Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. 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 be with us this evening as we make the decisions for the community and the good there in Jesus name we pray. Amen. Anybody else invitation finally.

All right. So this is the approval of the agenda. This is approve the meeting for today August 11th regular commission meeting. I'll make a motion to approve it. I'll second it. Okay. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Seeing none. Item D, assistance comments. At this point, we allow anybody who wants to speak on anything they deem necessary. They're allowed three minutes and mistake the first and last name and where they reside. Um, gentlemen on my right. Agenda item. Gentleman in the back is the mayor. Tina works her city. So does Danny. So, but Mr. Chair at this point can open up citizens comments.

We will open up citizens comments. Anyone who would like to speak and I should not close citizens comments now. Okay. Closing citizens comments. I This is the consent agenda. So this is approve the minutes. So this is approve the minutes from the July 14, 2025 regular planning commission meeting as mentioned. Uh Commissioner Klene, if you want to make a statement on the on the minutes. Yes, it was the I got to find it again. G1, I believe. Or is it G2? Might be G1.

Oh, yes. G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G1 it says I approved it or I second I did. Okay, we will review the minutes and determine which commissioner actually seconded the motion for that item and make that correction. So, with that being said, would you still look for a motion in a second with that correction? I'll make a motion to approve with that correction. And I will second it. I see that hand over here. No, just kidding. All in favor? I I oppose.

Very good. Item absolute board of zoning appeals. This is F1. This is a variance request B25-1. So quick background, Lyn Finger, Garber USA submitted a variance application on behalf of developer Kirk Richards and Brian Mali for the GD Trails and Development. The variance request is to reduce setback requirements, maximum lot coverage, minimum width requirements to introduce a new variety of single family housing into the trails and development for the northernmost portion. On June 9th, Garber presented before the planning commission possibility being greater the variance for the replatting of the northernmost portion of our trails and development to introduce more density into the development. Variances are required to be published once this is in newspaper and letters are sent out to all property owners from 200 ft if they are in the city and a thousand if they are in the county. Variances are considered final once they are presented before the planning commission. The storm water runoff from the introduction of additional lots has been taken into account and will be engineered into an intention pond off of 215th for this portion of the development. So this is authorized variances and findings and facts under article 10 of the city submitting regulations. You may do a variance request under specific criteria and so you can't just approve a variance for just anything you want under any particular reason. You we are choosing number one and number two under article 10 for consideration of the variance which is the varable minimum lot area lot width and lot depth requirements and the variable bulk regulations including maximum height lot coverage and minimum yard requirements per city attorney under KSA 12 sub 59E. This is for guidance and does not need to be met in order to grant a variance. So these are just general requirements come under state law or inter regulations for consideration when reviewing variance. So that the variance requested arises from such conditions which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found the same zone district and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner or the applicant. So it's definitely not unique to this property. This is just simply a request on their behalf to try to introduce more density to take into account change in mortgage

rates. Um but no actions have been taken. So this is not to correct something that they've already done. This is just simply a request on behalf of that developer. That granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners and residents. So no adverse impact on adjacent property owners. They're all within the same subdivision. This is single family within a single family with abiding duplexes, but these are going to be more single family lots are within the development and any storm water is being obtained current engineering firm representing the project by elevating the we for the project. So we spoke with Garber about that because we're like if you're introducing additional lots that's additional impervious surface is the detention going to be met adequately and the answer is yes. When they build that we on 215 they will elevate uh that we to capture more water and not allow as much to be discharged to account for additional retainage that strict application of provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property they're represented in the application. So the hardship would be in the marketability of the lot. It is not considered an unnecessary hardship. We just want to make that clear that it would be considered just a general hardship, not what we would consider an an unnecessary hardship. That the variance desire would not adversely affect public health, safety, moral order, convenience, prosperity, general welfare. And that granted the variance desire would not be opposed to the general spirit intent of these regulations. And I do believe it will not affect health, safety, welfare um and the continuous prosperity of general welfare. and design spirit of these regulations. Financial very small publication cost for the public hearing which we are going to have today. Legal considerations it's approved as a forum. This is the attorney's opinion Robert Morris lang on March 9th of 2023. A decision for additional use or ordinariness by the planning commission is final. Cannot be appealed before the city council and must be appealed in central county court. So this is something that must be taken into account. It is recommended the planning commission have the planning commission chair both open the public hearing

receive comments close the public hearing and approve the marriage request VR25-1. We do that behind me Garber as an agent for the so at this point Mr. Chair open the public hearing. All right, we'll open the public hearing. Very good. Since nobody from the public is here besides agent for the applicant which you can speak after the public hearing then close the public hearing. Very good. At this point, it'll just simply be deliberation on behalf of the planning commission. And you want to say anything? I don't really have anything to add. I just want to thank you for this this evening and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have about project.

What's the normal setback 25 ft? Yes. And what do you want to change it to? It's going to be the sideyard setbacks that'll be decreasing. Have they picked the number or? It's going to be 5 ft on one side and I believe it's going to be 10 ft on the other side. It was it was going to be staggered from one one side is going to be five. The next side is going to be a little bit wider. So, so it'll be five on this lot, 10 on this one, then five on the other side. It is going to be staggered. I can't remember the exact number. Sorry, I this is the R1, right? That's why we're doing this R2.

Otherwise, it would have been since it's R2 zoning for the whole development, we have to ask for a variance, right? Yes. If it was R1, it would have started that way. Also, with the way it's platted, it's got to be replatted, which is why you're going to be seeing a replat for the next agenda items coming up. Apologize. I do not have it written down there on the flat itself. That was it though. It was a stagger set back on the side with five on one side, 10 on the other. I believe that was correct. For a total of 15 on each side. Is that what you're saying? I believe so.

Okay. which more than what we're doing. So I'm confused on what we're voting on here. I mean we're going to prove the variance for test. What is the variance? What variance are we?

The variance is for the setbacks for back. They're asking to change the minimum lot area lot width lot requirements and the variable vault regulation include maximum height lot coverage and minimum yard requirements. So anything that would pertain to this for the new lots that they're going to be replatted. So the next couple of gen items you're going to see lots that are being replattered smaller. So they're doing the variance up front and then when they replat those lots are going to shrink and so you're going to see them on the agenda items and you're going to say wait a minute under R2 those lots can't be that small and you can't have buildings that are that close together you go ah so then the variance covers that. So I guess that's my confusion too.

So are we setting what those need to be with this variance or does this varian simply start the process? This simply allows them to set it below the required standard. That's what this without any hard numbers without any minimum. That's right. So, they're going to have because not all of them can be exactly the same because you're going to see that they'll have one staggered here and then if they get to a corner lot, it might shift and depending on the layout, you will see that that the homes will actually shift depending on where they're at. But it's not going to be But can we can we say a minimum of 5T?

We could approve the variance based on a set standard. That way they they could do 10, they could do seven, they could do as long as it was five or more. Five being two and a half on the line. So five separating two buildings or however we would that was kind of my question too cuz this is a variance but it doesn't specify what we're varying to the numbers. Yeah, that's true. Which could be one on one side and one on the other if so desired. Yeah, I get that. Yeah. Dude, so if there's a set standard, you could set the standard and say that five is the minimum and you can't go beyond five. You could definitely say that for sure. What does the developer want? You know what they're asking? I mean, that's what five on one side, 10 on the other approximately,

right? Yeah. 5 foot between buildings on one side and then 10 ft on the other. So, and it could be is where the building is a zero offset on where it's right on the property line and then the one next to it has to be, you know, 5T and then on the opposite side it would be even wider. some flexibility to but to stagger it since it's just not cookie cutter. Yeah. Building that makes sense. A minimum would be five. Correct. Yes. So minimum would be that's as low as I can go. I can't do four but each building would be literally 5 ft apart. So yeah,

but that makes sense. It' be five, right? And maybe over here it's five and this one's 10. This one's five. This one's on the lot line. But they can't go less than five. Well, if there was five between one set of buildings, the next one's over going to be wider to stay. Yeah. If one's on but a setback means it's that I mean, if we said it was a five foot minimum setback, that means you couldn't have one on the lot line, right? Well, five foot I'm probably misspoke. If I say five foot setback between the buildings themselves. Yeah, that's not not the property line, right? So, in some cases be zero setback, right?

Yeah. That's probably why they have trouble trying to define that because they're trying to have that staggered look. And so that's why they're saying, "Well, if I do a minimum five, that'd be a violation because I'm a zero lot line. One of them straggler lot line has a zero lot line and another one's 5 foot away. That one has a 5ft set back, but the one that's being built has a zero setback on the side. But I guess the big thing is that what we're saying is that you want 5ft separation. So that's probably why, right?

That's why it's hard for them to find it because they're saying some lots are going to be zero setbacks. Some will be five, some will be 10, some could be seven. And so that's why they're like, well, we want to just bury that with the regulations based on that. But since they don't know exactly which homes on which lots, they didn't really define that. So So if we approve it now undefined, at what point do we I mean is do we ever get a chance to then approve that that there's at least 5 ft between properties or theoretically if we approve this now, could they come back and have houses that are right next to each other?

No, it wouldn't be. If you say no, then I will say no because they'd submit the building permits and they have a plot sign on the building permit and on the plot claim you'll see where the house is built. You won't see it, but you would say we don't want buildings that are closer than 5 ft to each other. So if that means zero on one but five on the other, then that means you won't be any there won't be any building permits being approved that will have them closer than 5T, right? Cuz then it won't. But there's no going back to change if we approve. Yeah.

What's the minimum now in R2? Right now R2 is five and I actually I think it's six six standard for for principal. Yeah. Yeah. It's 25 and 20 and 66 I believe on the R2. No, I'm sorry. Clarify. Is that from the property line? Yeah, that's six on each side. 12 total. Yeah. Yeah. So, we would have to be very specific and say 5T between houses, which would then allow them to shift That's right. towards the property line if necessary. That's right. Or because if we don't, we say 5 foot from the property line. From the property line, then we're going to create a situation that doesn't work. Just I'm just making sure I understand.

No, that's exactly right. No, that's exactly right. And that's kind of where they were having that trouble saying, well, lot 1A, do we want it to be sure 5 ft or zero? And so they didn't define it because they're not sure when you actually about to start building it. But if you say we will allow this variance, meaning that we'll allow a variance to be no less than 5T between buildings, then they can shift one to zero on one lot, but then the next house that's being built on the second lot abiding it would be 5 ft away. So, and then the next one, the next one on that and they would shift between within those per. But the house that's on the property line, you have no you can't walk down the side of your house if your neighbor puts up the fence. Right. If it's on the property line,

yeah, if it's on the property line, the neighbor's not putting up the fence. That's true. Unless there's the 10 ft between the house on the property line and the adjacent house. Yeah. Normally what you see is kind of when they came before you guys on G9 we kind of presented that idea was the idea that they'll probably just put gravel or they'll pave it between the two houses. They can't since they're so close that they're just going to put some gravel or they'll concrete it or they'll do something like that. They're not going to put gardens in. They're probably not going to put any fenc.

From a city administration standpoint, how do you manage that? You know, let's say 30 years from now, one of the houses that's rather than a setback is it's it's looks bad and needs painted. The siding's degraded, but the neighbor won't let him on the on his land repair it. How does the city how would the city ever regulate matter? If if if a house is right on the lot line, you're not going to be able like he's getting that you're not going to be able to repair your not be able to even see the side of your house or get to the side of your house without getting on your neighbor's property.

Mhm. If that neighbor says no because it's private property, how does that homeowner ever maintain their their house from a how would this you standards right on? That's a good question. I would suggest a access agreement signed with the plat initially just for access purposes for vans. You do it that way. Is that something that that would be done through the planning commission or that something that would just be handled privately or I imagine that probably be something during the flat or the cabinet? Yeah, we probably just put it in or evidence.

Yeah, that's probably once you do that allow your neighbor to access the side of their house at honestly at that point matter, but we would send them a letter of violation and be like, "We need to fix this." And if they couldn't because then they were trespassing. Yeah. Well, then the city would probably intervene on behalf of them to say you need to allow them to fix your property to fix their own property for that matter. So, yeah, that's probably how it played out. They probably can't get to two foot two foot minimum from the property.

Yeah. I think I'm in the boat as long as it's 5 foot. No, I understand. I just meant based on our change to R1. 5 foot to me is reasonable. But do we want to have a X number of feet from the property line?

Mr. Parks, have you seen that before?

No. I mean, town houses where they're built on the lot lines, not, you know, where there's just no setbacks. No, this is a new world. I need to fet up. So that's just one part of this. I mean setback, but there's also minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth. basically could do whatever but there's still a requirement for a minimum size of the property right

yeah so you'll see that in the plat so as mentioned R2 requires a minimum I believe a 50 by 100 on single family houses in R2 and so what they want to do is shrink that to I think 48 by 100 45 45 by 100 so that's what the variance is coming in saying okay

the variance is saying hey we're shing And you're going to see that on the flat. And normally like when you put a variance of that nature and you have setbacks being assigned, you can actually put those setbacks from the variance on the face of the flat and say that these are the setbacks for the use and then you can list them out. Lot 1 A will have a setback of zero. Lot 1B will have a setback of five on the side and 10 on the other side. So you can if the variance was approved then you could define it actually each individual lot or a group of lots with these provisions on the face of the plat or you know you could do it within restrictive covenant or there's so many other things that you want to do but a variance grants that without having to do restrictive covenant but you could define it that way on the face of plat too because then if somebody let's say hit my bus you can say well then we say a variance and who's reviewing the plot well then you can look at the plaque and say hey on the plaque blocks 1 through 20 block a have a zero here and a five here it kind of like that that way like you said hopefully you don't get hit hit by a bus but

after a conversation we had this morning I don't know well just not earlier sorry well that in that way it's not coming down to you have to remember or you have to I mean next you making decision that's not been that's not been laid out it's voted on and made the next developer want something and for that reason no

yeah if the variance was approved and we defined the lots to specific lots for which ones had assets pertaining the reason they asked for wider latitude was for that reason because you're going to go out and start building you can say well I want to shift it to zero here and 10 on the next one but if you want more definition on which lots you can incorporate that and then incorporate that into your platform It's more transparent.

And so the home would be you said 4500 lot, right? So the lot would be cuz this I mean it says variable including maximum height lot be average and minimum yard requirements and that was oh I'm sorry there's there is a 42 there's a 42 there's 45 and there's 50

so there's there's a variety Okay. I make a motion we do not approve. You need a second. Now somebody makes an alternative motion. I'll make a motion that we approve the variance with the um um with the addition that the that the homes are at least 5 ft that there's at least there's a minimum of 5t separation between buildings and that the actual building layout be be approved via um the plotting. I'll second that. All in favor?

I I. All opposed. I Okay, variance passes 4 to one. Thank you very much. We will take that and that will be reported on the plat require at least 5 ft between buildings. It Yes, sir.

Great. Moving on. This is old business G. This is G1 parking space minimum amendment under article 5. So on July 14th of 2025, planning commission reviewed a policy amendment to article 5 of the city sub regulations to remove the minimum parking requirements for specific land uses. After review and deliberation of plan which approved the revision 6 to0 was taken to the city council on July 21st as a joint ordinance with the revisions to article 5 as it pertains to parking with residential in conjunction with commercial. The city council was uh were not opposed to the revision of the minimum parking standards for land users. However, they did object to the idea of removing the parking requirements for residential in the central business district. They asked if the planning commission would consider these items as two separate items again that they could consider the possibility of adding additional language that would allow planning commission to require additional parking if they perceived it as a heavier impact in the downtown area or the zoning administrator. This item of G1 which is coming back to you as old business because you already had the public hearing uh is being amend is not being amended from the original purpose unless the planning commission would like it to. The second item of G2 is being reodified to add the language distinctly outlining the authority of the planning commission or zoning administrator to request additional parking if is deemed prudent. So there's feel free to stop at any time if you guys have questions on any of this. Planning Commission is reviewing a policy amendment to remove all parking minimums for certain land uses as well as supplemental provisions. There are no proposed changes to this policy from the previous one that was approved on July 14th. G2, which you will see as a second agenda item, does have proposed modifications. But under G1 for this one, there are no proposed modifications. Financially, there was a small publication cost of the public period and the ordinance after consideration by city council. So, as you can see on the

legal considerations, I will read this. So, if you guys have any questions about it, feel free to ask me. So, legally, it's approved as a form. So I'm going to read directly from KSA 12757 except as provided in subsection G unless otherwise provided by this act the procedure for the consideration and adoption of any such proposed amendment shall be the same manner as that required for the consideration adoption of the original zoning regulation. So if you're proposing a change to this regulations you got to go through the KSA 12757 as if you were going through the same thing for reszoning. So that being said, a majority of the members of the planning commission present in voting at the hearing shall be required to recommend approval or denial of the amendment to the governing body. So at the time 60 that was definitely majority. If the planning commission fails to make a recommendation on a reasoning request, the planning commission shall be deemed to have made a recommendation of disapproval. When the planning commission submits a recommendation of approval or disapproval of such amendment and the reasons therefore the government body may number one adopt such recommendation by ordinance in the city or by resolution if it's in the county two override the planning commission's recommendation by a twoth3 majority which would be four out of five vote of the membership of the governing body or three return such such recommendation to the planning commission with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve or disapprove. If the governing body returns the planning commission's recommendation, the planning commission after considering the same may resubmit its original recommendation given the reasons therefore or submit new and amended recommendation. Upon the receipt of such recommendation, the governing body by simple majority thereof may adopt or may revise or amend and adopt such recommendation by the respective ordinance or resolution or if it need take no further action thereon. If the planning commission fails to deliver its recommendation to the governing body following the planning commission's next regular meeting after receiving the governing body's report, the governing body shall consider such course of inaction on the part of planning commission as a resubmission of the original recommendation to proceed according to the proposed reasoning shall have the same effective upon publication of the respective adoptive ordinance of resolution. So I'm going to break that down and summarize it very succinctly. Basically, if you guys

approve something and it goes to city council, they have three options. They can deny it by a super majority, which is four out of five because there's five of them. So 2/3 makes it four out of five. So they can say no like if you say yes it goes to city council they can say no by four out of five or they can say yes by a simple majority three out of five or by a simple majority they can send it back to you guys and if it comes back to you guys at the next regular time commission meeting which is today you can say we want to keep our original vote we want to modify our original vote or we want to change our original vote. So that would be either accept your original vote and original recommendation, keep your original recommendation and modify it or change your original recommendation which point then it goes back to the city council and they can either adopt it, reject it by a simple majority at that point or accept it and maybe add modifications. But at that point that's where we are. So it came to you guys, it went to them. It's now coming back to you guys. After you make a decision today on this one, it'll go back to them. So, do you have any questions about any of that? The reason this is being separated as G1 and G2 is because it was presented to them in joint as one ordinance and they had some um concerns about G2. So now I have to bring it back to you guys as G1 and G2. So that way when it goes back to them again, it'll be G1 and G2 and then they can vote on them independently. So just to clarify, G1 is the park non main street parking.

That's correct. G12 is just the main street parking. That's correct. In a nutshell.

That's correct. Yes. So G1 has to do with basic land uses like, you know, Walmart, etc., and saying, "Hey, we're going to work with the developer for parking minimums." That's for that one. G2 specifically had a portion in there which you will see on the G2 item that references a central business district with residential and conjunction commercial and city council had some issues with that and so they wanted some additional language added to that one. But since those two were combined when I presented in city council then they rejected the whole thing and sent it back to you guys. So then I had to split them out again so that when I take it back to city council they can vote on them independently again. So, shame on me for trying to expedite government. So, not to take away from anyone's ability to ask questions or what not, but I guess I would first asked the question for G1 specifically. Does anyone want to change what we decided or should we move to G2? And I don't think you were here, Mr. Park. So, you have questions or or were you here last which one did you you were on last month?

He was in uh Canada. Yes. in June. Was it June? So you were here last month. Okay. Okay. I don't think so. You were on vacation last month. You were on vacation last month with But anyway, and maybe the subject I just read it. Well, if you don't have a question, I just didn't want to give you miss out on an opportunity you had questions or anything. No, you were gone in June, but in July, I think you were recovering, so you weren't there that day. So I think that might have been what Oh yeah, it was busy and I told you. Yeah. You said you were okay because we had That's right. We had one. That's right. That's why we had six and zero because you were you were covering.

This didn't come up in June about taking this out.

No, that was the R1 sets in June. This one is about parking. So what it has to do with basically in a nutshell is that we know that parking is assessed around $2.88 88 cents per square foot or commercial buildings can be assessed and appraised up to $200 to $300 400 a square foot. So we would like to allow businesses to work with their architects to design their new proposed buildings with less parking if they deem it necessary. Now, there's a specific provision in the central business district that says if you're proposing a commercial business with residential on top, you must provide additional off- streetet parking to accommodate the residential units. We wanted to remove that provision um in the central business district aspect of it because we have limited space. We want to maximize the return of value to the city in terms of property taxes and business ownership. But that that portion came up and it caused a sort of a conflict internally within within city council. There were some that were in favor of it, some that were against it. So then I had to bring it back to you guys and split them apart and say in terms of Walmart, there was no issue with city council. They can propose as much parking or as little parking as they want, but at a central business district, there were some issues. So that's why I had to come back and separate these two. So G1 has to do with Walmart, Casey's, any type of commercial business, generally speaking, condos, apartments, etc. I am leaving the minimum requirement for parking for R1, R2 as it pertains to residential units. So you can't propose a single family development say I'm only going to have one off street parking spot for residential unit for R1 single family. You still have that two parking off street, but for apartments, it'll be a dialogue. For Walmart, it'll be a dialogue. For Casey's, there'll be a dialogue between the city and the architect and the developer.

Are you looking for a motion for the G1? So, do we need Yes. So, that is recommended by commission approve the original action taken without modifications which has to approve G1. Second that second. Good job. All in favor? I I any opposed. Very good. Sorry. Can we get that motion one more time? Who the motion's first? Motion. Then who was a second for that? Thank you. No question.

Yeah.

Thank you very much. Mrs. excuses amendments to article 5 pertaining to the central business visit district specifically. So on once again July 14th the planning commission reviewed a policy amendment to article 5 to see sub regulations to remove the minimum parking requirements for specific land uses after review deliberation. PL commission approved the vision 6 second city council on July 21st joint ordinance with the revisions for article 5 as it pertains to parking with residential conjunction with commercial. City council will not oppose new revision of the minimum parking standard for lane use. However, they did object to the idea of removing the parking permit to residential in the central business district. They asked the planning commission would consider these items as two separate items and that they can consider the possibility of additional language of allow planning commission to add additional parking as necessary if the project was perceived to have a higher impact on the downtown area. This item of G2 is being modified to add the language distinctly outlining the authority of the planning commission or zoning administrator to require additional parking if it is deemed to prove it. So planners reviewing a policy amendment to remove specific language and access language under five business district language being removed unless controlling units in conjunction with business uses. Language being added if it is opinion administrator or the planning commission. It is determined that the project being proposed may generate enough traffic to justify additional off street parking. The planning commission or the zone administrator may require additional parking as they deem necessary. So that's what's being added which is different from what was originally proposed. I read through this but basically it came before you guys went to the city council. City council like that additional language added. Reasons being they had some concerns about in the future if residential was in conjunction with commercial what would that mean for smaller businesses on the main street who would who would absorb all that parking? So then it comes back to you guys. And so now the recommendation is that you approve it with added language that if a project was proposed in the central business district that had commercial on the first floor and

residential on top and you felt like the residential on top would add an undue burden on the central business district that you can require that developer to add additional parking if necessary and that's that additional money. So I have one question now is the appropriate time. Absolutely. Um, if we if if the planning commission determines it's not necessary, is that a final decision or is this also going to then go to city council for them to make that determination? It goes back to them. So, no matter what you do, you make that recommendation. If your recommendation

I'm sorry about this this this specific piece if we say no additional parking is needed based on adding this in is that the final decision or or or could city council say no we really think you need to reevaluate that they need parking at that point it goes to city council after tonight and go to city council I'm sorry I'm not so let's say we approve this with the addition now we have the the view to say yes you need additional parking no you don't

okay we we as a group decide it's not necessary for project A, does the city council have the ability to to say no, you need you need parking or is our decision final? Your decision to be final because it' be determined on the site plan cuz they're in a site plan, you would see it. And if you said, "Hey, I'm looking at a site plan." Because city council doesn't see the site plan. So if you're looking at a site plan and they're like, "We're going to propose 2,000 residential units on top of commercial on the central business district." and you're like, "Well, yes, I do want to see parking." And then maybe some of you are like, "No, I don't want to see parking." And planning commission decides we don't think it needs additional parking. That's under your perview. That's in the sub rights. It then would go nowhere because the site plan doesn't need to go to city council. But you have made your determination. It's under your perview on those sub regulations to add as much parking as you want or as little parking as you want. And so if you make that determination during the site plan review, that's it. City Council can't veto you when it comes to site unless there's an agreved applicant.

Sure. If somebody's agrieved because you're forcing additional parking on them and they think it's unreasonable, they can be as an agrieved party as a developer, they can go before the city council and be I'm agrieved as an applicant for my development to have additional parking. It's cost prohibitive. City Council at that point would take up the mantle and say we will veto the site plan commission. But if a developer is like that's perfectly reasonable. I I'm not in agreed party. I think additional parking is perfectly necessary or not necessary as the planning commission deems ne whatever they feel is right. At which point city council can't veto the plan commission because there's no grief party.

Does that make sense? Yes. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Planning Commission Act is a quasi judicial body when it comes to the enforcement and approval of the regulations. So at that point, there's nothing the city council could do. I mean, that's it. And it since this is the second time this is going in front of this the city council. Mhm. Um, regardless of what our recommendation is, whether it's yes or no tonight, either way, the city council will vote and it'll be a three to five. No more super majority.

That's correct. That's correct. Yes. So once you make a decision, once it goes to city council, it's a super majority. But if it bounces back and then it goes back to them again as it has to, it becomes a simple majority. So once the bounce back happens, it becomes a simple majority of that. It's good question. All good questions. So with the central business district, there's no off streetet parking required until it's of the opinion of the zoning administrator that that is needed for that project. Yeah. So this is interesting.

That's where it gets tough. a little tough, but not really because like in the city of Witchah, central business district, you don't have you don't have off street parking requirements. No, but they never go that step further to where it would be somebody's opinion. It's

Yeah. Yeah. So, this is kind of interesting because what you're saying right now currently, let's say that right now a developer is like, I want to build a, you know, a twostory retail, but no residential units, but twotory retail, 20,000 square ft on both floors. Let's say that let's say that they could do that. There is no provision in the sub regulations that requires off- streetet parking because it's all commercial. All of it's commercial. But as soon as they say two stories of retail and a third story of residential, we go, "Ah, you need off streetet parking." And so the question becomes, is that additional residential parking requirement justifiable or not?

So we do have it required for any R any of the residential zoning in the central. That's right. Okay. Right now currently it is a requirement. In fact, we require I think that's a good thing. I required of Ariel and Highcal with TNT when they said, "Hey, we want to put residential on top of our new office space." I said, "Ah, residential. That means off- streetet parking." Yes.

And so they built off streetet parking. And so we said, "Let's remove that and just simply say it is at our determination because we have enough off street, we have enough parking in the ride of way that we feel like we can absorb any type of residential proposal currently. Now, the concern that came up at city council was in the future, what if you proposed multi-story developments that absorbed and those residents absorbed all the off street, you know, all the parking on the street and then people who are trying to come to those retail businesses couldn't. And then what happens there? So, they said, let's add language that says you can not require it unless you feel it's going to create an undue burden. So, that's where it comes back. That's yeah. So it's it's kind of this this back and forth and and in theoretical situations.

So it is required for ours in the central basis. Yeah. On top of commercial until the zoning administrator gives permission to delete that right now. No. Right now the way it's written I don't have permission to delete it right now. It's simply you are have to do that. If you say now I want to build commercial and residential on top of commercial, you have to provide off- streetet parking. Okay.

The way we changed it was that we felt that we wanted more building and less off- streetet parking because it absorbs all of the personal property which we would rather have more building than parking on it. And so we said, let's take that out and if we deem it necessary, then we can allow if the planning commission says we feel like it's necessary now, then you can require it. But the way it would be written now is that it's not required unless you feel like it's going to create a burden. That make no sense. It does, but I also have a whole another meeting that talks about it. able to digest it. No, take

No, I'm sorry. But I also have to qu, you know, so another concern that Mr. Parks kind of brings to light here. You know, you're very good about asking for opinion, but this this would imply you don't have to. You could require it. Yeah, you just require it, but you would see it on the site plan. Is that what you're saying? Like I guess we'd see it on the site plan. We could say you have to see it on the site. Okay. So we're going to see it no matter what regardless it is city council okay but you will so if you saw a site plan you're like where's the off street partner I think it's not enough or you provide zero

then you could say no I want to see at least 10 spaces with an 88 you could require that because you would see the site plan so you would I can't just unilaterally approve a site plan unless I felt like the site there's some conditions where I'm like yes I feel like I could unilaterally approve a site plan where I can do it internally like we did tang but most of the time you're going to see a site plan, but we don't have to see a site plan unless they're asking for a variance. No, all commercial buildings have to have submit a site plan. Okay. I wasn't sure if that was all commercial buildings have to submit all commercial to submit a site plan.

Yeah. Which also includes three units or greater. That's considered commercial as well. That would require a site plan. So, it's it's interesting. There's certain times when a site plan is required, sometimes when a site plan is not required, but most of the time any commercial building, yeah, that's just the requirement for a site plan, which means that you guys are going to see it, which means that you're going to see a parking on there. You're going to see where they're proposing parking, how much parking they're requiring. And if we say zero parking, then you're like, maybe I do want to see more parking, then you could require it. I I personally don't I mean we've basically approved this same ordinance last month with the difference. Now we have a little bit more control.

Last month it was hey it's not required at all. Now it's it's not it's not required unless we decide it is. So this is almost just Yeah. So I I don't I mean I think this is actually better than it was last month. Gives us more control. Yes. Exactly. It does give you more control. Chairman, are you looking for a motion? I believe Mr. Parks is happy. Yes. Okay. Looking for a motion. I'll make a motion we approve the original action taken with the outline modification discussed. Second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? All right.

Very good. Moving on. This is H new business. So this is the Gddard Trails in third edition preliminary plat. And you will also see H2 which is the Goddard Trails End third edition final plan. So on April 14th of 2025, county reviewed and approved the preliminary and final replat of the Goddard Trails End development. On April 29th of 2025, city council approved the final replat. On June 9th, Garber presented the possibility of replatting the northernmost portion of the development to allow more single family uh housing. This item is the preliminary plat for the replat of Goddard Trails End named Dirtage. So that's a lot, but if you guys have questions, planning commission is reviewing a preliminary plat for the replatting of the land on the northern side of God trails and development. The original plat as it's outlined right now has a remaining lots on the northern section of around 22. This new plat would propose 44. The land use is single family. The minimum lot size is about 40 width depth is 100. Garber has reviewed the drainage plan and will elevate the we to catch and retain the additional storm water runoff from the site from the introduction of additional lots. So this is the preliminary plan. It's kind of washed out a little bit, but the green is the sewer, blue is the water. What you're seeing here is that they're coming in off of 215 right over here on the side. And then they'll take this row here. You'll have two hammerheads and then introduction of the smaller lots. This is where the variance came in. So part of that approval of the variance was actually seeing the residences on or the proposed buildings on this plat, right?

No, just the setbacks. Okay. Cuz you're not going to see you're not going to see buildings on the plat.

Well, the spacing between the buildings, right? Whether it's 5 ft or 10 foot. What they would do is that up here per the variance approval at least I miss unless I misunderstood but on the face of the plat which would be on the final plat which is recorded you would see lots one through six block B shall have a minimum of 5T separation between buildings going be written as text on the face of the plaque. So that way as people are approving building permits, they'll say, "Wait a minute. This building permit has lot one block B right on this line and another building permit has lot one block B right on the line." You can't do that. Building permit denied. That will be on the final flat, not a culinary flat.

That's right. Okay. Which is the next denominator. Correct.

All good questions. No, that's good. And per plat has more has more graphics on it and contour lines and and sewer lines and water lines. But when you go to the final plat and you record it, all that stuff gets stripped off. So this is mostly for us to see kind of layout for the water lines, sewer lines, the contours and everything else. When you get to the final plat, all that stuff gets stripped out and we see basic lot sizes, street layouts, signature lines, things of that nature. And so at that point from what we have in the variance request, you could approve the final PL if you wanted to making sure that contingent upon the introduction of the extra language that was approved for the variance. At which point when Jamie comes to sign a myar just like he did today, he'd be like, "Let me make sure that text is on there." But of course, I make sure to I see at least within the highlights of what we just did for our reason to believe.

Yeah. So, I guess no one has any objections. I'll make a motion to approve the pre preliminary replatlight of the GD Trail Ben third edition. I'll second. All in favor?

Any opposed? Very good. This is H2 God of Trails in third edition final plat. Same language what we just discussed. This is the final plat. No changes to the analysis. You can see that we stripped out the water line, sewer line contours. So when it actually goes before county and it gets recorded and they print out that myar um all that additional information is stripped out of there. But we would ask that if you did approve this that you make it contingent upon additional language to outline the approval of the variance. I'll make a motion that we approve the final replay to the GD third edition um uh

contingent contingent upon additionage additional language for the varian go ahead all in favor I any opposed Very good. Well, you want to save the rest of night or if not have a good one. Thank you very much. All right. My honor about any additional language on there. I'll get it just like you might.

This is staff report. So, um just some general information for you guys and just to keep catch you up on anything that might be happening in the city. But also during um commission or chair coin mentioned that there are some things that city council have been approving um that perhaps I could catch you guys up on. So during um uh planning commissioner comments, if you have any questions about anything that's been approved by council, any other agenda items that you guys don't normally see, feel free to ask and I'll try to catch you up and if I feel like there's anything interesting like the KCS that or the John Wo development or something like that, I'll try to include that in my city planner report. Try to surprise you guys of anything I think is interesting um without including the whole agenda from council or anything of that nature. But uh joint workshop with city council and planning commission. City staff has worked to try and host the planning commission and city council on the same day and time on Wednesday, August 27th at 6:30 p.m. So, I will try to get a head count tonight and see how many of you guys feel like you can make an August 27th meeting at 6:30, which is a Wednesday. I don't know if I'll be on that day.

Okay. We could have 12:30. I'm wait. I might be the only one here. I can get all kinds of stuff packed. I wouldn't fail.

You hear? Yes. Okay. Yes. testing parts. I will make it work. Okay. Okay. Very good. That's three. I'll be here. Oh, okay. Very good. Great. Great. And I can follow up. I think I think I'll be on third shift that day. That's enough on that one. Huh? Third shift is no. Yeah. No, third shift is yes. Oh, you'll be second's no unless you all want to come to the hospital. We have Okay. Okay. So, you might be able to make it as well. I might be able to make it.

Well, great. Well, then we'll have five at a time. That's fantastic. That's fantastic. Okay. Well, I will give you guys a reminder for the usual. We get a nice phone call on Friday from me saying, "Hey, just as a reminder, joint workshop." Uh, the joint web development. So, city council and members of the plan commission visiting the Rock Spring Development Bing type of duplexes are being built in that area. Developer would like to build something similar off of 1/8 and 31st on the northwest corner. And so, we went and looked at some of the duplexes that are being proposed. Uh we talked to the developer about a mix of single family and two family. He's working right now um with Garber to look at maybe a preliminary layout to shut the planning commission city council to talk about ratios of single family and two family. Nothing has been annexed or reszoned or approved yet. But right now it's just completely preliminary. So that was a good trick. Casey's you probably noticed that Casey's broke ground and is anticipated to be open by December 4th at the latest. So they are swearing come to hell or high water they will be serving pizza and gasoline in on December 4th which is shocking you know considering how how fast they have to deal with that building which is but it's good that's good for them and we're actually hoping it can be opening sooner. So that's that's exciting. Um Chris Williams is stepping down from the planning commission. So he and his wife are moving out of dollars and look feels would be best to relinquish his seat effective immediately. Commissioner Williams replaced Mr. call to fulfill his term from January 2023 to December of 2025. Commissioner Williams replacement will have to be nominated by the mayor and ratified by the city council to fulfill the remainder of the term. After that, in December, city council will have to reappoint his replacement, serve another three-year term. So, um, Commissioner Williams term would have expired at the end of this year and then at which point he would have said, "Hey, can I be nominated for another three-year term?" Or maybe I don't want to be nominated for another three-year term, which point then we can try to somebody else. But um I will ask you guys if you do know of anybody feel free to email me or text me any recommendations you might have and I

will convey those recommendations to the mayor and then that mayor can someone behind me can make that consideration and then after that considering whatever he want whoever he wants to be as a nominee he will then take that nominee and say to the city council I nominate so and so as a replacement to commissioner Williams which point the city council can then say we agree at which point then that will replace Chris William C. So there's any questions about that. It is effective immediately. So you will not see Chris again at another county commission meeting. So any farewells feel free to text or call you directly but he will be dropping off his iPad. At this point we'll move on to item J. Py commissioner comments. Nope.

Just a question, I guess, or comment. When when we do get um citizen comments, it seems like a lot of their questions usually have to do what are have to do with storm water retention and eventually down the way issues. And the response to that typically is well let's be handled by Garber in the or by the engineer in the city in the city engineer. Mhm. From a planning commission. Is there any role in that? um anything we can have a role in as far as ensuring that that process is playing out fairly or is that just

it would probably be it. So probably happen during zoning because that has to do with land use but it could potentially happen during platting which is when you have a big termination of reserves and ownership and things that nature. If you felt like if you felt like a plat for example, you were concerned for example, let's say they were proposing a development like the one you just saw and you're like, I appreciate that Garver is going to elevate the we not 100% confident in their maybe storm water calculations or something. I would rather we table this until we get I don't know maybe I don't know what you want to see but let's say hypothetically you did want to see storm water coefficients and calculus behind it maybe you don't or maybe you want to see like I want to see a general drainage plan maybe you could require something along those lines and say I would like to see a general drainage plan layout where these lots are going to drain and I want to see that before I approve the flat that's something you could require plat approval preliminary plat approval and final plat approval are contingent on the planning commission before the final flag goes before city council. So if at some point between you guys seeing it and city council seeing there's a concern, you have every right to raise a flag at any point to say, "Hey, stop the process. Time out." You know, I want to see additional whatever it is. Now depending on what that concern is, we might advise you differently like

perhaps this is a concern for somebody else. You know, the attorneys have certainly weighed in before on storm water matters and so if you need to hear more from the attorneys, feel free. There's always that possibility. If you need to hear more from the city engineer, we can certainly include the city engineer. Uh Tina is actually very knowledgeable when it comes to storm water runoff and retention, you know, and so she's certainly happy to answer those questions. Even though she doesn't like to come up and speak, I will force her to. So, if there's any concerns between approving a plaque and sending it off to city council for final approval, then put a stop to it and simply say I'm raising a concern. In which case, the rest of your commissioners can also validate your concern or simply say, I don't have the same concern. And in which case, that will be taken into account. Yes, it's well within your right to say, I have concerns about retention, storm water runoff, anything along those lines, and I want to table this approval until we address those concerns.

Yeah. All have a question. Uh, so our recent change to R1 on the on the lot size, is is there is there a reason why we would want to consider tripling this down to the R2? I mean, are we going to see this a lot? Now, you're going to see it a lot and that's a very good question and I've already asking the question giving me the stare like what and I just wanted everybody to think about it more or less. You know, I have published it in the city newspaper for a change to lot size requirements and bulk regulations in the R2 for single family to be considered in September. Okay. So, let's go. Okay.

It's coming because I'm trying to see I'm trying to look into the future and see and since you guys you're right, you've seen R2 change and then you're seeing an R1 change. And so it only makes sense that if all if the R1 change is is good and people are using it, but now you're seeing more people wanting this mix, um maybe reducing the amount of duplexes and increasing the amount of single family, but having them on smaller lots and instead of approving an R2 and a variance every single time, maybe we just simply approve the R2 with smaller lot size requirements for single family attached. So I' I've already published it in the paper, okay? And you guys will see in September and so you can catch that out. That's a yes. I I try to do this.

Maybe we were going to see a lot of that or potentially see a lot of that as well. You are I mean I I say you are, you know, I just can't see into the future, but I always it seems that the duplex question is not really going away. And what we're seeing is that people are saying, well, can I do duplexes or can't I? What's the ratio? What's reasonable? And if they said, I can't do more duplexes to spread my specials. Can I do smaller lots to spread my specials? you know, if that's the case and you've already done it, you know, and they want an R2 to have a mix, then it makes sense that the R1, you know, oh, sorry, the single family within an R2 would be allowed to be smaller. But, you know, that's all I just

Yeah. two opportunities tonight to look at that. So, that's why it's your favorite time. I'll make a motion we second. All in favor? All right.