, which is in line with the 9654 bypass. And so what you can see here is that Wichita is actually anticipating growing around the bypass should it ever actually happen. I think a lot of people anticipate that if the bypass does happen, there's going to be a lot of commercial growth that happens around the bypass. And so Wichita is anticipating capturing that growth. So that's one reason why we're saying, hey, we would like to at least capture the growth of the southern edge of the bypass as the least touches of Goddard. And on top of that, the more that we can capture of the Goddard School District, the better it is for us because a lot of developers want to build in the Goddard School District. And as you can see, which ties has grown substantially into the Goddard School District as residential development continues. So we're going to continue to push back and continue to send data and maps to the county to try to advance this. Another point that came up was that the county staff reached out to the Center for Economic Development and Business Research And they told the county that West Wichita, this area here, and Goddard, this area here, was only going to grow by 200 people in the next four years. Which was, you know, we said doesn't make sense, just empirically speaking. And we encouraged everybody, all the advance plans, we drive on down 34, pass into West Wichita and Goddard, and tangle it around all the development. It's very clear that we're going to be far beyond 200 people in the next four years. And so there's a lot of disconnect, there's a lot of just general misunderstanding about how this applies. There's just some general confusion. And also, like I said, this is only step one, so we're just trying to push it along. We're hoping that this next item would at least advance it. We're anticipating right now that the county staff is probably just gonna say their recommendation was just to have extended their area of influence around there's local states in this area right here. and then just leave the rest the way it is, which we don't think is reasonable, because obviously we're almost touching it here, here, we're touching it here and here, and almost right here, so at some point if we annex this, we're immediately outside of the neighborhood. So I think there is a lot of confusion related to this, and I'm hoping to kind of help dispel some of that confusion and help have things move forward, at least in step two. If we can at least get to step two, then we can have some more serious conversations about it. Is there any questions related to this?

How long has this been going on?

So Urban Area of Influence, last time we updated it, where we got the red, was back in 2020. We submitted this application, when we brought it to the foundation, it was back in July. So now it's been a little over a month now. What was that?

I don't know. It's not connected anymore. Okay.

So... At least a little over a month now, I suppose. Maybe longer. Maybe almost two months at this point.

So what, so the specific county commissioners have the ultimate authority, right? Yeah, county commissioners. So if the, if the advanced planning commission flat out denies it, does it still go on to the next step? Yeah, it does.

Okay. What they'll do is they, they wouldn't really deny it. They would probably just accept the county staff's recommendation, which would be just to increase it to go around racial diversity. Their recommendation doesn't make sense and so that's another part of the frustration is that county staff's recommendation doesn't make sense. WSU's data doesn't make sense. The advance plan committee doesn't understand how it functions. And so everybody's kind of stuck here. And so I'm hoping that they at least, if they just accept county staff's recommendation, then we can just say, well, that's their recommendation. That doesn't mean it's what it is. And we can move on to the metropolitan area planning commission. and say, hey, this is your staff's recommendation. We don't think it's that reasonable, and here's why. And then hopefully they can make a more reasonable recommendation to the county commissioners, and then we can have more dialogue with the county commissioners about the final authority.

Yeah, it doesn't seem to make sense that Wichita could grow by that much by 2035, the Goddard team.

That's right. And I think another thing that came up, which I wasn't aware of, is that that blue, that overlap of blue and purple right here, and this overlap of blue and purple right here, they're saying that if they approve our blue here, they have to amend their purple to go around the blue. And so that's one thing that they're recommending as well. But I would say that's reasonable for them to amend their purple as opposed to us amending our blue because we are highly likely to add and solve that development within the blue as opposed to them jumping all the way over here and taking that part for Wichita.

I agree. What's the difference between a growth area and an area?

So the growth area, there's no difference, generally speaking, except that Wichita and East Borough have no urban area of influence. But the urban growth area, the 2035 urban growth area and the urban area of influence, they're identical. They're almost synonymous in terms of their geography. But Wichita and East Borough do not have. an urban area than once they just have a growth area which of course for these boroughs is not consistent practically so if if they approved the blue line for goddard what services has had this goddard have to furnish to any of these people with them nothing nothing just to let you guys see additional use permits maybe some flats, variances, or rezonings in the Blue area, but it doesn't require us to provide services because we're not annexing any of those properties yet. This is just saying we want an advanced review of what's happening in the Blue because at some point, whether it's 2035, 2045, 2055, or 2065, we're probably going to be having development in that area, and at some point the county really wants to release any areas to municipalities that it doesn't want to serve anymore. And so as we grow, and we grow around county islands, then the counties are going to say, can you take ownership of these roads? Can you take ownership of these developments? And so at some point, we're going to have to decide if we want to. They can force us to annex roads. They can't force us to annex developments. But at some point, it would make sense that we would annex the developments. So we want to have an advanced review of what those developments are so you guys can see them now because in 10 years they're probably in the city of Goddard. If not 15 years or 20 years and that's where I think a lot of confusion comes in. is that they're saying, you're saying you're going to be that big by 2035, and I'm saying, no, we're saying at some point we will be that big. It doesn't mean 2035, but at least give us a chance to review these things before they are plotted, because another part of it is that it gives us the ability to decide if we want to provide services up front. We don't have to, but if a development is only a half mile away from Goddard, and it's got a substantial property tax base, then perhaps we do want to provide services. So there's a lot that kind of goes into that. You guys saw a couple of these. Obviously, the red area is a current urban area of influence. We had a couple of conditional use permits that came before the Planning Commission that were outside the city limits. And then you guys can vote on them. Ultimately, it goes to the Board of County Commissioners for final review. But if you guys denied something, it would force the super majority of the Board of County Commissioners on to take your items. But it doesn't mean that we have universal authority outside the city limits.

Is there any evidence of how large witch talk can grow and develop goddard completely at some point?

Witch talk can grow and develop goddard if it wants to, yeah. There's nothing that prohibits it. Like I said, these urban growth zones and urban areas of influence, they don't prohibit annexation. It doesn't give us first right of refusal for annexation. So just because it's in the blue area, it doesn't mean that, hey, clear water or for example, Garden Plain or Wichita, you can't annex these areas that are in the blue. If somebody petitions Garden Plain or Wichita to annex and they're in the blue, they can do that. So the way it would be a little more complicated would be if it was an island annexation that was petitioning to be annexed by Wichita and it was in the blue, then we would have more review and authority to say this doesn't really make sense considering how close we are in proximity to it versus Wichita. But if something was actually, you know, like I said, drug claim and then our annex didn't be a drug claim, we can't prohibit it just because we're in the blue area. So this is just receiving file. And like I said, the next meeting will be September 10th at 10 o'clock. So, if any of you want to be in attendance at that meeting, it's at the Ronald Reagan Building, which you can witness my third attempt to try to get it past step one.

So, at that point, I'm here. And when is that? That was September 10th. September 10th at 10 a.m. at the Ronald Reagan Building.

That will be my third attempt at trying to get it past step one. So, I have to try to dispel a lot of misinformation. So, there's been a lot of that. Is there any more questions related to this item? I don't think the blue is unreasonable. Originally when I was looking at it, I thought maybe perhaps we could make it smaller. But when you compare it to our school district, honestly I think I kind of want to make it even bigger because I think we should really capitalize on our school district more. I wish I was generating more revenue off our school district than we are. This is receiving file. This is IMH, Board of Zoning Appeals. This is H1, Strategic Growth Zone. So, the proposed Strategic Growth Zone Overlay District was first presented to the Planning Commission and City Council during their joint meeting on August 27, 2025. The concept appeared to be generally viewed as a favorable long-term growth strategy by both bodies. However, staff did not advance the proposal at that time. We're just going to look for additional feedback. On July 1, 2026, staff brought it back to City Council to confirm they would like to move forward with the proposed idea of adopting the Strategic Growth Zone Overlay District. City Council voted in favor of moving forward with the proposed amendment to the zoning regulations. It was published in the City newspaper and now comes before the Planning Commission for consideration. If approved, it would have to go before the City Council for criminal approval. So the strategic growth zone really is meant to be an area where developers can expect a more favorable outcome from the planning commission and city council. Some of it's inside the city limits, but the vast majority of the strategic growth zone is outside the city limits. And we have no authority outside the city limits, per se, when it comes to the re-zones and whatnot that's in the county, unless it's in a strategic urban area of influence, which I think is interesting. Generally speaking, what we're saying to developers is, hey, we know that we adopted a two-family resolution that the council did, and we know that some developers don't like it, but we would prefer if those developers would consider at least submitting a rezoning application. If it's near Goddard so that we can try to at least work with them when it comes to design standards, maybe not ratios, and so that they can be in Goddard as opposed to being in Wichita. We would much rather have the property taxes and sales tax revenue from the development on the Goddard side as opposed to being in the Wichita side where we have less review and less benefits from the development. So the way it's designed right here, as you can see, the orange is our strategic growth zone. Once again, I overlaid which does 2035 growth area, so you can kind of see what it looks like. What we would do, the way the urban growth, the strategic growth zone, excuse me, would be drafted, it would be simply a removal of the ratios that we established in the two-family resolution, but not a removal of the design standards, which would be, you know, the 60% for garages on the facade, then 10% for the windows, the wainscoting on 30% of the building. Those design standards would not go away inside the orange, but the ratios could go away. And as a way of incentivizing the developer, they're going to propose new places that they could consider in this area. It doesn't give them an automatic rezoning. They still have to go through the process. So if they had an admission that they still felt the development was not favorable, they can still say no to the rezoning. And it still has to go before city council publication in 20 days. This just simply is supposed to be sort of a flag between us and Wichita of further establishing that we can work with the developer if they're in the orange area more favorably than if it was outside the orange area. Once again, that's the school district in comparison.

Just out of curiosity, that northern section there, is that a school district?

I think Redwood goes all the way up this area, but I'm not sure here. Are you talking about over here? Yeah. Sorry. I think this is all Redwood over here, but I'm not 100%. I know this is Redwood over here, up this area. I don't know where it goes from Renwick to Mays. I'm not sure what's out in this area. But this, a lot of this area over here is Renwick.

If you live on the right side, if you're buying property on the right side of this line, you would be more favorable towards not having the ratio if you have property on the left side of this line. would be less favorable to making the ratio.

Yeah, exactly. Which I know it can cause a lot of confusion, publicly speaking, because there's already, there's a lot of articles and other articles as it pertains to that two-family resolution. And I know it can be very confusing for a lot of developers when they're looking at that saying, so wait, are you in favor of duplexes? Because you just, imposed restrictions, but now you're saying there's often something to remove the restrictions. And so I know it can be kind of confusing at the same time. What we're ultimately saying is that we're trying to be strategic in specific areas and saying that, hey, in this area, since we feel the pressure from Wichita more strongly, then perhaps if ratios are a big concern, we can remove the aspect of ratios. We don't feel very strongly that we have pressure coming from garden plains. We felt that the 60-40 ratio might still be applicable and make sense in those areas. That's something to consider. Wichita has more firepower financially to offer incentives, and so if it came down to 50-50 for duplexes or 60-40 or 60% of them were duplexes to cover the cost of specials and it was in this area, then perhaps we'd feel more favorable towards that kind of development. Either that or, you know, you would miss the millions of dollars of property taxes and compensating use tax to publish a car. A public notice was given incurring a small cost, legally it's a purchase form. It is recommended that the Planning Commission book one, open the public hearing, receive comments, close the public hearing, and approve the introduction of the decision to assign to the zoning regulations. After that, it has to go to City Council for final approval. At this point, Mr. Chair, you can open the public hearing.

All right, we'll open the public hearing, and we'll close the public hearing.

Very good. Now you can discuss amongst yourselves, ask any questions, or if you want to go back to the map, I can. I'll see you.

On one hand, I think it's kind of silly to say if you live left of the line, follow the restrictions, if you live right of the line. If it's right of the line, maybe they're not so important. That's on one side, but the other thought is if we don't allow it, which child is going to, and they're going to be there anyways, so we might as well try to get it to be Goddard and not, which at all, and get the money. it's pretty new same thing gets built no matter who right yeah yeah you might as well benefit from it and have a say so in it too yeah yes at least have a little bit of approval first Wichita's at 167th street line on Ballin Road

So do you need anything from us on this to proceed? The green?

I'll go back one more, I'll move that over in a minute. Okay. That one there. So the green, does that count? This area outside blue? No, right in the middle between the blue and the purple.

Right here? That's otter. That's just the two colors of mine. Yeah. Oh, okay.

It's got the orange. I got you. Yeah, the orange and blue. Thank you. That's the only thing I knew. Dot, dot, dot.

Yeah, I mean you can see from here, we already have a development here.

In theory... That's why I was curious because that's where Paul Kelsey is... So that's why I was confused.

Yeah, and that's a good question. It's a good point though because we have obviously had developers that have felt that they've been, you know, cheated in some cases because, you know, the city deals... differently with different developers at different times with different projects and I know it can be a lot because time goes on and you know one developer gets 100% duplexes and another one gets 50-50 and another one gets 60-40 and I hear all that and so we're trying to standardize it a little bit but I do realize that it can cause public confusion and a lot of emotional discontent when it comes to parts of the development. And we do recognize that. Not everybody says that this is exactly the best policy in the world, or that the growth zone is the best way to move forward, or that the two-family resolution was the best thing in the world either. I'm just simply saying that we're trying to coalesce a lot of different ideas around and still move forward without losing a lot of development and gravity at the same time.

So is the strategic growth zone simply focused on percentage and everything else would stay intact or is it still to be developed?

The thing is with that is that the strategic growth fund is once again, it's saying that the city would work favorably on the development. It's going to be a little bit difficult because the way the two family resolution was drafted, it's still, not that it's a bad thing, but it still has a lever in there. The city council can say some of that resolution will apply or none of it will apply. And so that can cause, obviously, some issues because it's not like council members sit forever, you know, obviously. And so in the future, there could be council members that say, hey, I don't care that they pass a two-family resolution. I want to see 30, 70-30, 70% single family, 30% two family. And there's, none of this would prohibit that. They still have that right. And so As mentioned, that's a good point. All it's really doing is saying, hey, you know, outside of this area, outside of this area, here and here, this is all in the county. It doesn't negate this rezoning process of publication, coming to Planning Commission, you guys making a recommendation, and then go to City Council for final approval. they would simply say, hey, you would have to potentially submit this resolution that would restrict design standards and possibly restrict ratios, but maybe not. Ideally, it would be no ratio restriction. So that's just something that we would have to work out, legally speaking.

So then basically all we're doing is giving them hope. Yes. There's nothing binding here that says, If you choose to do something in these areas, we're going to say it can be 100% and no one will stop you. We're just simply giving them hope that if they go here and you come to us and say we'd like to do 80-20, 90-10, we might say yes. So what is the advantage here?

Really, it's supposed to be more like a move of solidarity between my admissions city council and the public saying, hey, we recognize Wichita's coming. Hey, we understand developers are upset about the two-family resolution, or at least some of them are. But we're hoping that you'll still work with us in the orange area and that we are kind of putting a flag down to try to say we would rather, we'd rather work with developers in the orange area and if that means waiving the ratio requirement, we will because we'd prefer you to do it with us than in Wichita.

So I guess the reason I ask my question is, first developer comes and they say, no, it's going to be 50-50. Why is anyone else going to come? We're not really, we're giving hope, but if we never follow through with that hope, we're not getting anywhere.

That's true. Ultimately, though, the hope would be given from the client commission and city council.

Even if we agree, if they continue to be rigid, we're not going to get anywhere. It's true. This is just home, basically. Yeah. And so then the resolution that passes, is it just home, too? It can be. It depends. It's tough, man. It just depends on the night and the feeling and what it is. That's kind of what I get from it, because sometimes if they can wave it all together, then it's not really... But we're not going to change a developer's opinion of the rigidity and the fact that, you know, the favoritism, if you will.

Yeah. It's true. Ultimately, what we're saying is we're trying to strike a tone, a better tone, that we're trying to work with them.

But I guess in order to strike a better tone, we have to give something up. We have to say, in this strategic growth area, if it's... You know, if you're coming to us with anything more than 90-10, we want to know, or 80-20. I mean, we have to give something up that's permanent, or it's still going to be open to that night's discussion and that group's opinion.

Right. Yeah.

I mean, I get what you're saying. It's a tone thing, but... How long does that total last? If we say no once or twice, we'll not even do it.

I understand. It's very difficult because it's almost impossible to do what our attorney has said. You can't find the hands of a future planning commissioner or city council. It's just impossible. At any point, if this planning commission, you know, we know is popular with the planning commissioners, they could just simply ask you to draft a new resolution to, you know, started the process of removing the strategic growth zone entirely. And if there was a new council and they felt the same way, they would approve it. So it's almost impossible to say, hey, we're going to guarantee something, because you really, I can't even say you're going to guarantee a rezoning. You could still deny a rezoning in the Orange area, because we can't say we're circumnavigating the state law zoning process.

And I'm OK with that. I guess I just don't understand. why we're going to put a strategic growth zone out here with really no guarantee. Yeah, I don't guarantee, but at least against people at the table. Yeah, but one or two people are going to be at the table if they hear a no, why would the next, in order to get that, that's what exactly will happen. It'll turn around that way, but this is a good stop to have the first conversation. To have the conversation where we might not have the conversation. The other side of it is, though, is that if we do this, and then the council says no to everything, Yeah, I see what you're saying.

It's hard to make guarantees on an overlay district when the vast majority of its outside are similar in the same way. And that also saying that we can't serve and navigate state law to guarantee that we can't say that either. And also, since the resolution has been adopted, we can't even say that it's going to sort of navigate the resolution either. All we can say is that we would look more favorably towards somebody. That's all we can really do. Once again, it's just tone. And then again, it doesn't even mean a developer would look very good on us anyway. They may still just go to Wichita. because of the two-family resolution. So there's a lot that's about it.

So what is Wichita in the Orange area? What would they allow? Do you know that?

I don't. I don't know what Wichita allows. I don't think they have any ratios or anything adopted with that ratio right now. I couldn't tell you.

Every development you want in? Pawnee, 135th, 119th.

Yeah, they are. There's a lot of duplexes. I mean, I know Turkey Creek is over off of 23rd, right around this area, I think. Right around here. 119th.

Yeah, yeah. And area 151 I think is mostly duplexes too. It sounds like there's land for that matter.

So I just find somebody over here who's mostly on, I think all two buses in here. So I don't think that they have ratios in that area. So, I mean, even though we can say, hey, you know, we'll look more favorably around it, it's possible they'll just go in this truck anyway.

What is the extent on west? We should go out to the edge of the Goddard School District, then go up to 21st Street and down to 39th Street.

Part of this was from our conversation a year ago where we decided that we were going to focus on the Wichita side to try to help with their growth to the west. I don't disagree with you, but that ain't going to keep Wichita from just circling around. No, and it's not going to keep the people who buy that land for going to be in Wichita either. That was just the reason why it looked like that.

It's because that was that conversation we had. If they were in Wichita, they wouldn't be paying an additional 1% to the tax on stuff.

That's true. There's a lot of reasons why a developer may want to go with Wichita instead of Goddard. Wichita also has a, they have a benefit program, a water bank benefit program, and they also have a list station queue, so you can put your project in the queue and wait until funding is available to get a list station paid. So there's a lot of benefits that Wichita offers that we just are not in a financial position to offer the same thing. So it's very possible that somebody could buy this land here, you know, just right over here, or even right over here, or somewhere just nearby, and just be in the queue and say, I don't care that it's in the rural center, I'm just going to go with Wichita anyway, because Wichita's offering me a better incentive.

Maybe, maybe not.

We'll improve this tonight. Is the strategic growth zone simply just an overlay and that's it? There's no more development of what that is? It's going to go to City Council. If soon they vote to approve it, then it's just an overlay and we're done. There isn't any more you're going to do to develop what the strategic growth zone means, looks like, that would have to look at approval.

just move to city council, there would be an ordinance to introduce it into the subdivision regulations and then it would show up as this map. So you would see it on the official zoning map and then pop up here and you can see it. But honestly, like I said, with adoption of the resolution, going to be exactly pretty ambiguous because of the fact that I can't guarantee, you know, I can't write something that says you shall be guaranteed a zoning, you shall be guaranteed the ratios, you shall be, I can't say any of that in the overlay. So it would simply be, you know, we will look favorably upon this area. So everything I just described is basically the language that's going to have to go into the ordinance of adoption because I can't guarantee anything in the overlay.

And if we don't approve it, I mean, it essentially allows Wichita to discontinue it. We really don't have much of a chance to.

Honestly, Wichita advancing, none of this stops Wichita from advancing. You can't stop Wichita from advancing. The only thing we can do would be more aggressive annexation to stop Wichita from advancing, but obviously that falls on State Council approving annexations to break that barrier. But other than that, you can't really stop Wichita from advancing those properties.

Blacker, isn't there, sorry to interrupt, but isn't, aren't both the orange cases also of higher elevation, so it would help with the plumbing of pipes and water?

I don't know too well, I can tell you that. There's a lot of it there, but no, I'm not 100% sure. A lot of it... I think, to Dani's question, she's asking about elevations. That definitely helps with stormwater and sewer, especially sewer, because water's pressurized, but sewer in one of the most stations, that's honestly one of the biggest hurdles anyway, is can it even be developed? And also the floodplain, that's another thing to consider. Yeah, but once again, that's back to Commissioner Hayden's point. It is striking a tone, mostly, without committing to any formal guarantees.

Are you ready for a motion? I think so. Okay. I make a motion to approve the introduction of the strategic growth zone into the zoning regulation. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

very good moving on this is staff report so july was very favorable for us i just kind of wanted to bring that up first and foremost we had 12 single family permits two room additions one mixed use so they did um start the process for pulling the permit for the apartment and mixed commercial first floor over the property groups on the walmart So they're dropping off the construction trailer probably tomorrow or the day after that. So you will see them out there. So anyway, they're dropping off the construction trailer and they will be paying the fee. Um, which is good for us because obviously then they can start construction and pull the building permits. So that would be pretty exciting to see that move forward. One finished basement and one deck. The total for the month of July is $109,913,000. So that was, that was pretty exciting to see all that. And the sum of the valuation once everything is built out is $18 million. So that's pretty exciting. Obviously the bulk of it will be in. mixed-use development. So July was a very good year, excuse me, month, very good month, and we're hoping that permits will continue to come in for the rest of the year as we move forward. And hopefully, you know, it doesn't rain, but obviously we also hope that it gets cooler, because I feel bad for everybody out there working in this heat. This is interesting. We had somebody reach out and ask for some economic development data, so I had to do some general research, but I pulled a 1-mile, 2-mile, 3-mile, 7-mile buffer ring around 183 and 54 to try to look at what was happening in that area. And how many permits were pulled in 2021 to date? And so we've had 1,221 few family permits pulled of 1,484 single family permits pulled in this area. So as you can see, all of the concentration is around and starts to get, start out a little bit further, but obviously over here in this area, you can see what Wichita is accommodating around their permits. But that's just kind of interesting. And then when you combine that with plaques, so residential plaques that were filed since 2021 were 87. 23 were filed since January 2025, so roughly 20 plus percent were filed in a little over a year and a half. So that's 5,286 lots were platted. 2,705 permits were pulled for the last one since 2021. So you got 49% remaining lots for permits based on that data. So definitely a lot of growth around Donnerton and the surrounding concentric rings for one mile, three mile, five and seven. So density is going to continue here, obviously, and continue to grow in that area. But also, it kind of gives you more of an understanding of why we're asking for that urban area of influence. Because you're seeing all these happening around us, we could have more of a review of that area. Yes? Do you have a question? Oh, sorry. Yeah, so we have a lot of development potential continuing, and we're starting to see a lot more class file, especially for residential development. No, no, no.

I can't talk about it too much.

Obviously, you guys would have to see a site plan first. But they wanted to preface that first before they actually submitted a site plan and a building permit. So I can't talk about it too much right now, but obviously it's going to be commercial because it's in the county of Yomarita. But you guys would have to see. There's no cycling for it yet. There's no building permit, so you'd have to see that first. But it's my understanding that they're good at perhaps bullring development.

So being flattened through.

Yeah, because you've probably noticed that particular lot, it slopes down pretty severely from the road, and so water just cools in that area. So they want to build it up a little bit. No, ideally they would be moving forward with development in that area. But I don't, even if I said what it was, if they don't submit a site plan it's just, it's just in my mind until it's actually a real site plan. So, I mean everyone can talk about commercial development until they actually send a site plan to me, which then I have to present to you guys, then it doesn't, it's all just talk. It tells the difference. It rhymes with commercial development.

What else? I can't think of the name of it that is still developed.

Yeah, Paradise Corner? Yes. So Paradise Corner, SPT actually emailed me today. So they sent their architectural engineering to MABCD for review. MABCD kicked it back because they were referencing the 2021 IBC and they needed to reference the 2024 IBC. So there were some minor changes that needed to happen. So SPT then turned around and submitted it back to MABCD with their modifications for the 2024 IDC. And so we're hoping that we'll see a small town form submitted this week and then they can submit their permit. So we'll see that one. That would be pretty exciting too. You guys saw the site plan for it. So they've already got the zoning. The site plan will improve. It's just a matter of updating their architecture plans to actually match the 2024 IBC.

The fence? The fence is still up. I don't think there's any intention of resolving it in any meaningful way right now that I'm aware of.

I think a lot of parents, especially over there off Easy Street, would like to see a gate. and a locked gate that their kids can travel through. Right now, I haven't heard of any plans to amend that fence. It is on the school property, and the rationale was for the school that they don't want kids running that way up to 54, so they blocked it off. Right now, that's one school district question. If they're gonna introduce a gate, there's nothing the city can do to force them to do that. It's their property. We talked about putting in a sidewalk, but sidewalk would just, you know, dump onto, I think that's Oak Street or Walnut. I can't remember. I think it's Walnut. And there's no sidewalk on Walnut, so you can just walk in on the road.

Did Ann and Plumbing buy that building, or are they leasing it?

They're leasing it right now. They haven't changed ownership. Not that I'm aware of. Yeah, you're talking about for the 54 motors LLC? Yeah. Yeah, I suppose I know they're still leasing.

No, I'm talking there next to Ace Hardenburg. Ace Hardenburg. Just west of where the appliance store was.

A&M Plumlee moved in there.

Yeah, I'm not sure. I don't know if they're leasing it. I can check the ownership listings.

Yeah, if they lock the building, they've got to change the sign.

They do, yeah. I can follow up with that. That's a good question. Yeah, I can check and see, and then I can reach out to them and say, you need to change your sign at the clock. Okay, I'm going to show up to go ahead.

Karen, are we looking for a motion? Oh, okay. There we go. Now I'm ready. Okay. I'll make the motion later. I'll second. All in favor? Aye.