Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, let's call this meeting. The Haynesville Planning Commission will order the first item of business as a roll call.

True. Here. Coleman. Here. Ager. Here. Mortensen. Reinke.

Here.

Blood.

Next item of business is a modification of the agenda. You going to present that?

Can I get a motion to add item 6E to the agenda? Okay. Review of a conditional use for a self-service storage warehouse at 7474 South Broadway?

So moved.

Second.

Motion and second. Question? True. Yay.

Coleman? Yes. Adrian?

Yes. Frankie?

Yes.

Next item is the presentation and approval of minutes of May 14, 2026. the minutes as .

I'll second that.

The motion is second to present. Any discussion? Question?

True.

Yay.

Coleman? Yes. Ager? Yes. Rickey?

Yes. Under old business, we have a public hearing tabled from May 14th to consider amending and restating the zoning regulations.

So staff is initiating these amendments to the zoning regulations in an effort to modernize and codify our practices.

Sorry, I need to open public hearing first.

Yes, you do.

We now formally open the public hearing to consider proposed revisions to the zoning regulations in the city of Hayesville. Any members in the Planning Commission have a conflict of interest in this case? Any members? Have you received any written or electronic communications on this matter? Now, staff, would you present, please?

So again, we're updating them in an effort to modernize and codify our practices, encourage the development of more housing, and encourage smart growth. The intent of these amendments is to achieve some goals of our comprehensive plan, which is streamlining the development process, diversifying housing options, capitalizing on existing infrastructure, and supporting new and existing businesses. In the middle of our amendment process, the state passed SB 418, the Buy Right Housing Act. This act requires a certain single-family, two-family townhouses and accessory dwelling units to be permitted by right without review by the Planning Commission, BDA, or governing body. It also removes the ability to submit protest petitions against family and two-family rezonings and requires that all land zoned for any type of residential use be zoned for single-family and two-family use. As such, many of the changes to our proposed amendments have been changed in order to conform to the act. The proposed amendments are before you for your review in two different formats. There's a clean draft and a red line draft. I've also attached an outline of the proposed amendments.

Ready for us to move on? Mm-hmm. Any questions for staff? NOW IT'S TIME FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? OKAY. SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMISSION ACTION. THE FLOOR IS OPEN TO COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

All motion to approve amending of the claim is on the regulations as stated.

I'll second. Motion and second to approve. Any discussion? Question?

True.

Aye.

Coleman? Yes. Ager? Yes. Frankie?

Yes. Under new business, we have another public hearing to consider vacating complete access control and utility easement for a property generally located at the inner block of East Freeman. We now formally open the public hearing to consider proposed vacation of a portion of the plot of utility easement and access control generally located at the inner block of East Freeman. Any members have a conflict of interest in this case? Any members received any written or electronic communication on this matter? No. Staff received any written or electronic communication?

Only what's been included in the staff report.

Please present.

So this vacation is for property in the 800 block of East Freeman Avenue. The applicant is looking to vacate the complete access control and the utility easement on the west side of the property. The property, or the subject site, comprises of two platted lots, Lot 3 and the east 20 feet of Lot 4, Pear Tree 2nd Edition. It's currently vacant, though there's a small shed in the southwest corner, and it's been vacant since at least 2006. There's a driveway approach constructed on the northeast corner of the property to access East Freeman Avenue, which is a paved two-lane residential road. It was plotted in 1979 as the pear tree edition and then replotted in 1980 as the pear tree second edition. It was rezoned to two family in 2001 and a protective overlay was added that requires all new dwelling units to be a minimum of 900 square feet. There are no other known zoning cases associated with the property. The neighborhood around it is mixed property to the south is zoned light commercial property to the east is zoned two family and property to the west is zoned multi-family four the applicant is requesting this vacation in order to build four single-family homes with individual driveways on off onto freeman avenue to do so they'll need to split the lot into four separate parcels, the application for which has already been submitted to the zoning department. They're approved administratively, provided that a set of criteria are met. One of the conditions that has not been met is condition six, and that's that the split will not result in a landlocked tract. Currently, the property is limited to three driveways. The existing access control only allows two openings per lot, and one of the openings has been taken the property to the west the remaining portion of lot four pear tree second edition so fourth access opening can be provided through this vacation request or by dedicating a shared access easement for two of the new lots the applicant plans to rededicate access control along east payment avenue with their lot split application to limit each new lot to one driveway that that is not a requirement They would like the utility easement that's on the west side of the property vacated so that they can split the lot into four equal parcels, and that fourth lot doesn't have to be wider than the others. We received two public comments prior to this meeting. Both were requesting additional information, wanting to know what the property owner was planning to do with the property, and staff informed both that he planned to build four single-family homes. There have been no objections from any public or private utility companies, though Cox has stated that they wanted to ensure the vacation of the utility easement didn't extend into the rear easement because the one they're vacating straddles the lot line between lot three and four. So we have amended, our engineer has recommended that we amend the legal description that was provided to state that the vacation will include the south 20 feet. With all that information, staff is recommending approval provided that the legal description for the utility easement is amended to not include the south 20 feet and that the portion to be vacated is clearly marked on an exhibit to be submitted to the Register of Deeds. Such conditions must be met before the vacation request is presented to council.

Any questions for staff? Are the applicants or their agent present?

Yes.

Would you wish to speak? Only if you have questions. Any questions for the applicant or their agent? Now it's time for any member of the public to speak. I'm sorry, that's a requirement. If we promise to be nice, if you've got something to say, we're happy to hear you.

Just fill it out before you leave today.

Okay. And I think you just need to state your name and your address for the record.

Okay. Dena Moore. I live at 835 East Freeman, just right beside the lot. It has never been taken care of. Stuff grows in, you know, animals everywhere. So I'm glad that something's getting done. But my question is, you're putting four homes, like individual, or is it duplexes, like two on each? It's four individual homes?

The applicant has proposed four single-family homes.

Okay, okay.

Now, will it be like right beside our fence? Preferably like, you know, like windows not looking into ours, that's that close to the property?

They haven't submitted site plans.

Okay, so it's just a start.

They'll be required to be set back a certain distance. Okay. Just like every other lot. Okay.

That's part of our general code. Okay. You can only put it so close.

Okay, I guess that's it. Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to speak? Okay. Any questions from the, for the public? Oh, okay.

Eileen Whitmer, we're at 162 North Moy Avenue. Um, is that space big enough for four single homes? It just doesn't seem like it's big enough.

The property is one acre. So when it's split in four, they'll each be about a quarter of an acre, which is a 10,000 square foot lot. We only require that they be 6,000 square feet. There should be plenty of space for four homes.

Okay.

Anybody else from the public? Okay. Any

Thank you. My name is Richard Whitmer and I'm at 162 Moye Avenue and I know what I just heard was our concern was it seems like an awful narrow space to have four individual houses and of course I haven't measured it and so what I heard was it's one acre so every lot's going to be a quarter of an acre and that satisfies the would you say 6,000 square feet yeah but my question is if it's an acre because of the depth of it the lots could therefore be very narrow and still be 7,000 square feet so it's more the shape of the lots That's a consideration as well.

I do have a site plan for the width. Two of them will be 64 feet wide and two of them will be 74 feet wide.

I appreciate that, but I don't have a perspective on what a normal walk width is.

I'm just going by visually looking at that space.

It looks like the properties on both sides are 92 feet wide, so these will be...

20 feet narrower than the existing lots so 70 feet wide so that that's my concern it just seems like they're awful narrow lots compared to probably the rest of the lots in the neighborhood the bots across the street those are 69 feet across okay so they'll be similar to what's okay directly across from it not necessarily what's next to it gotcha all right thank you

this is really the last time that's fine i just don't want you to decide after we close the public portion that you want to talk so okay public comment is now closed for playing commission action the floor is open commissioner's comments

I will move to recommend approval of EAC 2026-003, subject to staff's recommended conditions.

I'll second. I have a motion and second to approve. Any more discussion? Question?

True.

Aye.

Coleman? Yes. Adrian? Yes. Reedy?

Yes. We have another public hearing to consider vacating complete access proposed vacations of the blotted complete access control located at 1620 East 84th Street South. Any planning commission members have a conflict of interest in this case? No. Any members received any written or electronic communication on this matter? No. Staff received any electronic or written communication?

Tell me what's in the staff report.

Please present.

So this property is located at 1620 East 84th Street. It's in our area of influence. just west of hydraulic avenue it was platted as the second edition in 1979 and was rezoned to sf20 single family from our rural residential earlier this year in 2026 the zone change was initiated for this same project here in there's no other known zoning cases all surrounding property is zoned residential And they're requesting this vacation of the complete access control to split the lot and build an additional single family home on the north side of their property. They also need to provide access for this lot. To get access, they can get that through this vacation process or they could also file an access easement through the south portion of the lot with register of deeds. The proposed access to be vacated is 40 feet wide and bounded by existing utility poles. You can see that in some of the site photos that have been attached. The opening has been positioned directly across from East 84th Street on the east side of Hydraulic Avenue to avoid any potential traffic issues. Cedric County Public Works has stated this is the only location that they would approve for an access opening. The utility poles do have overhead wires attached to them, but staff doesn't foresee them being an issue since those same wires are underneath East 84th Street on the west side of hydraulic. No utility company shared this concern either. There were two public comments that we received, both asking for additional information for what the property owner wanted to do with the property. From utility companies, we did not see any objections, though they obviously stated that if there's any relocation or removal, that will be at the applicant's expense. And our city engineer stated that the location of the access opening would be acceptable for a residential driveway. and she has not seen any concerns. So with all that information, staff is recommending approval.

Any questions for staff?

No.

Are the applicants of the regent present?

Yes.

Okay. Do you wish to speak at all?

I don't think I need to.

Okay. Now it's time for any member of the public to speak. If you would like to do so, same rules apply. Anyone? Seeing none, public comment is now closed for planning commission action. The floor is open to measure comments.

Motion? I will move to recommend approval of VAC 2026-004 as presented.

I'll second. Motion is second to recommend approval as presented. Any more discussion? Questions?

True.

Aye.

Coleman? Yes.

Ager?

Yes.

Rinky?

Yes. I THINK NOW I NEED A MOTION TO RECESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CONVENE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. SO MOVED.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

I MOTION SECOND TO RECESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CONVENE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. ALL IN. QUESTION?

TRUE.

HI.

COLEMAN. YES. AZER. YES. RICKY.

Now item under new business, item C, public hearing to consider a variance for the front setback and accessory structure location regulation in the SF family district for property generally located 6536 South Marion. And I formally open the public hearing to consider proposed variance request. From the minimum front setback in accessory structure location requirements in the SF Family Residential District, the property located at 5636 South Marion, do any members of the Board of Zoning Appeals have a conflict of interest in this case?

No.

No. Any members receive any written or electronic communications on this matter? No. The staff receive any written or electronic communication?

None.

Staff, please present.

So this variance is for property located at 6536 South Marion. The applicant is requesting the variance to construct a carport in their front yard. To do so, they need a variance from the minimum front setback requirements in the SF district, which is 25 feet, and a variance from the accessory structure location requirements, which limits them to side yards and rear yards. The carport will be 20 by 20 feet in size. The driveway and concrete pad for the carport have already been poured. You can see that in the attached site photos. There's also a trailer parked in the proposed location of the carport. We don't have renderings, but there is a site plan attached. For findings, there are five conditions that variances must meet in order to be approved. This is set by state statute. Staff finds that the first four conditions have been met. So the variance requested arises from such a condition which is unique to the property and which is not ordinarily found in the same zoning district and was not created by the applicant. Staff also finds that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. And staff agrees that the strict application of the provisions of the zoning regulations will constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. and staff agrees that the variance desired will not adversely affect the public health safety rules order convenience prosperity or general wealth staff neither disagrees nor agrees with the fifth condition that the granting of the variance will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations the applicant has stated that it will not be opposed It will provide a better property values and a better class of individuals to stay within the exceptional living standards that are currently in. Years past have been accepted by the exceptional residents and officials of Paceville, Kansas. Staff, again, neither agrees nor disagrees. Front yard setbacks can have two purposes. One, to ensure all structures are a uniform distance from the street, and two, to provide for adequate parking space in front of a dwelling unit. The proposed carport would be significantly closer than any other house on this street, but the applicant has demonstrated that adequate parking can still be provided in front of a dwelling without meeting the setback requirements. The purpose of the accessory structure location requirements is to ensure accessory structures are visually subordinate to principal structures. The carport will likely be the most visible part of the property if constructed in the front yard. However, if it's smaller than the house, it may still be visibly subordinate. So staff has not determined if this condition has been met. And based on that, staff cannot recommend that this variance be approved. But if the board finds that this fifth condition has been met, there are some conditions in the staff report that would apply.

Any questions for staff? Are there any other similar structures in the area like this?

There was a carport to the side of the house next door. I'm not sure that's visible in any of the site photos. It's not.

Have there been any carport complaints in the area?

None that I'm aware of.

And has there been any other public comment?

I have not heard from any of the people in the notification area about this case.

Are the applicant or their agent present? Yes. You wish to speak? We know your address, but you've got to state it anyway.

Okay. We represent the 6536 South Merion. I'm Chris Sampson. That's Stacy, and she is the listed owner. And this is my father, Tony. He's the general contractor. We kind of grew up in this neighborhood. His mother and my grandmother lived on Van Arsdale, and so we like Haysville. And so we found a house out here, and we thought we'd do pretty well on trying to fix it up. And it's been a job. Man, we've been on this house for probably four years. And so, you know, we work a little bit, save a little bit, spend a little bit, and we're almost done. And so the carport, I feel, will add a nice value to that area in keeping property values up and with the The property tax at about 1.5%, if I'm not mistaken, that would be if any property value increases in that area for the amount that we would get for car protection in this area would be well worth it. And it would be pretty. It's going to be nice. It won't be cobbled up. The one next door is not the prettiest. but it is a carport there's one around the corner I meant to bring pictures I was running late went around the corner that's it's probably 10 by maybe maybe 10 by 15 he's got a carport coming off the front of his house too he didn't have a garage we don't have anywhere else to put it and there's no room to go along the side to go around We'll make sure it's super nice in keeping with the Hayesville area. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Now it's time for any member of the public to speak. I'm sorry. Public comment is now closed for Board of Zoning Appeals. Action. The floor is open to Commissioner's comments.

I know the neighborhood. I appreciate you've done a wonderful job on that house. It looks really nice. I appreciate that.

Sorry, we're sharing notes. Sure. Appreciate your consideration.

If I understand, our main concern is the easement.

Or the setback. On the front. We try to stay from the sides for sure. We're far enough on the sides. It's the front. If they were to ever come through there and put sidewalks in that area, I don't know that Hayesville is going to spend the time and money to put sidewalks back in that neighborhood, but that would be the only concern, I think.

this site plan shows a four foot front setback in the sidewalk would be right away I guess one of the things we were looking at was the fact that you know the car is going to be parking out there anyway basically making a garage without it you know at least with that they you know have some kind of security and we've we've thought this thing it doesn't feel like it's going to be hard to sell a house without some kind of you know help you know keep the hell off of them keep the weather off of them do you have a question yeah we kind of looked at magazines and come up with a really nice one we think oh pretty so is is it a permanent structure attached to the home it would be at first we weren't we were trying to go with what was best for you guys your request originally years ago when we started this was that our best odds would be if it was attached

permanently said so where the dark blue siding is and then there's a white guttering roof line or whatever it would be in that area more discussion

VAR 2026-001. I think we find that unique characteristics of the property create a hardship and the variance will not adversely affect the adjacent property owners or public safety. Does your motion include, you had conditions? I'm sorry, yes, with staff's conditions.

And you agree that the granting of the variance is not opposed to the general spirit and intent of the zoning regulations?

Absolutely. And I also think that's pretty subjective.

I'll second that.

I have a motion and a second. Question? Sorry, any more discussion? No. Question? True. Aye.

Coleman? Yes. Asia?

Yes.

Rinky?

Yes.

Motion is second to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals and reconvene the Planning Commission. Question?

True.

Aye.

Coleman? Yes. Ager? Yes.

Yes. Under item D, one step final plat for Carceloie addition?

Yes, I think that's how you pronounce that. The drainage plan for this plat, which is one of the conditions for recommending approval that all the comments and issues with the drainage plan were addressed have not been finalized yet. So the applicant is requesting this item be tabled until June 25th.

Move to table. Second. Motion to second the table. Any more discussion? Question?

True.

Aye.

Coleman? Aye.

Ager?

Yes.

Reiki?

ITEM E, CONDITIONAL USE FOR 7474 SOUTH BROADWAY. HOW DO WE PRONOUNCE THAT?

So this conditional use was presented to you guys for the first time on May 14th. It went to council on June 8th this Monday, but they actually recommended that it be returned so Planning Commission could further review the conditional use based on screening, surveillance, and rodent control. If you remember, our original recommendation was to approve the conditional use with two conditions. One, that the Cargo containers must be painted the same color or grouped in rows or sections by color. And two, that they may be exempt from the screening requirements prescribed in the cargo container appendix. I have attached some site photos of existing self-service storage facilities in the city and one just outside the city, an examination of the city code as it relates to surveillance and road control, some emails from the applicant after the city council meeting, and the original staff report for the case. The minutes are attached as the first item on our agenda. since this item has been returned to you you have two options you can resubmit the original motion giving the reasons therefore or you can submit a new and amended motion either will require four votes but let's start with screening so we have recommended that the cargo containers be exempted from the screening requirements in the cargo container appendix

That was staff's recommendation, correct?

Yes, staff's recommendation and motion recommended to continue by Planning Commission. The applicant is required to screen the cargo containers from the view of South Broadway. This is in our code. This would require installing solid screening around the entire front of the property along Broadway, part of the north property line, and part of the south property line. The cargo containers are just over eight feet tall, so that fence would have to be nine or ten feet tall. The applicant has stated that he plans to install a chain link fence, and he would prefer a six-foot chain link fence around the perimeter of the property. He doesn't want to have to completely screen the cargo containers from view because a 10-foot fence is outside of his budget. He's willing to install plastic slats into a six-foot fence. However, he states that plastic slats will make it easier for a burglar to break in, as most storage facilities don't have solid screening for this reason. Um, I looked up some past president from old conditional uses for self storage warehouse facilities. Um, and we have the planning commission has addressed screening before, um, That was for Sarah Lane storage planning commission did not recommend screening the property from the street. In that case, they just recommended screening it from the adjacent residential. So vehicle headlights wouldn't shine into their properties. And they actually got the former police chief's recommendation to not screen the property from the street to make sure there wasn't any cover for illegal activities. Um, there's should be attached site photos of all the existing self-service storage facilities. in the area you'll notice in these that none of them are screened from the view of the street and that includes park avenue storage which is up just south of the floodway on broadway they have a solid screening fence around three sides of the property but the side that faces k avenue is actually wrought iron fence so it's open to the street so we're going to handle these one at a time yes

If you were building a storage unit facility that was stick-built, garage doors, everything else, I think not having screening on it is fine. I think the requirement here is because it's storage containers, and I still have a hard time saying if you have two storage unit containers on your property, I'm going to make you screen them per city code. But if you have 94, you don't have to do that. That seems ridiculous to me. That's the, and I understand security, but if they were stick building this, it wouldn't be a requirement. What's forcing the requirement is the fact that it's storage containers. And I understand what he's saying about a six foot fence also, but the requirement is the requirement. And if the math doesn't work out, that's the requirement. And I think we need to require the same screening we would on any other storage container in the city. give any different treatment to this, especially since it's so many. That's my feeling on the screening alone.

i really think the security issue is a big deal because if we put a 10 foot solid fence or a non-transparent fence around that it invites people to get through that fence somehow and then take all their time breaking into those those locks so there's a lot of ways you can do that in the middle of the night and we might create a condition where we're bringing fine end into that area whereas we wouldn't if you could see through it you know they know that every car could be a cop driving by now i i kind of like the idea maybe you know fencing in three sides solid if you have to because if there's if there's any residential neighborhood around there but from the street you should sorry i didn't i don't want to cut you off but i want to pause for that one point it's all commercial around there right or industrial

That should be in the staff report that you guys have.

Except the west.

It's all industrial.

And I get the shipping container argument. It makes sense. But I think if it's done right, they don't have to look other than well, if it's an industrial area, you know, it's not really all about, you know, manicured lawns and looking pretty. It's an industrial area. Shipping containers are industrial. they're solid as long as they're not all rusty and they're well maintained and we might have some sort of status requirement we put on there to say that they have to be maintained we can't have rust spots that can't have holes in them or anything like that but outside of that I think being able to drive by and see what's going on in those lots especially if you align them so that you can look down the roads as you're driving by it makes it easier at least to deter crime

Any more discussion? He's still deciding.

We don't have photos of the containers.

I think we had them in the last report. You did.

They got handed out to city council and I did not get them back. That's the only copy I have so I can share.

And are they going to remain this color? Was he painting them?

As far as I know, he wanted to bring in brand new white cargo containers.

Cargo containers are tough and they last a long time. You know, if you're not bumping them around these days. There should be no reason for them to deteriorate. They're frankly stronger than a stick bill. Now, if we had a tornado going through, I'd rather be in one of those.

I mean, I see both of your points, right? So his point isn't argumentative to yours. His point is really that it is in the code that anything that is a cargo container or a storage container of this type is screened. I mean, that's just in the code. So whether it's one or a hundred, the code is still that they are fenced and screened. It's not that one type is better than another. It's not even the security issue, right? His is kind of a standalone different. That's why I just want to say that. Yeah, that's a good point.

You all articulated it better than I did. And if the code, because you're using shipping containers, creates a different problem for you, it's up to you as the developer of that property to solve that problem in a different way, either with security... equipment, which is what we're going to talk about in the future, or extra lighting or whatever that may be. I don't I don't think that our code, which was in place before you made this decision, one use. I think it puts us on a slippery slope. And if his neighbor comes to us next week and says, I want to put up two shipping containers, I don't want to screen it because my neighbor's got 94 of them and he doesn't have to do it. It's hard for me to argue against that. So I think the code is the code. And if that's what's driving that decision and there's a way around it a different way than not having screening at all, I think that's what we do. And I think if you don't want screening, don't put in cargo containers at your storage unit and do it a different way.

And the code is there to make it easier, these decisions easier on us. They've already... That makes sense.

I think the code certainly works in any lesser zone area going towards residential. I think in an industrial area, I don't think in an industrial area.

So that's where I'm getting stuck is on intent, right? So like the intent, if I was to put a storage container in a location like that is different than this intent. And so that's where I struggle and I don't, I mean.

Well, let me approach this a different way then. He's telling us he intends to use brand new all white storage unit containers. If he was coming to us with very used, rusty, old storage unit container, would your opinion be any different?

I'd tell them they'd have to do something to make them look better so as not to interrupt the aesthetic of the area. I'd say you'd have to fix them up from hand. Yeah.

You can still use them. And it becomes a code enforcement problem long term, which is a different problem. But I can do a poor job of maintaining those for the next 10 years, and it's constantly code enforcement's problem. And just because I'm telling you I'm going to buy new ones that are all white and they're going to look pretty, there's nothing legally binding him to do that. He can put in there whatever he wants and then we've got no recourse at all other than code enforcement. What the code is intended to do is you can have the best interests at heart and try to do the best, but this protects the general public and the community as a whole from an area that, in my opinion, could use some sprucing up to create a little bit better view going down the street if this isn't held up to the end of the park.

And this borders, will border Broadway? Yes, it's off of Broadway.

Is there anything from a structural standpoint if like depending on how these are installed within code to change how they're viewed from a structural perspective?

Like if they're not viewed as a cargo container?

Right.

And instead viewed as a building?

Yeah. Because I mean there is construction now. Like some homes are being built out of cargo containers. And so how does that, I mean how would that function? So I guess my question is like from a foundation standpoint and an anchoring standpoint, does that change

We're going to talk a whole lot about foundations here in the next. Well, it's an interesting point. I mean, if I take three cargo containers, cargo containers welded together and put a little roof over them to shield the stuff in the middle, now it's a house. And I've seen lots of people.

On a foundation.

So I guess I'm going to back up my question because it doesn't pertain to the screening at this point, unless it does change the classification of what it is.

I don't believe that the building code views it differently than a cargo container.

So if I was to build a house, a residential home out of cargo containers, would I have to screen it?

In the city, you're actually not allowed to build a cargo container out of, or a house out of cargo containers. The way our cargo container appendix is written, you'd have to get a variance.

Okay, how do you want to proceed with each one of these separate three topics?

I don't think we need a motion for every one, but we need to come to... Consensus? However you think is the easiest way for you guys to come to a consensus on each one, so we're in consensus at the end, because the only way we can pass a motion is if you all agree tonight, because we need four votes.

Well, let me ask it this way. Are we consensus on recall?

Yes, I think along Broadway we need to consider the aesthetics of that. I have a question though. So the height of the screen, the containers are ten foot tall? Eight. Eight foot six. So the screening needed to be ten? Nine or ten. Nine or ten. And he was willing to go six? Yes.

You're trying to modify the fence height?

Well, is it going to do what? What do we want the screening to do? Do we want it to hide that totally? I was just looking at those. It's still going to look like cargo containers back there behind the screen.

And for me, it comes down to the same thing we've been talking about the whole time. If we allow it here, and his neighbor comes to us next month and says, I want to put a cargo container in, and I want to put a six-foot fence up because that's what my neighbor has, and you see one over the top, and I would like to not set that precedent. I think if we're going to have screening, it should screen what we're trying to screen and not just the bottom majority of it. You're okay moving forward? Okay. What's the next portion?

The next portion is surveillance. This is something City Council wanted us to consider. We have two things in the code that talk about anything related to surveillance, lighting, security, or general public safety, neither of which are applicable to the property. So if we wanted to apply them, we would have to add a condition to the conditional use. The first one is for wireless communication facilities. We require a security fence and screening. When the wireless infrastructure is not in the right of way, we require that it has to have a security fence and screening at least six feet in height that prevents unauthorized access. And then we also have a lighting provision that security lighting be installed. but directed towards the ground and not adjacent properties. And then in the manufactured home park district, we require that adequate lighting be provided for public safety.

I don't... I don't understand how we can regulate this at all. I think it's got to be done by the developer. And if we're putting the screening requirement in and he wants to have an additional level of security, I think that's up to him to do so, but I also don't see a way we can regulate it. He can tell us there are cameras or put up fake cameras and not record. And there's no recourse for us to go back and check that this is even being done. I don't understand this requirement. I'm not sure other than making sure that the property is taking care of itself, which we can't really regulate why this is something we're considering.

that why the city is putting it back on us to make this decision when it's it should be the individual i think so i guess my question is what is the consideration what specifically does the city want us to do or say their specific motion was for planning commission to consider screening surveillance and um roading control okay we got screening and those are

under the property screen if we don't want to add anything for surveillance we can choose not to I think is that consensus okay last one is rodent control there are A couple of code provisions that deal with word of control in the city code and these are applicable to the property so we would not have to make any changes. They are addressed retroactively through code complaints and proactively through the building permit process.

That was going to be my question. How is this not a code enforcement issue, and why are we regulating at this level? Why has it not been? I think their argument was these containers, because they have a bottom, there is the availability for rodents to get underneath them, but there is also the availability for rodents to get in every other storage unit in town, whether it's a shipping container or not, and code enforcement is regulating all of those, and I don't see why this would be any different.

Now, these shipping containers, I mean, these are ocean-worthy shipping containers. They're brand new. They have class ratings depending on the condition. They float. I mean, they're sealed steel bottoms.

Yeah, the issue was underneath it, not inside it. Oh, I see. Okay. And I think that comes down to foundation, and I don't know that any of us here is qualified to dictate what type of foundation these should be set on. I mean, maybe it's concrete.

Well, it would have to be an all-weather. What would...

Technically, it wouldn't have to be all-weather. They could send it on the dirt. We have an all-weather requirement for the driving surface, but not underneath the containers, unless I'm wrong.

That is a building code and building inspector question. I know he's requiring footings, but I do not know what the specifics are. Okay.

But from a zoning regulations perspective, it's not like that's not a valid item.

It's not something we should be considering. Yeah. consensus is that we choose not to regulate that portion of it and send it back to council.

That's all three. Okay.

Do you need a motion to that effect and a second to vote?

I included an excerpt from the City of Wichita for what they regulate for self-service storage warehouses. Are you interested in knowing what those are?

Say that again?

There's a section in here for what the City of Wichita regulates when it concerns screening and surveillance and product control.

I think we are in consensus right now. I don't think there's any reason to confuse that.

Okay. So... We need a recommendation to approve the conditional use subject to the first condition, that it is harmonious, everything's painted the same color or grouped in sections by color. Any other conditions you wanted to apply?

Under discussion, do they really need to be grouped in sections by color if we're now going to require the solid fence? I mean, it's one or the other. You know, either put the requirement that they're all colored the right way so they look nice from the outside, or if we're going to shield the whole thing with the 10-foot fence, whatever you want to go, whatever you want to put in there can go in there.

So no conditions?

Just the existing code.

Okay. So we need a recommendation for approval then?

I move that we recommend approval subject to the existing code.

And so I want clarification. That would be the requirement for the 10-foot fence? Yes.

They won't be required to match any of the colors on the carbon containers, but they will be required to install a 10-foot fence or a 9-foot fence that is solidly screened.

Yes.

Just from the view of Broadway. It won't be around the entire property. Right, right. I'll second that.

Motion seconded. Any other discussion? Question?

Troop?

Aye.

Coleman? Yes. Adrian? Yes. Frankie?

Yes. No correspondence?

None.

No off agenda other than the next meeting date?

It will be June 25th. That's when you table the plot.

I need a birthday cake on that day.

So moved.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Sorry. Just making sure I'm in time on June 25th. Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you.