Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the June 8, 2026 Carney Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Please stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Roll call.

We have everybody present except for Wyatt Irvin. I have a quorum for tonight's meeting.

All right. Item number three, the consent agenda. Approval of minutes from the May 11th meeting.

Chair, I introduce a motion to approve the consent agenda as published. I'll second.

All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. Motion carries. new business for a code amendment section 236 erosion and sediment controls and chapter 237 illicit discharges and stormwater connections and this is a public hearing yes I have a brief comment for you so item four is public hearing regarding proposed ordinance for

and sediment controls and prohibition of illicit discharges into the stormwater system. These regulations are recommended to help the city in meeting obligations under our DNR MS4 permit and Federal Clean Water Act. We're a city over 10,000. That's kind of a threshold. We went over that in 2020 and then it took a few years and then we were notified that we have to go through the MS4 process. So these chapters were prepared by City Engineer Lawrence Snyder. He's in the audience today and has a presentation that will address the commission. And then it is a public hearing, so we'll accept public comments. We've got some people in the audience who have questions or comments about it, so we want to hear what they have to say. So the chapters are not in the zoning ordinance or the subdivision regulations, but we want to use tonight as an extra meeting opportunity for So I guess if Lauren can maybe come up. I guess he'll do a presentation, and then after he's done, they just open it. Yeah, open the public question or comment.

Sounds good.

And then I've got a presentation here to pull up.

There you go. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission. I'm Lauren Snyder, the city engineer, and I also serve as the city of Kearney, Missouri municipal separate storm sewer system manager. And tonight I want to give you a brief update on the erosion and sediment control and illicit discharge and connection ordinances. So in 2020, the city of Kearney passed 10,000 people in population. As a result of having 10,000 people, Missouri DNR requires the city to have an MS4 permit. The MS4 permit requires the city to develop a stormwater management plan. This permit authorizes public entities, like the city of Kearney, to discharge stormwater collected by its storm sewer systems into the waters of the United States. Development of this plan began in 2023. The plan includes goals and interim milestones that must be met to comply with Missouri DNR. June 2026 is an interim milestone for the city of Kearney. According to our permit, Kearney is required to have a sediment and erosion control and an illicit discharge and connection ordinance by the end of June. That's what kind of brings this up for us. So the city's stormwater management plan is required to address six minimum control measures. In the permit, they call these MCMs. They include public education and outreach, public participation, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction site runoff control, and pollution prevention and good housekeeping. The required ordinances help the city meet minimum control measures number three, plus discharge detection elimination. Five, or I'm sorry, four, construction site runoff control. And number six, pollution prevention and good housekeeping. So that's the things that we're trying to address through these ordinances. So the first ordinance is the erosion and sediment control ordinance. This ordinance creates a regulatory framework for managing erosion and sediment during construction activities in the city of Carnegie. It establishes permitting thresholds, plan review procedures, inspection requirements, design standards, stabilization expectations, enforcement authority, and financial security requirements for larger projects. The ordinance also addresses mud tracking and debris control on public streets and authorizes the city to issue stop work orders and penalties for non-compliance. And you might be wondering why is this important to the city. Well, this ordinance protects residents from construction-related erosion, mud, flooding, and infrastructure damage by requiring builders to control sediment to keep their sites clean. And honestly, we already have a great group of developers here in the city of Kearney. We don't have much of a problem with this. This is an ordinance that's required to meet DNR requirements. Next slide. The second ordinance is the illicit discharge and connection stormwater ordinance. This ordinance establishes the City of Kearney's legal framework for preventing polluted or unauthorized discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer system. It supports compliance with federal and state stormwater regulations by defining prohibited discharges, inspection authority, BMP requirements, spill notification procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. The ordinance provides the city with broad authority to investigate, evade, and recover costs associated with stormwater pollution violations. This ordinance benefits our residents by protecting public health and water quality by preventing pollutants such as oil, chemicals, and sewage from entering the city's storm So the copies of the proposed ordinances that we've provided to the planning and zoning packet are the same version that we provided to the Board of Aldermen for public hearing on June 1st. We did that intentionally because we didn't want two versions of these out there. But since the initial posting of the draft ordinances, we've received a number of comments. Some of the comments were Scrivener errors, while other items were where the EPA's model basis document was more restrictive than the Missouri state operating permit so staff has been making edits to the ordinances based on comments received so that they are more in line with the Missouri state operating permit requirements I have copies of those working versions with the edits that we've made so far with me tonight and they're available I'll pass them out after this I'll briefly go through some of the edits that have been made to these ordinances what we're working on. So the first change is to chapter 236 and it was to add reference to Missouri DNR land disturbance general permit and then reduce slopes to 3 to 1 maximum. This is going to maximize permanent vegetative success, ease of maintenance, and lower erosion potential without requiring specialized engineering stabilization. And 3 to 1 slopes is it agrees with what our standards are in the city of Connie. The second change, next slide. The second change to Chapter 236 was to bring soil stabilization timeframes in line with Missouri DNR and Sturman's General Permit. Five days was changed to 14. Vegetative cover was changed to match 70% Missouri DNR coverage requirements. Stabilization of soil stockpiles was changed to 14 days to match the Missouri DNR permit. And then mulch stabilization of a site of closed construction season was changed to an option for disturbed or an inactive area if other vegetation stabilization had not been established. The third change to Chapter 236 was to change and allow the option for perimeter controls to be utilized without a vegetated buffer strip. This is because a buffer strip's not always possible when you're working on home-built sites. So sometimes silt fences is what you need to use there. So just trying to make that more reasonable. Next slide. So chapter 237, the first change was to include a few more permitted discharges for things such as charity car washes. We don't want to be writing up the local youth for trying to make some money on a Saturday. Next slide. The second change to chapter 237 was to make access to facilities more reasonable by including normal business hours instead of saying whenever we need to have access that you'll provide it. The third change was to acknowledge that industrial facilities already operate under state industrial permits. So we just added that there to make that more in line with state requirements. So ordinance will be on the agenda for adoption at the next Board of Aldermen meeting. If there's additional comments, they can be emailed to me at lsnyder at carnimo.us. And we're still taking comments on these. So at this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And would anybody like a copy of the working copies?

The only question that I had was in In 236.3, it talks about no site development permit is required for the following activities. Obviously, emergency activity. Then it says existing nursery and agricultural operations conducted as a permanent main or accessory use. I just want to... I didn't see in here anywhere if you've got, like, say, the nursery that we've got in town. If they were to sell their land then repurchase it later that wouldn't be considered existing right it would be considered new then from an operation so if they go and clear out you know they go and plant a bunch of trees and they go clear out a couple acres of trees do they then need to get a permit to do that yes

Has the state reviewed this ordinarily?

No, the state's not required to review it. So we're doing this to, have we worked with the state on this? It's based on the EPA document, the federal EPA document. And then we've gone through and combined that with other surrounding cities and their comments to make sure that we're not doing something that's completely out of the ordinary.

Right, OK. Yeah, so the reason I ask is, you know, it's based on the EPA, and now we're making changes to align with the state, to meet the state requirements. We haven't kind of reached out to them and said, hey, what we've written here, does this meet your requirements, or are we going to have to go back after the fact and change things?

Yeah, we've gone through and made it an agreement with what the state permit requirements are. Really, the things that are in there are things that are contracted community are already doing on their projects that have a SWPPP that's why the Missouri state permit that's what we want to make sure that we're more in line with that should we go ahead and open up to public comment and then if we have more questions we can

I'm going to be chair whenever I get to use the hammer hard. Public meeting's open. If anybody has any comments or questions, please come up to the podium and give your name and address. Go for it.

.

And I was a little surprised by this report that's coming through. I guess no one, anybody in this room was aware of this even happening until I sent it in. So most everything in this report pertains to what we do. We haven't had any, there's been no conversation with us about it at all and how it's going to affect the jobs. And I think it should have been. And I like the opportunity to meet with staff to talk about it. I think several of us would. But it appears, the way I read it, I haven't seen all the changes. The way I read it, it's going to impose a lot of restriction on all developments, single-family home developments in town. Things like if we, they would probably do it. We've got to cover it, set it in that night, and take it off the next morning. But we've got to cover it again the next night. So I'm not sure who's going to do that at the end of the day. It seemed like between me and one of the general administrators, The monitoring process, you're going to have to go through just to keep track of all of it. It's quite a miniature nightmare. And I understand, I guess you're saying this is required by DNR, EPA, or someone, I guess. But I'm just surprised that no other city, unfortunately, did it like this before. So it's kind of alarming that all this is coming down all of a sudden from . So that's my comment. But it was received an email from the city about it. We got it from the builders, the city builders. It wasn't sent to the building, it was sent to the secretaries and to the managers, but the owners of the company weren't notified. I heard about it from Governor Friday and sent it to Lopi. But I think that was it. They should have been notified. I had some input in before now. I realize that you said something that you've known about since 2023, and now you've got to get them in in June. That sounds like some of the contractors I know to start doing it, get all the work done in the last day. They've been doing it since starting when they should have been getting it.

Chris Shipley, 11809 East 146th Street, Liberty Mode. The copy I got didn't have some of the working changes and stuff like that, but I got this at the 11th hour and stuff, and so went through a lot of these things. I don't really have a problem with the basis of of this but there's some details in here that it's always the details that are problems and stuff and one is having a full-time inspector on the job from day one until the grading of the project is 100 complete and stuff that we have to hire and staff that that's a problem um the liability of mud from a builder going to the developer if he doesn't clean it up? I mean, we've sold the lots, and so how does that come back to us on something like that? And so I don't really have an issue with the body of this, but I think there's some details in this thing that need to be kind of fine-tuned. And it sounds like it's a working product and stuff, but time is kind of the essence for you guys. And so not reaching out and having these conversations before now is kind of a little bit of a problem. So that's really all I've got and stuff on it and stuff. But I would love to talk through this thing and try to get the details because once you guys sit and vote on it and stuff, it's where it's at now. And so we want to try to get everybody happy in the beginning and know what rules we're playing with. Thank you.

remote but so I went through to say the problem I see is that a lot of it is very confusing particularly like it said chapter 263 you get into the definitions and it refers to a certified contractor I'm just using this one as an example to inspect and maintain erosion and settlement control practices but it doesn't tell us anything about who's to be certified by him by what agency that's going to be certified so you know if we're thinking about OSHA You'll be Ocean 10 or Ocean 30 certified. And that has a meaning to it that we all understand. But a lot of these definitions in here do not have a meaning. I don't know of any state agency or state entity that certifies dirt contractors or erosion control companies or what classes they would have to go through or anything of that nature. Just in reading it, another example is when I'm looking at 236. 030 when it's talking about permits. And it says, you know, if you have 100 or more square acres, or square feet, I'm sorry, you have to have a site disturbance plan. And then it seems to say that, you know, if you have 1,000 square feet and not less than one acre. So it seems to conflict within and of itself. And I just think that the way that these things got published, where nobody got to really look at them beforehand. You know, you've got a humongous cost buried here in 236-030, and Mr. Shipley hit on it, about having a licensed contractor on site all days when construction or grading activity takes place. You know, is that, I'm assuming the developer would have to pay for that. Is that up until the job's been accepted and incorporated into the city? Does that go throughout when they're building houses? When does that end? Does it end when 75% of vegetation has been established? Lauren had spoken about changing 236.050, and so I'm going to skip that because that was also confusing to me. But if you go to 236.060, paragraph C there, when it's talking about the design requirements, and it refers to having the site so you would clear, install the erosion control device, and then you have to stabilize the site. The way I'm reading it, it makes no sense, because why would you cede the site until you're finished with construction? You get paragraph D in there, And it talks about having to divide any track up that's 30 acres or more. And I don't see where the benefit is. If someone has a 40-acre track, why not just develop all 40 acres? Why do we need to cut that in half? There may be answers out there, but without having any meetings, we don't know what the state is requiring of it. And then it seems to be, when you get into the violation and penalty section, it seems not to actually tell you what the penalty is. It doesn't tell you if it's a fine, jail time. It doesn't really answer that question. And then when you get into, it assigns liability then to a developer if the builder is not doing it. And so I think that's interesting because the developer doesn't have control over whether or not the builder is is complying with this. And so I just think that it needs to be tabled and there needs to be conversations between everybody to clean up a lot of the language in there because a lot of it either conflicts with itself or it's just not clear on where we're trying to go with it.

Matthew Ewy, Star Development, 610 Camelot Drive, Liberty Mow. I think, speaking on behalf of everyone here, we all came in a bit worried and confused because we weren't aware of everything. We got this packet on the 11th hour, and we didn't really have too much time to see it. We didn't have that communication between us and the city. I said that this does affect us quite adversely. I did have the opportunity to just compare it to what I know of municipalities and what they're doing and what mdnr requires of us such as the permit trigger like old house said a thousand square foot was what was stated on the documents we had received and what mdnr states it's one acre not a thousand square foot stabilization i know lauren has stated they were working through things that was great to hear and i'm happy that we're working through that you're going to speak on that in the future but It was 14 days for MD&R. It was five originally. I know there were changes to that. You'll have to see that. But moving forward, I'm hoping to see some other things as well, such as clarification on the mud tracking. There was the $500 deposit for each building permit. And if your subdivision has 100 lots, that's $25,000. No other municipality does that that I'm aware of. Just trying to figure out what's fair for everyone and moving forward from there.

Anybody else? All right. We don't have anybody online, I don't think.

No. Yeah, all right. Just us and Ryan.

All right, close the public hearing or commission discussion.

A couple follow-up questions. Do we have an option as a city whether we adopt this or not?

If we do not adopt, we will not have an MS4 permit.

And what happens if we don't have an MS4 permit?

Then we're in violation and we will get fined.

Okay. Are we way out of base of other jurisdictions in the area?

I don't believe so. We had our city attorney go through and compare this to other jurisdictions to make sure that we were in line.

So we're not back of the pack, front of the pack, we're right in the middle? Correct. Okay. They brought up the question on the inspector. How does one become an inspector? Can they go through Johnson County contractor licensing to get that?

There's a number of different certifications you can get. Our city inspectors are SISEC certified. That's recommended by Missouri DNR. Johnson County oftentimes has certified inspector programs. We're really looking for a certification that the person knows what they're doing when it comes to sediment and erosion control. There's a number of clear water contractor certifications that are out there.

I know Johnson County has it because I've sat through it. Great training. So the inspector that has to be on site, is that their sole job while they're on site? Or can it be like the site foreman?

So we would like to have a meeting to follow up with our contracting partners to understand exactly how that's being interpreted as being on site all the time. I don't interpret it as that way. I interpret it as when inspections need to be done, they need to be done by a certified inspector. But I would love to have some time to understand how that's being interpreted and make clarifications or changes as needed to get done.

Right. So I guess a follow-up to that question is, like, so that inspector, it could be, like, an added duty on someone that's already on site or already out there. So it's not having to hire an inspector just to do this. just inspections.

It could be other duties as assigned. Some of our contract community does that already, and they do an amazing job. Again, our contract community does an amazing job with keeping our community safe and clean as it is.

We're just trying to be compliant with Missouri DNR. And then one of them brought up a $500 deposit.

Is that triggered at the land of service permit issuance per lot?

Or is that $500 deposit triggered at building permit when they start constructing a house on the lot?

So when they apply for their building permit, that would be part of getting the building permit, would be getting that $500 deposit. It is a deposit that's refunded.

It's not something that's lost. So if I'm developing a subdivision, say the first phase has 30 lots, am I paying upfront when I'm doing the land disturbance? or once I get graded, accepted, platted, and then I sell the lots off to building builders, are the builders paying it when they draw the building permit to construct a house on the lot?

That's what our goal is.

So it's not $25,000, $30,000 up front. It's case by case once they pull the permit per lot? That's the intent.

So that as we have... And getting everybody educated on keeping our water clean and keeping the mud out of our pipes because then we have to go back and spend money cleaning out our infrastructure.

That's all I have for now. Lauren, who got these notices about this? Was it developers? Was it builders? How did we determine

We went through and pulled building permit applicants for the last, well, 2024 to current. So if somebody pulled a building permit, whoever was listed as the applicant on that building permit. So for example, like Jim didn't get it directly. It was somebody in an office that they are kind of related to. Same thing. I'm trying to think who some of the others were. Chris wouldn't have got it. Mike Miller would have gotten it because he pulled the building permit within the last two years or two and a half years.

To wrap my mind around that, you sent the notification to the point of contact on the building permit that was pulled in the last two years. Yes. Can we maintain a list of other contacts somewhere else or just kind of? Who's the point of contact on that?

We're able to pull those because it's our permit system. It's easy to pull that information.

Why wouldn't you send it to the developer? It affects us way more than the whole building.

It's not like a secret who develops in this town. And that was going to be my next question. We know who submits preliminary plats and final plats.

why didn't we send this to the developers was it an oversight on our part or i would say a bit of an oversight yeah nothing intentional but we are trying to get out information to others to post we still posted the requirement is that we post in the newspaper uh it gets posted online with the you know the agenda packets so additional posting with contacts is more than the minimum requirement um can we do better sometimes yeah we find out that we can so yeah i also understand that there's a meeting tomorrow morning at nine o'clock don't know i think lauren had mentioned trying to schedule a meeting because we have people here that have questions or comments tonight trying to schedule a meeting and whatever people are available to understand the comments and questions so that Code section can be updated.

I thought at some point we said this was part of it. What's coming down the pipe? What other things are we working on? Is there any information out there for the public of like, hey, by this date we need to have this, and by this date we need to have this, and by this date we need... So maybe we can get that out there to help with the whole process.

You're correct in asking that question. We have one more ordinance that will need to be passed in 2028 for those construction runoff controls. Okay. And that's all of our storm ponds in the city. Okay. But that's not until 2028. That is our last milestone.

Okay. What? Middle of June again of 2028 or?

I'll talk about that. I can't remember the month, but I know that it's 2028. Okay. You may be very right.

Yeah, it just seems like. middle of the year makes sense.

So the other thing, this inspector, is that city personnel or is that somebody the developer's got to hire?

The inspector needs to be somebody that the developer has. That's required on your sites that are over in April already by Missouri. Department of Natural Resources? Over an acre. Correct.

Anything that has a stormwater pollution prevention plan? Because there's, and I would agree with some of the comments, it seems confusing when we talk about a thousand, can't pull it out right now, but a thousand square feet. Yeah. 236.02 or 03a it's the second page yeah it talks about more than a thousand square feet and less than one acre correct you're saying that if it's an acre they have to have an inspection that's what we're trying to get to where we have a sediment erosion control plan for individual home build sites So a lot of home build sites are less than an acre. Correct. So they wouldn't require a sediment control plant. Correct. Okay. I think, you know, I'll be perfectly honest. My phone has just absolutely blown up today. And as an elected official, I never want to be caught off guard. Today was the day. And we're still a small town. And we, even though we're 10, 12,000 people, we still like to pride ourselves in being a small town. And I think we dropped the ball on this. I think the communications should have happened a long time ago. So it's not fun when you're in a part-time job and your phone just blows up. And when you start listening to voicemails, part of it is I'm a Kearney native. People know who I am. And they know my phone number. This hasn't been a fun day. So I'll leave it at that.

If I'm reading this correctly, you're not even asking anything of us here, though, right? There's no formal recommendation. Here's one, our opinion.

Just present and seek comment.

So it obviously needs... a living document. There's it needs some changes. It sounds like we need to have a meeting. And I think everybody agrees with that. So that's good. We're under the gun. I work at a law firm. So we're really good at urgency. We everything is always under the gun. So that doesn't faze me a lot. Sounds like we're gonna do all those things. What more can we do to help you guys?

I think it may take more than one.

Revise, meet, revise.

I guess the question is, is there an opportunity to meet with the people in the audience this week? Lauren had mentioned doing that, and is that something that Chris, Jim,

So we have no idea this is going on. I bet you had eight people follow me before.

Have you seen this?

I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I hadn't seen the printed document until they handed it out.

It's pretty hard to react to something if you haven't seen it.

So the deadline is June 30th. We missed that by a week, two weeks. How big is the fine? I mean, the state doesn't get around to anything. So the ordinance that's adopted June 30, can that ordinance be amended after it's adopted?

You said you believe so?

It can. The Board of Aldermen can amend whatever ordinances they adopt.

All right. It's a complicated thing, right? So at 10,000, you get shoved these, it comes down from the friends, through the state, to us. I will, you know, I had conversations with Mr. Eldridge years ago about like, oh, it's coming. So, you know, it's, it's there, right? We're there. We drug our feet long enough and the state kind of wag their finger at us. and said, hey, get on it. So to your point, no ordinance is perfect. Sometimes we have to adopt the best we can at the time and make changes as we go. So something like this is new to a community of our size. so it is a learning experience for the builders it's a learning experience for staff it's a learning experience for everybody so i don't believe that there was any nefarious ill will by you know the process here so um you know it doesn't seem like it's out of the ordinary for every any any other jurisdiction so

Can the ordinance be – can the ordinance be adopted with a delayed enforcement?

I don't know the answer to that question.

Okay. Because I know when we adopted the building, the new building permits. We made it effective at a certain – We put in like a 90-day grace period or whatever it was. I think that may be something that we need to research very heavily. If we can do a delayed enforcement, that gives the Board of Aldermen time to make changes as we hear from our developers and builders.

I'd be happy to follow up on that.

Okay.

Two-way street and stuff, too.

So city project. Chair, I'd like to make a payment. Or this is not public hearing, so the conversation.

Yeah, we did close the public hearing. I know. But yes, I agree. It's a two-way street. We also have another public hearing coming up, right? We don't have to do the next one? Or does this cover both? Did it all together? Even the architectural one?

Oh, no. No. It's a separate item.

you need to get through this side yeah so that's what i'm saying it's like there will be future time in the meeting um i think same same concept of double talking so again public just i still have a meeting with everybody because i would like to know like a date and time rough date and time and how to get that because i don't think that that's been

But I can do it this week. I just can't do it tomorrow morning at 9.

I know who's in the room. I'm just trying. I'm just trying to.

getting it figured out. All right. So maybe Lauren can check. Lauren and or I will check with you tomorrow in the a.m. hours. What's your availability?

I mean, can we like, yeah, can we do this not during the meeting? I mean, I play in meetings all day, so I can visit.

Yeah, my thought was they're kind of a captive audience.

Well, right. Everybody could write down their email address, and you guys can .

We'll call you tomorrow, Jim.

Yeah.

And maybe even more than one of you. All right.

Do we need to do a motion to move to the second item?

No, don't have to. OK. People can stay. People can leave if they want to.

All right. Then items, was it 4B? Code amendment on section 405, 682, architectural design and building materials standards.

That was on buildings. So in your packet, item 4B is proposed ordinance 405.682 that would establish, pertains to architectural design and building materials standards for and industrial buildings it identifies permitted and prohibited building materials establishes requirements for building articulation so you don't have big blank walls add some character to the sides of a building provides for alternative compliance if this is design and or materials are something that's not specifically listed but you know would meet the intent of the ordinance This ordinance would have been helpful like a couple months ago when the garage on North Country Avenue came in. That wasn't just a metal shell of a building. If another application like that came through, we would have some standards there for somebody to go through before they made a submittal. In that case, there was already a building on the site, so that helped us is you know buildings if you have a long long blank wall that doesn't have any change in the material or color in our colors or some depth or dimension make things look a little nicer try to leave it open so that when architect prepares a plan for a building they have some freedom to do things that they want to do so we just have some minimum requirements that we have put in Closed in a quick place. On the prohibited material side, so like, you know, your corrugated metal siding, we list as not allowed. Could do metal, you know, a portion of it could be metal, architectural panels, things decorative-like, but not all metal. And then this smooth CNU block was also one of those where, you know, you just get that smooth concrete block look. We would like to see the rough sided, something rough, or they call it more architectural front to the building. And then mirrored or highly reflective finishes also will be something that's prohibited. Aside from that, then we'd like to see brick and or stone, accent materials, things like that.

Okay.

And this would be something that does go to the board of Alderman because it is in the chapter 405 section of the code.

All right.

Open for- Yeah, and this is not something that's, it's not scheduled to go to the board next week, we thought. Come to the Planning and Zoning Commission, present a draft ordinance, see what comments we have, and then it would go at a later date. Okay. Later, like next month.

Okay.

All right, I'm open for public hearing. Does anybody have any comments on the architectural design and building material standards?

Sure. Sure. Jim Robertson, 14011, Northeastern 44th Street, .

I just like if you go to, I have, you want to wear this ordinance, or amendment, I guess, what is it, code amendment? It'd be nice to have a public meeting with people. I just wanted to say before, all the contractors here, I couldn't say it well enough, all the contractors in this room are good contractors. I know it's a bad contractor, but these guys are good guys. We want to work with the city. We do want to work with the city. We always have. We plan to. We'd like to be involved in part of it. I think about this commercial building. I know several people here are involved in the commercial building. Star has done a lot of work here. They should have some input. Not to change anything, but just see how it affects them. So I'd like to suggest you have a conversation with them. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else?

All right.

We're going to close the public hearing. Commission discussion?

I have a question on the smooth-faced concrete.

Would that

not the pre-corded concrete or walls at Smooth Face.

The ordinance does allow some, like as an accent, but not all of the building.

So, for example, what was my supermarket is now the Smooth Building.

No, that's a tilt-up Smooth Face. This is a CMU, so it's a cinder block. So I live in these all day long, right? This is what I do. So to me these are, you know, very basic and a good start, right? We are a small community. We're not trying to set that bar so high that we're prohibiting or causing the development to become non-financially feasible. But we do want a quality product in the community. So I think this is a good start for kind of setting our expectation for what we want to see the future so and this applies to commercial mixed-use and industrial yes so residential right outside of outside of outside of the realm of this proposal civic

would not include civic because it's not no but we try to we try what we do our things to civic in the sense of fire department schools not not applicable right okay they especially like a school they're technically exempt from city requirements so we don't have a close relationship when we go through okay that's really all i had

Yeah. Well, for things that make the city look better, because that makes everybody feel better and want to live in our city, which is a win.

Well, on the commercial side, we have seen some good products come through.

Yeah, I will say, like, I haven't seen anything that's been thankfully, right. This is not a, like, reaction to something bad that came. So that's good.

And this was something that the board was interested in us doing as a board priority?

Yeah. So basically what we're doing is we're codifying things that are pretty much happening now. I mean, it's like we're not asking above and beyond. This is what's happening. This is what our good builders and developers are doing.

And what we'd like to continue to see from others.

Yeah. And that way, this gives us the opportunity to turn those others down.

Or they have some criteria up front that they can see so that when they go to develop a project, they can say, okay, these are kind of what we should be working on when we prepare some middle.

And to me, that just helps keep the value of everybody's property at a higher level.

Yeah. So I'm with you on that. We do have good developers that do come in. At some point, we will have a bad developer. So if we're already getting this, it shouldn't be an issue it just gives us a tool in our tool belt to address bad intentions or bad developers or bad faiths any there's more discussion or entertain a motion I'd make a motion. I'd move that the Finance and Zoning Commission recommend the Board of Aldermen approve the proposed amendment to municipal code sections 405.682 as recommended by staff.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. And that's the end, I think, right? Yep. Anything else for the good of the order? All right. I make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed?