Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

I want to call the August 10th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. If you'd please stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. 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. Roll call.

Everyone is present.

I make a motion to accept the consent agenda as printed.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? All right.

4A, Westbrook Commons rezone to RP3 with Cottonwood Creek preliminary plat amendment public hearing for rezoning.

Yes. I'll move the site plan. There's conceptual site plan. Conceptual plan. Are you scared? Okay, so item 4A is the Westbrook Commons rezoning to RP3 medium density residential plan district with concept plan and a preliminary plan for Westbrook. Actually, a preliminary plan amendment for Cottonwood Creek subdivision. MAKO development is represented here tonight by Dan Sanders, who's online. proposes to rezone approximately 9.8 to 8 acres along the north side of 92 highway west of nation road from c general commercial to rp3 medium density residential planned district with concept plan for senior housing multi what's called multiplex as the land use but it's garden apartments so one level apartment units with approximately 42 dwelling units and a community building Mako Development is also the developer of the Oak Ridge Estates senior housing project next to Dollar General and Senior Center and then before that Eastwood Apartments which is east of City Hall on East Washington Street. This request also serves as an amendment to the Cotton Creek preliminary plat updating the remaining area of Cotton Creek from commercial to residential. that plan was approved in 2017 last year 2024 2025 we had two amendments to update the cottonwood creek subdivision plat to include reduce the amount of commercial to add nine villa units for cottages of cottonwood creek and then 22 single family lots which is known as cottonwood creek fifth plat this area here is the remaining acreage of cottonwood creek and when this is developed and Public notices were posted at the Courier Tribune on August 5th and 12th and letters were sent to property owners within 185 feet of the property. Access to the site is along 92 Highway. The plan you have shows two proposed entrances along 92, but MoDOT has been reviewing the concept plan and they recently requested that that be reduced down to two, I'm sorry, from two down to one. And I received today an updated plan. It looks a lot like what you have. It's got one entrance instead of two. The property is within the Water District 6 boundary in the city limits. But those areas, we collect an extra fee at the time of building permit that gets passed on to Water District 6. This subdivision, Oakwood Estates, is one of those. Stallings Ranch will be another one of those subdivisions. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to RP3 with concept plan with the following conditions. One, the concept plan for multiplex guard apartments is approved, including the following. Access and compliance with MoDOT review and additional revisions if required by Planning Zoning Commission. City engineer approval of revisions and any changes, modifications, or alterations required by the same to the site plan or final plat revisions. development of the project in compliance with all city codes conditions requirements plans and payment of fees and taxes and then uh on for the uh preliminary plat amendment staff recommends approval of the continent creek preliminary plan amendment the following conditions one additional revisions of department planning zoning commission two city engineer approval of revisions and any changes modifications or alterations required by the same to the site plan or final flat revisions and three development project in compliance with all city codes conditions requirements plans and payment of fees and taxes the rezoning would include opening a public hearing to see comments from the public and the rezoning before the board of aldermen at their meeting next monday night the preliminary plat The Planning and Zoning Commission is a review board for preliminary plat, so that would just stay here and not be forwarded to Fort Baldwin. Questions or comments up here? Dan Sanders, as I said, with Maker Developments in the audience. And there might be some residents here that might be here for this particular one, I think.

Okay. All right, we'll start by opening it for the public hearing.

Please come up and state your name and address for the board. And we have a little sign-in sheet, too, so we can spell your name from home first.

So my name is Justin Ellis. I live at 1902 Victory Lane. When I have my phone here, I promise I'm reading from what I have written down. I'm not surfing X or anything. So good evening. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you all tonight. Like I said, my name is Justin Ellis, and I live at 1902 Victory Lane, which is the first residence inside the Oakwood Estates neighborhood, approximately 25 yards to the boundary of the property that is subject of this application. I live there with my wife, Kaylee, and my daughter, who just turned six today. So happy birthday, her. But I respectfully urge you to deny the request by Mako Development Company LLC to rezone the 9.828 acres from C General Commercial District to RP3 Medium Density Residential Plan District for a 42-unit senior garden apartment project. Under the city's current criteria, you must evaluate the existing uses of nearby property, the current zoning pattern, the suitability of the land under the proposed classifications, conformity with the comprehensive plan, the capacity of public services, transportation impacts, and the relative gain to the public compared with any hardship on the property owner. Those standards point clearly towards a denial. The site sits north of West 92 Highway between Nation Road and Victory Lane. The surrounding area is overwhelmingly single-family residential houses. Open estates, Cottonwood Creek, and the homes along Victory Lane, including mine, form a consistent pattern of owner-occupied single-family neighborhoods. Within roughly a mile of each direction, that pattern holds true. A multifamily apartment project does not fit in this established character. Even at approximately 4.3 units per acre, the proposed use and intensity remain incompatible with the surrounding single-family fabric. Residents living in the immediate vicinity will experience the practical consequences. changed views, reduced privacy and quiet, construction disruption, increased vehicle and service activity, exterior lighting, and the permanent presence of a multi-unit facility that does not exist there today. These impacts also threaten the property values and resale potential of nearby homes that were purchased and approved with the reasonable expectation of continued single-family surroundings. The city's comprehensive plan designs 92 as a commercial corridor intended for community retail, offices, businesses, and personal services. While the plan allows limited strategic flexibility, its primary policy is to keep the frontage commercial. Rezoning this parcel removes commercial potential from a highly visible highway location and conflicts with the adopted direction the city's taken. Kearney already has senior apartment options. The same developer, as was mentioned earlier, delivered nearly 100 senior units in our community through the Oak Ridge Estates and Eastwood Apartments. 44 at the Oak Ridge Estates and 55 at Eastwood Apartments. Additional senior housing exists as well. I haven't seen a demonstrated shortage that justifies converting this particular commercially zoned highway parcel. The project will also add traffic to West 92 highway and the nearby intersections. Construction traffic, service vehicles, visitor trips, and the daily activity of dozens of residential units will alter the quieter residential character that currently exists north of the highway and introduce measurable safety hazards. West 92, as I'm sure you all are aware, carries a 55 mile per hour speed limit in the stretch. Adding another entrance off of 92, right next to Victory Lane, and in close proximity to the roundabout at Nation Road, creates significant safety concerns. Vehicles entering or exiting at highway speeds in that location increase the risk for high-speed collisions, complicate turning movements for existing residents, and raise potential for accidents involving both local traffic and through traffic on 92. I am not opposed to senior housing in Carnegie. I'm opposed to this specific location in the rezoning. The question before you is whether this site, surrounded by single-family occupied homes, currently zoned commercial and designated as part of the Highway 92 commercial corridor, should be changed to a multi-family residential. For all these reasons, under the City's zoned rezoning standards, I respectfully ask that you deny the request, protect the character of our single-family neighborhoods, uphold the comprehensive plan's direction for the 92 corridor. And I appreciate your time and careful consideration, and I'll be available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Do I need to sign in on this? Yeah.

Anybody else?

Good evening. I'm Scott Stubler. I live at 1909 Joe Lane, so I'm not right on the main corridor. Everything Justin touched on, I mean, everything I had on in regards to the safety issue, I work in a field where safety is a priority. And really the safety concerns I see is kudos for MoDOT for taking away one of the entrances, but two, you know, Just recently, I've had two instances where, you know, we come out of the roundabout and it's 45 and, you know, people come flying out of there with no regard. Same thing coming over the hill. So you got to think of that, you know, I know we want to grow a corner, but is this the right thing to do in that particular area? Putting another entrance right now, there's four entrances off to the south side. This would make two on the north side. So there's a lot of cars that come out of fusion gymnastics and want to make a ride into Oakland Estates. I know we have a lot of kids in our subdivision that go to fusion. So making that cut in and out, I mean, we're looking at some safety issues. And I think, you know, being in the fire service, you know, none of us want, I don't even want to run wrecks. But when I'm a bit close to it, it's a safety concern for me. So, you know, think about it. You know, we want the seed to grow. But everything, just to say, I can't, I can't, I can touch on that, but.

Division of CCIS Oakwood Estates. My only question would be, we have three children. They're now in high school and junior high, and one still goes to Topwood, but none of my kids have ever been able to walk or ride their bikes to and from because we live along the highway. need the same sidewalk that they have running up in that nation road that all that oakwood or what's that cottonwood they have a really nice way to get to them from school you always see the kids walking to from school can you i mean you're connecting the dots here there's already a subdivision just to the east now on the corner they put the road in all that's finalized we're just kind of out there now so i mean can we some way to get in and out of our subdivision other than by automobile because that right now is the only way to get to and from my house or any of our homes.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kaylee Ellis. My husband and I, like you said, we live at 1902 Victory Lane. We are the first house in the subdivision. And like my husband, as well as Scott both said, the safety concerns for entering our subdivision, it's already really rough trying to get in and out at certain points of the day. You see them, you might see a car come up over the hill, but there's been times where it's been myself and my now six year old today, that you're like, oh gosh, you either have to gun it or you're about to get creamed because you don't always see those cars. So I do have a huge safety concern for the cars coming up over 92, like up over the hill, especially with that speed limit being 55. If you're coming from the other direction, it's also kind of sketchy sometimes just depending. And like you guys were talking about earlier, they're doing the repaving, which is great on Nation. I really love that, but it is, It was backing up at least since four o'clock today. And so if we are doing that, then what's to say that it's not going to continue on 92 and 92, like we, you know, I see fire trucks constantly going up and down. And how many times do we see that? Oh, there was a severe accident or there was a fatality on 92 because the curves and the hills and all of that. So if we're just going to add in another entrance, what is that doing to our, our, you know, our neighborhoods but also our subdivision has a lot of kids the rose have you know a high schooler and there's plenty of other kids in the subdivision that are just now getting their license and everything like that so putting them at a higher risk too like yes we have to take that as account as parents but do we want to make that area less safe than what it already is versus making it safer so i just have more safety concerns thank you

Anybody online want to make a public comment?

Should I just go down? There's a... Kyle Miller. He's for...

Yeah, this is this is Kyle Miller with Crockett Engineering Civil Engineer on the project. Also have Dan Sanders with Mako Development. He's on the call as well. Dan, is there anything you'd like to mention on the project before I have a few more remarks?

Dan, could we check with some of the others in case there are additional neighbors? There's a Murphy. And Keller, Chase Keller. Anna Gassman.

This is Chase Kohler. I'm on here for the next project.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, this is Vicki Gassman. I live in Cottonwood Creek Court, so our property would back up to the creek and to the area that is being proposed. My biggest concern is that, which has been stated already, the security of people going in and out of that proposed area off 92. It is so dangerous. We hear sirens all the time. uh up and down 92 and you hear about the fatalities um and i just feel like it's not a good suggestion for an elderly community when they don't have the full abilities to get in and out very quickly that's my concern thank you on my address it's 1753 cottonwood creek court thank you okay

Yes, this is Logan Murphy, 1755 Cottonwood Creek Court. So our property also butts up right against our common area for HOA, which comes right off the tree line there. One of the things I will echo a lot of the other presenters, the other fellow residents talking about the safety and those kind of things. So I won't repeat the same concerns as they've already been shared. The only concerns other than that I have is that the common area of the field that's behind our properties is our HOA owned. And we're currently serviced all the way to the tree line. However, the proposed site and the lines being drawn on the charts that were shared actually cut halfway into that field. So I was curious if there's been any conversations with our HOA about those kind of considerations, if that property is still going to be fully owned by our HOA, are we still going to be responsible for that? for half that lot or half the field and then also you know i did see the proposal to save 35 feet of that natural vegetation and being kept there it wouldn't so we're not cutting down the tree line or rewriting the creek that creek does flood a ton every time it rains so just kind of caution there if there's going to be new development there maybe taking that consideration i did see the drainage on the the charge there so should compensate for that but i want to make sure that our neighbors and us don't have flooded yards after construction and stuff starts on that end for property damage and stuff like that thank you i think that might be it on the public so dan or kyle okay um i'm dan sanders

Mako Development Company. Our corporate address is 111 North Main Street, Clarkton, Missouri. And as stated, we're requested a rezoning of this approximate 9.82 acre site located east of Victory Lane on the north side of 92. The zoning we are requesting is RV3, which will be planned. And we've built 42 single-story apartments, restricted to senior residents, which is similar in design to the two other senior developments that we have in partner, Eastwood and Oak Ridge. Oak Ridge Estates completed in early 2020. The Eastwood Apartments is completed in early 2010. They have stayed fully occupied, and both of them maintain extensive waiting lists. Eastwood right now has over 40 people on the waiting list, and Oak Ridge has over 75 people on the waiting list. So there is a need, there is a demand for this additional senior algorithm. And now I'll introduce Kyle Miller of Crockett Engineering, the engineer for this development, and he'll explain our rezoning request in further detail. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Dan. Kyle Miller, Crockett Engineering, 1000 West Nifong Boulevard, Columbia, Missouri. Like Dan said, civil engineer on the project and here before you tonight in favor and support of the request for the pulmonary plat and rezoning to the RP3. Keep in mind, this is a downgrade in the zoning. So it is on commercial and we're going to a smaller grade of density of residential. So all of the comments in regards to traffic and density and issues getting in and out, this is actually going to be less of what it could be should it stay the current zoning. So we're decreasing, we're going down in zoning in this particular case, in this particular plan. But it does match the surrounding use for residential around it is is other single family residential for land use and zoning. So while it's not single family, we are still having that same usage as residential throughout the development. The project also follows the 2016 current comprehensive plan that promotes a mix of residential density, but also a balance, a mix of those residential usages. Specifically, one of the policies encouraged senior housing. So like Dan says, there is other options there, however, Mako has done a very good job of representing its company, and there's always a wait list. And so they're trying to fill that need as part of that comprehensive plan as well. Yeah, and I know there's been a couple questions in regards to that landscape buffer. Our goal is to maintain as many existing trees as possible there. There is a stream, as you've seen on the site plan, that kind of cuts through the property. Anything on the north side of that is going to remain intact. All of that will remain as is, so keeping that large buffer. It's going to be the goal of the development to maintain an additional 10-foot buffer on the south side of that stream to, number one, protect the channel, but also to make sure we increase the buffer as much as possible. Next, all the utilities are already on site. This is an infill development. We're not going to the edge of town. All the utilities are there. We will have to make those connections, but all utilities are already on site. And then stormwater. Yes, we are aware that there is a large creek that runs through the site. We will be working with the city's third-party engineer to make sure that all of those requirements are met, all the calculations are provided. All of that would be required as this plan keeps moving forward. We would meet all city requirements, all APWA requirements, and make sure that detention is placed and works properly to ensure the stormwater is met. One of the last items here is in regards to traffic. I know it's been a big topic for tonight. But again, keep in mind, we are downgrading that zoning. This is going to be a senior only, so 55 plus development. Therefore, it has a lot less traffic as opposed to a gas station or other commercial usage, as well as even other multifamily. We just don't see those high number of traffic. coming out in and out of those developments in senior as opposed to other residential single family, multifamily, any of that. And a big part of that is because they also don't have the same a.m. and p.m. peak times. Those seniors aren't leaving and going to school and work as much as some of those other developments would be. So you might, you know, have some folks leaving and entering and exiting, but it's not always at that peak time, which can sometimes be some of the biggest crashes and biggest concerns. We're actually anticipating and working with MoDOT now. We have been in coordination with them. We've passed along to Dave a memo of their approval of this said development with the traffic and connection onto Highway 92. We meet their spacing, the general spacing guidelines for those driveways. We have that met. There is planned for a sidewalk along Highway 92 as part of this development. So there would be that connection that goes from one side to the other. And then lastly, I think on that one is as 92 is a Modoc highway. The speed, unfortunately, we can't control that. We have no control of the speed. We are just working with Modoc to make sure we meet the driveway, the spacing that they require is the width that they require and the setbacks that they would require. And so it is our plan to work with the city and Modoc to make sure all of those are met. So, you know, in conclusion, this project does have a similar residential usage as the surrounding area. We are working hand-in-hand with city and MoDOT. We're meeting the comprehensive plan, and it does come with approval from city staff. So, you know, with that, we'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have.

Any other public comments?

All right. I have a general question.

How do we address the speed limit issue, and who do we speak to? I'm suspect we'll all talk about that.

Yeah, we could talk about that.

It's on my list of questions, so I'm sure we'll cover it. All right. Yeah, well, yeah, we could do it that way.

I'm just asking.

Yeah.

What? I'm sorry? Don't we stay in public hearing for commissioner questions?

Oh, I think usually we open the public hearing for public comment and then close the public hearing. And then there's full discussion.

OK. Ready?

Close the public hearing.

But I will start it with the question about 92 Highway. We don't control that obviously that's a mode, I think that we can work with vote on obviously on the speed limit. It is going to be either it's going to either be residences of this or it's going to be commercial like. restaurants and so there's going to be traffic, and so it is an issue and something I think we'll have to address it's part of the growing pains of our city. So who do we go to?

Maybe two-pronged. One, it'd be an enforcement issue. So the County Police Department can enforce speed limits. The Sheriff's Department could enforce speed limits, too. But then if there was a change in the speed limit, I think it's a motor highway. And so I think the way they do that, if they do a speed study, that could increase the speed. So maybe enforcement might be more of a way to go. handle speeds in that neighborhood. I think that might have happened on the east 92 at one point in time. The slower speeds went further to the east, and then MoDOT did a speed study, and the speed increases started happening a little closer to Jefferson Street.

Comments, anybody?

Yeah, I would just add that, you know, coming off of those roundabouts and stuff, I think a lot of it's an enforcement issue because as you get even down to when it says 35, people are still taking those roundabouts at 55. I mean, it's almost once or twice a week that I almost get into an accident on Sandbar on that roundabout because all... I'll come out of Sandbar to go into Kearney and somebody's just 55 right through. So I think a lot of it's an enforcement issue where people are so used to going 55 down there and they're not slowing down to get into the town. And I don't, even if you moved, even if you moved the 35 further out, I don't think a lot of people would still adhere to it because I think part of the problem is just from a personal perspective on it. And I agree, I think changing the zoning to residential is gonna reduce the traffic coming out of that. And one of our neighbors has had their elderly parents, they're four years on a wait list now for one of the senior developments. So it's absolutely needed in Kearney.

Are there any, so I know the, is it Oakwood Estates right there with Victory Lane?

Or Oak Ridge. I'm sorry. I was on senior housing locations.

The sidewalk along 92 is much needed. I think you brought that up. Yeah, definitely. But there's going to be this, so this is almost a separate issue, but gap now between there and Victory Lane. There's going to be this, as someone who lives in a neighborhood that gets these weird gaps, because it do... Is this something the city can look into as far as getting grants or whatever to finish the sidewalk so that now it's not going to complete it right because there's still no development for that last corner so we're still going to have a blank but to get us from this property over to victory lane.

yeah this it's a well it's.

A short area to get to victory lane, but then it's there's a long stretch correct that the next thing is developed, they will need to do that, but nobody's going to have to do the victory lane one.

on victory lane the whole frontage is commercial and the neighborhood starts behind so as the commercial area develops the sidewalks west so 92 to the pool is commercial yes and this is all good this is commercial right here yes it's far from It's zoned commercial. Okay. When the Oakwood Estates plan was approved back in, I don't know, it was 2002, 2003, 2004, they had the subdivision was behind a strip of commercial up front along 92 Highway.

Yeah, along here, too, which that doesn't surprise me. This strip surprises me. This is where I want this iPhone. Okay.

looking at the the site plan the updated and when i'm looking here on the screen this landscape plan looks like we're stopping short of the property lines on the east side of the sidewalk is there a reason for that that was a staff comment to extend that to the property line i think it's going to be a design there's uh some difficulty there's a creek the creek runs under 92 highway right around that location so we're just gonna i mean

So here's where I have difficulty with that, right? If we don't extend to the property boundary, no one's gonna extend to the property boundary. Now I have from their driveway to the east property boundary, a sidewalk to nowhere that by your statement there that there's some topography issues there in that last little bit. So either this developer, Overcomes those topography issues and installs the property line with this developer the sidewalk with this with this development or Sidewalk to nowhere with a gap and at some point the taxpayers have to make that connection. I'm not okay with that Some of the other questions that I have so we talked about the sidewalk and The developer has committed to maintaining the tree buffer on the, I would say the north and the western property boundary. There was a comment.

Yeah, on the west side. So on the west side, the buffers required were to abut single family residential. So on the west side from 92 going north, that zoned commercial. So the buffer starts further back.

So let me rephrase that. The developer's committed to keeping the existing tree buffer. Right. So. Yeah, I think they also commented on that.

Yeah.

In their comment.

On the west side. On the west side. Because they talked about the north and the east side. We're talking about the west side. In between Victory Lane and the proposed. If you can ask them that question.

Developer. Western.

existing tree line what's your plan with that so we would yeah we know it we uh back up to commercial in that area and so we would follow and meet all other you know city requirements for buffer in that area right i'm asking specifically the existing tree line trees that are there now what's your plan with those are you going to keep them you're going to rip them out Most likely from a design perspective, we would be pretty close to that property line from a land disturbance standpoint. At this point, I don't think the plan is to be able to keep them in order to get it all to work. We're just out of space and have to put it somewhere. So in order to be able to allow for the buffer on the creek side, the other side, we're then pushing closer to the commercial side to allow for just the space to overall work. So no, I don't have at this time a standard feat that we are planning for, but I think the idea is that we are pretty much going to be clearing to that property line at this time. But of course, the city does require additional landscape buffers or trees. And once we get it graded, we can always go back and plant additional trees in that area. Not an issue once we get it graded down.

So I know we keep talking about it being a budding commercial. However, on the east side of Victory Lane is HOA common ground that is already developed. even if we were to rip the pool out and redevelop that, that is not a developable lot for commercial. So, you know, with the idea of commercial going in there at some point is not realistic. So what goes in there today, specifically talking about this proposed project, the landscaping that goes in is what's going to be there in the future. So, I mean,

So it would also be fair to say that what's there now is going to remain on the other side, then it's what you're saying as well.

On the other side?

On the other side of our property boundary. If it's already that part of the HOA, the pool, is that what you're saying? yeah this little strip here south of the pool to 92 this little right right it's kind of it's it's a comp it's the residential common area right it's just the entrance that came in that's part of of the residence that uh the open space of that said development that's maintained by the hoa yep so yeah yeah

Shannon, my comment about commercial being through there was about the timing of sidewalk improvements along that strip. Not that there would actually be a building on the east side. Okay.

And I do want to address your question.

David, if the west side develops commercial, are they going to be required to put a sidewalk on the east side of Victory Lane? I would say, yeah, they would be. You just have to remember that when it comes around. I would expect that because... I'm going to go ahead and stop you. It's not. Because that's off-site and there's no nexus. East side of Victory Lane is already developed. So having a developer on the west side make an off-site improvement, there's no nexus there. So, I mean, it's going to be a side of what Gap of the City is going to have to address. That's where I'm getting at. And that's why I have concern on the west side, or the east side near the detention pond. If we don't have the developer take that to the property line, it's never going to get there without taxpayer intervention. And I don't think it should be on the taxpayer to have to foot that bill. So to me, it's a development-driven improvement that needs to .

And I have maybe a similar, but it could be a but why is there, in this picture, there may be, is there an existing sidewalk down Victory Lane in that HOA on the east side of Victory Lane down to 92, or there's no sidewalk there? There is no sidewalk. Okay, so then is the HOA then responsible to build the sidewalk from that pool all the way down to 92 if that all gets connected?

Let me help you. What's the trigger for sidewalks in Kearney? Is it planning? Was that a building permit planning? And so we're past that with this particular plot.

Correct. So it's not going to get built. It's like our HOA had to put in a sidewalk for that playground there off a sandbar because the developer built the playground. It only brought the sidewalk to the edge of the playground, not to the edge of the property. So like is that, there should be a sidewalk there that's not there.

There probably should be a sidewalk there.

And that would be on the HOA to pay for, not the city. And down at the time the pool was built. Correct. Because that's the other, I mean, you can connect all the stuff across 92, but then trying to get into the neighborhood and let the neighborhood get down to 92, that would be on them to connect that sidewalk.

The time for that on the east side's passed.

The connection to the neighborhood is gonna happen on the west side Yeah, but you're gonna run into another gap there That first I don't know if it's common ground doesn't look Buildable Before you get to that first house anyways Going down rabbit holes that are off topic alright, so 92 is currently, the frontage is zoned commercial. What kind of uses could go in the existing zoning by right?

Commercial use, office building. Gas station. Gas station. Coffee shop. Yes. Yeah, drive-thru restaurant or sit-down restaurant, a strip commercial building.

So significant traffic generators? Could be. I did hear the developer, this is a deed-restricted senior living, or is it just a marketed senior living?

It'll be deed-restricted, and we're okay with putting it in the plan to approve that. Okay.

So, I mean, deed restriction, right? That means that's who's going to be there, so significantly less traffic. One comment I have on... compatible uses. It's residential to residential. Now it is a little bit more higher intense residential, a little denser residential, but that's where you want your higher densities along that commercial corridor or the 92 highway. Common planning principle would say, hey, let's stagger our uses from the most intense to least intense. So up along 92 highway, we're gonna go to higher density and work our way back to the lower density, which is what we got here. Quite a bit of buffering between the uses. So I think that's all I had for now. One other question. Since we just got the updated site plan here, I do see that the driveway on the south side of the development, so the north side of 92, they added a connection since they lost their entrance. Does that meet setbacks off property lines and sidewalk there? It seems pretty close. Well, they show that going pretty close. Looks like it's on the property line if not a foot or two off. Developer, do you have any comment on that? How far off of that driveway on the south side of the development from the property line is it?

Yeah, we're about three feet off of that. The pavement is allowed in the setback. The buildings are what has to be pushed back. So there is that open space between the property line and the building line, building setback line. And so we are proposing a drive to be able to loop around the complex to ensure emergency vehicles as well as the residential have good connectivity around the development.

David, what's our parking lot setback from the property line adjacent to right of way?

We don't have a specific one. We try to, with parking spaces, we try to do 10 feet.

All right, that's all I have.

I have a question. How does the trash haul-off work? Because I notice there's no dumpsters. It's right here. Ah, thank you. Hi. How many parking spaces are there?

anybody?

There's 60 spaces.

What are we supposed to have? One per unit. How many units do we have? 42. Yeah, and they have a community building, so they have some extra spaces over there too. Are these one-bedroom or two-bedrooms?

Or a mix? They're two-bedroom. We found the marketing, Eastwood and Oak Ridge are all two-bedroom. Marketing-wise, seniors, it works out a lot better for them to have two bedrooms.

You may not have this numbered, but in your other communities, do you see a lot of two-car families running these, or is it typically a single family? single vehicle occupancy typically we see less than one per unit but you know a lot of people have given up driving by that time and yeah okay i mean i would assume that just given that which there is no public transportation

Uber and Carney. Do you want me to bring the scooters into Carney?

I love commercial development. I think that's how we pay for a lot of things that go on in this community. But I think looking at this, as the man said, they've downgraded the zoning. This will actually generate less traffic than putting in a couple of restaurants or coffee shops or whatever. I do like that. But I think that if we decide to approve this, I would like to add that the sidewalks be extended the entire length of the property. I think that's, for me, kind of a... That's a deal breaker. And then also to add the deed restriction onto the approval.

I agree with that.

Yeah.

Yeah, this is Kyle. Can I chime in now or is it, are we closed?

We're technically closed.

Okay.

But, yeah. Okay. Unless he's going to. Yeah, if you want to directly address that, that would be I do.

I want to direct that question and comment. So, yeah, we understand that there is a gap there. We're kind of working through some logistics. We've got comments from the city staff on that. We know that we have to close that gap. That is part of the plan. We are doing that and it. You can make it, you know, make it part of a comment to the approval. That's fine because we are going to address that. Not an issue. Thank you.

Yes, it's correct. And they were on the 55, the deed restriction was perfectly good for us.

Anything else?

David, looking at the county records, it looks like this is one very large parcel. They're looking at splitting the overall parcel to create this buildable site that they show us here. Sorry? So looking at the county, can you let me move to that? Records, if you've got that. Because right now it looks like it's a big U-shaped property. There's no property line split in there.

Am I missing it? If it's U-shaped, it's Cottonwood Creek Fifth Platte is not been added because the platte's not recorded yet.

Okay. I just want to make sure we're... Yeah, this is the fifth platte. I want to make sure we're not... the boundary to where we say build the sidewalk is to the edge of the creek-ish yes not all the way to the roundabout if you look if you look at my location map that's a little more accurate okay

Anybody else? I would entertain a motion if anybody wants to make one.

David, With the added conditions, do you want them on a single motion, or do you want to make a motion and then amend the motion for clarity? It doesn't matter to me.

It doesn't talk about it. So whoever wants to put out a motion can put it out there.

That would go on the flat amendment. Yeah, the first would be the rezone.

Yeah, the first would have to do the rezone up first. Yeah. Yeah, I think the preliminary flat side I think the language in the staff comments kind of accounts for potential changes, if I'm not mistaken.

Additional provisions as required by P&C, yeah. I wouldn't hurt to put them on the record. But yeah, first the rezoning. Motion.

I'd like a motion to approve the rezoning All right. I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Board of Aldermen approve the rezoning to RP3 medium density residential plan district with the concept plan with the conditions as recommended by staff. Second.

Does anybody want to pick?

all right any more discussion amongst us all right now the staff comments well we're just doing this we're just doing the rezoning and then we'll go to the just the rezoning well that's where there should be if there's different language should be on the rezoning with concept plan okay so comment not the plat on the plat because the plat the plat

typically triggers the sidewalk and infrastructure improvement requirements then include it on both of them please we'll go ahead and include it on both because I say that because the rezoning to plan district with the concept plan we want to make sure that that concept plan also reflects okay so we had a motion a second comment on the motion I would make a motion to amend the original motion to require the property be deed restricted to 255 plus and then I'd also make a motion to require that the sidewalks be continued to both the east and west boundary property lines along 92 highway second any more discussion all right all in favor

Aye. All opposed? All right. Rezoning carries.

That was to approve the amended motion. Now we have to go back to approve the motion as amended. Any discussion on the motion as amended?

Yeah, any discussion on the motion as amended? OK. All in favor of the motion as amended?

Aye.

All opposed?

OK. All the amending? Motion to approve as amended was Move by who? Does that have to have a motion and a second? OK. All right. Somebody second the motion to approve as amended? Right.

Do it.

OK. All right.

Now preliminary plat. Anybody?

I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Cottonwood Creek amended preliminary plot with the conditions recommended by staff and including a deed restriction of 55 and over and that sidewalks be extended the entire length of the property.

Second. All right. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. 4B, Carney Crossing rezone to CP and MP with preliminary plat, also public hearing for rezoning.

mean they're thrilling meetings so you can see yeah going perfect okay yeah so this next case would be the carny crossing rezoning to cp first plan district and then the industrial plan district with concept plan is preliminary flat um yeah so we are our council's currently in negotiations with the city's bond council to understand

how we're going to work together on this project. And we had a general understanding, and then we got some feedback back on Thursday. It took a little bit of time to analyze that. And so we weren't able to give our full go-ahead. And according to what I understand, we want to kind of run both of those, PMZ and the Board of Aldermen's together. So I think it may be best to wait for this portion until next month when we get everything kind of solidified. Yeah, I'll do some stuff.

I'm sorry? Who is he?

Oh, this is Conor. Yeah, sorry. Joe Primer with MVG Real Estate. Hi, Conor.

Hi. Do we have a date, sir?

Well, we did post notice for today, so I think it would be, I'd recommend that you open the public hearings. Yeah, because there's somebody here for it, right? Online? No. Online. Online, there was somebody.

Chase was actually our. Oh, it's your guy. Okay, great. I was like.

So I think it might be good to open for public hearing and then table to your next meeting September. What is that date? It's on the agenda. It's late. September 14.

Yeah. Because the second or the first is like a Tuesday. So yeah, open to public hearing. All right. Leave it open.

Open public hearing.

Shannon says I can close it.

I'll explain later. OK. Yes. That we continue this to a date certain of September 14th.

OK. I'll second. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right.

The reason you leave it open, you have to leave it open for the next meeting. Otherwise, you could close it. You have to start all over.

But that's just me saying, open the meeting. One last gap.

And then we don't have to post extra notice because today was the hearing.

But should we post extra notice so that everybody, I mean, as much as I love, I mean, people should know to come to the next meeting.

They will know to come to the next meeting because the minutes, yeah, the minutes will be out. Because they're going to read the minutes. And if they were interested in the project, they would come today. They would definitely read the minutes. All right. It wouldn't come today. We're good. OK. OK. All right.

Next item. That's enclosures, old business.

That's it.

That's it.

Chair, I make a motion to close the meeting. So second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Hey David, October meeting?