Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good. Ladies and gentlemen, call the uh City of Leewood Planning Commission regular session meeting to order. Secretary, please call the role. Natleman here. Fron, absent. McGuran here. Belzer here. Block here. Stevens absent. Carlberg here. Oh, take that back. I'm here till seven. Okay. And Fishman here. Okay. Chair Chairman Coleman. Coleman here. We do have a quorum this evening. Uh, any changes to tonight's agenda? No changes.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Black. I move for approval of tonight's agenda. Thank you, Commissioner Black. Second. Second, Commissioner Bzer. All in favor approving tonight's agenda, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Nay. Agenda is approved. We have one set of minutes tonight from October 28th, 2025 from our regular planning commission meeting. Are there any changes or revisions to the set of minutes? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fishman.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh on uh page 12 of the minutes, uh the first full sentence in my remarks uh says uh it was my hope that one or more of these drive-throughs would be moved during their reconsideration. Uh it was my statement that it was my hope that one or more of these driveways would be removed. Not moved. Removed. Not moved. You see that? Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Commissioner Fischer? No, that's all.

Commissioner Block, uh, just one for me on the first page at the bottom. Um, I, uh, made a comment about the set of minutes and it looks like it just got cut off. I'm not positive what revision I asked for, but if that could be looked at, please, by staff. Any other comments on the minutes? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Block, I move for approval of the minutes from the October 28th planning commission meeting as amended. Second. Second. Commissioner McGern. Uh, all in favor of approving the minutes as revised for Tuesday, October 28, 2025. Please signify by saying I. I. Nay.

The meeting minutes are approved. Uh, case 4725, Chadwick Place, Villas of Chadwick has been continued to our January 27th, 2026 meeting. Uh, moving on to the consent agenda. We have two items for the consent agenda. Uh, case 7825 and case 12325. Would any commissioners like to remove these from the consent agenda? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Black. I move for approval of tonight's consent agenda. Thank you, Commissioner. Second. Second, Commissioner McGurn. All in favor of approving the consent agenda, please signify by saying I.

I. Opposed. Nay. Consent agenda is approved. That brings us to old business. Case 10225, Regents Park. Request for approval of a resoning of 4.66 66 acres from RP3, plan cluster attached residential district to RP2, plan cluster detached residential district and revised preliminary development plan located south of 135th Street and west of Kenneth Road. I believe this Miss Newer, this is yours. Yes. Uh Carrie Caneller, senior planner. Um I believe it's 106-25. I think you might have said 102. Just

I'm sorry. Thank you. 10625.

Sure. Um so the planning commission did recommend approval in September um on September 30th of this project. However, uh there was a technicality. Um do we have the PowerPoint up at all? Mr. Pelgar, do you have control of the PowerPoint? There we go. Okay. So, this is basically a rehearing on that technicality. The legal description that was published um to the public uh was off on the acreage for the resoning district. Um the stipulations and the um overall gross square footage of that area is 4.66 66 acres and the legal description stated it was 4.125 in this case because the stipulation stated it was um uh larger than what the legal description showed. It would need to go back to public hearing. So that's why it's back on your desk here today. Um and really there have been no changes since since that time that you approved it. It was approved 8 to zero at that time. And that's a conclusion of my staff report.

Okay. Thank you very very much. Uh any questions for staff? Okay, with that I'll invite the applicant to come forward.

Welcome back.

Good evening. My name is Tim Tucker TCK with Phelps Engineering. Address 1270 North Winchester Kansas. And I don't have any presentation on agreeing with the stipulations. Uh, I probably caused that problem. We the the zoning was 4.66 and then it it went to the center of the street right away when we did the final plat. We unbeknown to me, we changed the legal description and took all the rideway out of the existing street. So that's what changed the acreage and then I submitted the wrong one. So it got published short on the acorage. So to clean up on helping for me. So um I'm agreeing with all stipulations and if you got any questions.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Tucker. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh this case does require a public hearing and with that I'll open up the public hearing. Is there any anyone in the audience that would like to be heard on uh case 106-25? Commissioner Block. Mr. Chair, seeing none, I move for closing the public hearing. Second. Second. Commissioner Bzer. All in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying I. I.

Oppos? Nay. Public hearing is closed. Um, brings us up to discussion. Any discussion from the commission? Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Block, I move for approval of case 106-25 Regions Park. Request for approval of a reszoning of 4.65 acres from RP3 to RP2 with the 28 stipulations. Commissioner Block, it's 66. Did I do it? It's the same thing instead of 4.6 4.65. Times a chill. 4.66. Sorry. Okay.

Second. Second. Commissioner McGurn. Any discussion on the motion? That was closed. Okay. Hearing no discussion. Uh all in favor of approving case 106-25, please signify by saying I. I. I. Nay. Uh case 10625 is approved. Brings us up to new business. Case 117-25, Regions Park, request for approval of re of a revised final development plan and revised final plan located south of 137th Street and west of Kenneth Road. This is yours as well. Yes, sir.

Okay. Please proceed. Caner, senior planner. Um, please.

This is a short one, but we put it together, so we'll show you what we have. Um, so it's the next one. There we go. Okay. So, um, with this, this is a, uh, FDP final development plan and final plot for the same, um, development, uh, that was just presented as, uh, 10 case 106 uh,-25. Um so um there have been no changes with this revised final plat and revised final plan according to case 106-25. The plat does show um I guess there's a change to the final plat that it's lots 19 through 25. It's a revised third plat for this development. Um seven single family lots now instead of um 14 um twin villas. Um, and it complies with the previously approved deviations in the LDO. No other changes other than that. And that concludes my staff report.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Could could you show Oh, sorry, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner McGurn. Thank you. Excuse me. Uh, it appeared you had a slide beyond that. So, phase five is what we're talking about. Yes. Correct. which is obviously on the phases four are all single family housing now. Phase five is now individual um villas that potentially look like these but are not twin villas. They're single family Yeah, they're single family homes. Excellent.

Detached. Excellent. And the entry into that is off of the rest of phase one. Uh it's off of the culdeac. Okay. Thank you. Oh, the entry into each individual into the villa culde-sac into the Yes, that's correct. You're correct. So the rest of phase one where the uh current twin villas exist the models and then everything else in phase one remains twin villas. Phase five has become um single villas.

Correct. And then to the northwest there are um existing that have been built out twin villas as well. Thank you. Any additional excuse me any additional questions for staff? Okay, with that I will invite the applicant to come forward.

Tim Tucker Tuc Phelps Engineering 1270 North Winchester Kansas. Uh I'm in agreement with all stipulations. As mentioned it's it's the exact same plan as the preliminary area. The final is we just changed the name on it. So everything's identical other than there's an attached final plat actually platting the individual lots. Any questions for the applicant? What what's the square footage of each of the homes around? I I I really don't know. Okay. Top of my head to be honest.

Do you have do you have a estimated price point? price point is probably going to be 800 to a million would be my guess. All right. Thank you very much. Any discussion from the commission on case 117-25, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Bzer, I move for approval of case 117-25, Regents Park, request for approval of a revised final development plan and revised final plat located south of 137th Street and west of Kenneth Road.

Second, Commissioner McGurn. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All in favor of approving case 117-25, please signify by saying I. I.

I. opposed. Nay. Case 1117-25 is approved and sent to the governing body. Commission calls case 125 124-25 Leewood Fire Station One in Park. request for approval of a revised preliminary development plan located south of 96th Street and east of Lee Boulevard. Miss Bert, are you taking this one? Yes. Thank you.

Okay, please proceed. All right. This is case 12525, Leewood Fire Station 1 and Park. Request for approval of a revised preliminary development plan. Um before I get started, I do want to let you know that on the dis there were a few extra um public comments that we had received as well as the interact meeting originally was shorted. I think two additional comments. Somehow that got lost in the scan.

So now you have all of the comments. Um and then the additional email comments had come in Friday and then today or yesterday and today. Um, the applicant is requesting approval for the demolition of the old city hall with alterations to portions of the original fire station 1 and the construction of a new park featuring a playground, trellis, and demonstration garden. The alterations to the old fire station 1 and demolition of the old city hall will provide the ability to construct a new playground area visible from the new patio area with seating and a demonstration garden. The old fire station one will house the old fire engine to be viewed as well as a community space for meetings and events. The existing eastern parking lot will be removed and relocated to the west side upon approval. And a new pedestrian crosswalk crosswalk uh is proposed to be located along Lee Boulevard with the rectangular rapid flashing beacons to provide connectivity. Landscaping is not approved with the preliminary plan application and will be required at the final plan. However, the applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan. Um, an interact meeting was held on November 5th uh from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. with 38 members of the public in attendance. All of those comments are included in your packet. Since this is a preliminary development plan, the golden factors have been reviewed and are located within the staff report. And this application meets all requirements of the Leewood development ordinance. And staff is recommending approval of case 12425 with the 12 stipulations listed in the report. And I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thank you, Ms. Berg. Any questions for staff?

Commissioner McGurn.

Thank you, sir. Um, I had ironically got online before the packet arrived and looked at what I thought was a few days before what I thought was the final plan. And I happened to go to an event where somebody came up to me and asked about the plan and and um there was a conversation about the um trail that would go kind of around the perimeter and you know a walking trail albeit not very far. Um, I read the document and it said that basically the uh owners that lived adjacent to where the new park would be had expressed concern that the dogs would be barking every time people were walking by and all that.

So, those were removed, right? Were there any other changes from what had been the almost final plan to this one? Any other like removals or additions? No. Uh the final plan that we have in the packet is what is the final plan for this application for the preliminary. Um I know previously there had been an application with the original application there was a different design and about midway through our processing it changed and removed the the walking trail. Had it gone from three possibilities down to one and then the one refinement was the removal of the trail. I'm not sure. Maybe that's a question for the applicant. Thank you.

Yeah. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Black. And maybe this is a question for the uh Miss Claxton. U but uh do you have an overview? I I guess I had a little bit of trouble with the packet. Just kind of understand. I'm sorry. Can we get the slideshow up, please? So on the left side, it's showing anything that's colored is what's going to be removed. And then on the right, it's showing what's proposed of a site plan wise. And this is all still preliminary. Um the only difference on the left picture is the parking lot that will be completely gone. I know it's not colored, but that will be relocated.

Could you tell me what those are? What what just to make sure I know since they're not labeled. What What are the yellow buildings? This So the yellow on the right side of that image is the old city hall. Okay. On the left side are the wings on the old fire station one and the green box in the back that So that's the community garden that will be demolished as well. And the blue

those are all um walking Yeah. pedestrian walkways. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner uh Fishman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh can you tell me how this proposal came to be? I know that there's been a number of uh of committee meetings and public hearings and an impact meeting that a number of concerned citizens came to. Uh but is this plan the one that we have before us uh uh was how did how did the city come to the conclusion uh that it is better to uh demolish the old city hall and leave a portion of the fire station open and adopt this site plan. Uh how can you can you fill me in on that process? I'm gonna defer that to Chris.

I'm sorry. What' you say? I'm gonna defer that to Chris Claxton. Chris, can you hold up until we can get through staff then? We'll recognize you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Uh with that, I'll invite the applicant who is please uh give us your name and address.

Yes. Uh thank you um chairman and members of the planning commission that are here this evening. Chris Claxton, director of parks, recreation, arts for the city. Um I have with me tonight Scott Bingham who's with BBN Architects. They have been working with the city for months now conducting the interact meetings as well as listening um to residents. And um I believe that Mr. Bingham will have some of the answers that Commissioner Fishman in his first slide if uh once we get to that if he's going to be making the presentation and give a little bit more detail of information.

Okay. Thank you. Scott Bigum with BBN Architects, 411 Nichols Road, Kansas City, Missouri. We'll see the presentation. Okay. U actually my presentation is on a lot of these questions. This is kind of an outline of the meetings we had. We actually started back in January um talking about the program for the site. In June, we presented a series of concepts to both the parks board uh and also the governing body. We had our first interact meeting uh in July where we shared those concepts which were actually a little bit different than the ones we prepared. We responded back to some of the initial feedback we received. Uh excuse me. In September, uh we had a meeting with a governing body to really talk about uh narrowing down the program. Uh and that's where we got some important feedback on what should be included uh within that preferred concept. And then on November 4th, our second interact meeting, um we use that direction that we received from the governing body um to present um a preferred concept.

Sure. Can you talk more into the mic? I if you can move it up so we can hear you a little bit better. We have difficulty with this speakers on this end. Is that better? A little bit. Thank you.

Okay. Uh as far as a summary of that governing body meeting on the se September 29th uh was decided to remove uh the old city hall building. Uh the second idea was to enhance the old fire station uh with including a kitchenet, concessions, restrooms, uh multi-purpose space uh and then also a display area uh for the former fire truck. Uh and then we also had a presentation uh by the Johnson County Extension about um a potential partnership uh for a demonstration garden that could exist on the site. So they were there to kind of explain a little bit about how that relationship could work if it was something the city decided to pursue. Um so this plan was the one that was presented to the se um at that second interact meeting and it does show that trail along the around the perimeter. Um it also showed the parking along the south side. That's kind of the existing footprint of uh the parking along the south side. Um, of course, we'd be removing the portion that is east um of the fire station. Um, and then we've got the the playground behind the um the former fire station uh with also the demonstration garden. kind of that um eye shaped piece there on the the top of the plan along the east side. Uh we got a lot of great feedback during that meeting uh that uh really kind of brought a few things to in focus. One was the parking location. Um although it's uh less expensive to kind of keep that existing footprint, um there was a a lot of interest uh in

keeping it closer to Lee Boulevard along the west side. And what that does is that frees up the green space um or probably would be um overflow from the playground area and keeps it towards the back of the site um away from any vehicular traffic. Um, and that also creates a little bit more of a buffer um to the residential area. Um, there's been a lot of interest in minimizing the amount of parking uh that's proposed on the site and so we were asked to explore um some shared parking opportunities with the new fire station or fire station number one to our south. Um consequently, um that was kind of a non-starter, uh with the fire station as far as some of the logistical complexities that created. um the demonstration garden, everyone thought that that would be probably more of an appeal to um the adults and so maybe locating that to where the old uh city hall building after it would be removed made more sense again to free up more green space in the back. And then the walking trail, um, you know, it would be some benefit just to be able to to walk around the park for those people doing, but it was just a sixth of a mile, so it wouldn't have a real strong appeal. U, and another participant pointed out that if you were a parent um with a child playing on the playground for that west half of that loop, um, you wouldn't be able to see your kids uh, beyond the old fire station building. Um, so we really felt like the benefits of the walking trail um did not outweigh the the disadvantages

um of the walking trail. And then another topic that was brought up was about pedestrian access, particularly since there's no uh sidewalk along the east side of Lee Boulevard. So questioning how do people walk to the park um safely. And so the last slide, this is the the revised proposed plan. Um given that feedback that we got at that uh second meeting, you can see where the crosswalk was added there on the bottom of the plan. Uh the parking obviously is shifted to the west side. Um we're keeping just about the same number of cases that are there, but able to keep the existing oak trees um that are along the street. That's kind of the darker green symbol that you're you're seeing on the plan. Um that destination garden is that circular um graphic and it's uh if you know the topography there um the old city hall is two levels with a walkout basement. We're keeping it up um at the higher level um just to give again a little bit of buffer between the garden and the uh fire station number one. Um but a lot of the plans stayed the same in regards to the u the old fire station which we've got a a trellis with a patio area around back um that looks out onto the two play areas. But you can also they see there's a lot more open green space along the back side of the property. Now I open up to your questions.

Thank you. Any uh questions for the applicant? Commissioner Black. Uh I guess my first is I you know there was a pretty extensive uh study of the city hall former city hall in our packet and I and I there were photos of the fire station but not as indepth I guess. What what lead you to believe I I I just walked through the fire station for the first time

a month ago at the open house. Um fire marshall Brown was kind enough to walk me through it. Um you know it's rough. I don't know. You know I guess city hall's rougher. or the former city halls rougher, but I mean I guess what made you makes you feel that it's you know restorable and not uh you know economically not feasible or

there there was a prior study done for the fire station as well not by by ourselves. Um and then as part of this master plan we were basically working with that information. Um the uh we also did a walkthrough of it uh with our structural engineer just to try to identify any big major hurdles um looking forward from what we could see. Uh and so we do feel comfortable with the plan and just to make sure uh you understand we're we're keeping all the garages uh along the front side on the northernmost garage would be where the old uh fire truck would be stored. Um the central garage would be the multi-purpose space and then on the south garage would be the kitchenet space. Uh and so I think there was a lot of interest in keeping that uh same curb appeal um that the the building has now. Obviously there needs to be some restoration. Um, but the I guess the northeast corner and the southeast corner uh wasn't very usable space and it was also we felt like it there would be more benefit um to having more outdoor space in those locations. Uh, so on the um east side I guess um I guess when so when that portion of the building's removed is the brick facade still within the building I guess currently but will be exposed again.

Yeah, there was some of that that will be exposed. Um we've kind of accounted for that from a um a cost standpoint. We've done some preliminary cost uh for the the governing body to try to get an estimate for that. Uh but yeah, we're going to keep as much of that existing brick that we can. Um I think you're probably well aware that there's been a lot of additions to that building. Um so it is a matter of kind of peeling back the layers on on what was there originally.

And then I have a question about the garden. Um there was a big packet or a lot on this case. So I think I end up getting myself confused on some of this. But um I I know it's it says demonstration garden on here. I think you in your um comments tonight said something about a destination garden. Was that on purpose or was that Yep, that was a mistake. I misspoke there. It's demonstration garden. Okay. And and help me better. That was probably in the packet, but again, I I I think I missed it.

No, it's quite all right. Uh the what we're modeling this is a um the county extension, if you're familiar with the master gardener program, um they have a series of demonstration gardens throughout the county. um they have different themes, different functions. Um and we're really trying to keep that open at this point. We're really just trying to identify is this something that the city is interested in having at this site. Um but uh I've had the pleasure of um working uh in developing a demonstration garden for the city of Prairie Village. And generally speaking, uh the way it works out is the city's responsible building the infrastructure of it and then the um the master gardeners all volunteers um they have over 300 um throughout the county um would be responsible for maintaining that. So the benefit to the city is you you would have a garden space that you would probably not have the resources to maintain otherwise without this group. um the county sees an advantage because they're really trying to serve um all parts of the county um with these different types of they really try to make it educational um in different respects and so uh it's worked out to be a great partnership with the city of Prairie Village u and I think that could work out well here too for Leewood

uh and then so I I since this is a preliminary plan is that why we don't have much detail on the play areas I know there were comments about a inclusive and that'll be out later. That's you're exactly right. Um we're not even saying how many structures at this point because it's really just a master plan. The only definition that we're giving is the general area. Um and then also the age groups that were intended um for. But that would definitely be coming along in subsequent plans once we start pinning down more specifics on what type of play equipment um etc.

And then one last one um um there was a lot of talk about a concession stand or some kind what's you I don't think you said anything in your presentation. Yeah, is there there will be concessions planned. And so the the way that's worked on the the south wing where we have our um kitchen at just to the east of that, we would actually have a concessions window that would open up towards that back patio area with the trellis over it on the southeast corner. Uh and that would um just basically be a concessions window that would have a lot of flexibility. obviously would be managed by the city um and they could basically have it open at at their discretion

and maybe that leads to another. So you don't know what that looks like when that would be utilized and what you know I know there was coffee bar was was talked about a lot but it's it's not that it's more like something at the city park concession stand or or do you know? Yeah. And and Chris, you might actually have more input on that uh as far as the operational aspects of the the concessions.

Yes. So once you know we get into the programming of the site, then we would look at that. As Scott said, we would probably either run it ourselves or contract it out. It would be small, so it would not be as big as what we offer at the pool. uh more so maybe what we offer at uh during soccer at the smaller stand that we just built. Uh and there could be coffee, you know, and and other things there, but it would be on a very small scale. And then one one more. Um and so then I mean is it just for certain events or is it I mean kind of what are you just thinking in general?

I think it could be for certain events. I think we also talked about as a staff using uh a combination of that space and also for um uh food trucks because we could f fit a couple food trucks on that. Um I know this plan's not up anymore on that paved area so it wouldn't be very congested. Uh we also plan to do some of the programming in that multi-purpose space ourself in addition to rentals. So, uh, rentals would be able to use that. Uh, there's a dividing, uh, I know you don't have the detail, but they could also use some of that space if they had to prep for a birthday party or a any type of a a small gathering. They could have that space to, you know, there'll be a refrigerator and some other things in there. So,

I keep saying last one. I know there was some I know that there were some comments about or or some thought initially about sharing the parking lot with fire station. It sounds like you or looks like you want them to be separate at this point. Yeah. So, they've had problems already with people parking in there when they've had uh home parties and things, but the biggest problem is the way they have to swing around when they come back into the lot. there's just not enough space back there uh to have additional vehicles at the fire station at the at the new fire station. So that's that's why we abandoned that.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Just freshman. I do have a question. Thank you. Uh this may also be pre uh pre premature being that this is a preliminary plan. Uh but I'm just curious uh would it be uh the to have public restrooms in the fire fire fire station to be used by people that are utilizing the play space and and the open space.

That is correct. Yeah, we have we're going to have um the doors in such a way that that will be accessible the bathrooms will be accessible from that east side um during park hours. Um and then once if anyone's renting the space inside um then they of course would have um access to those restrooms as well. One additional question. Uh during the consideration of this particular plan, uh was the uh governing body also shown alternatives where the uh the old city hall was preserved. And the area that's now where the fire station is was became the play area. And And was under that circumstance was there more play area space or more open space under that alternative plan than there is in this plan? Uh so to answer your first question, yes. Um there were multiple concepts shared uh with uh with the governing body. We even had a plan to move um the city hall building um closer to where the fire station would be. Um, and as far as the, you know, exact increased amount of green space, I'm assuming, um, that there would be more green space and not having the footprint of the city hall, um, included, but I couldn't give you any really definitive numbers on how those would compare.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Uh, Commissioner McGurn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I thank you for the documentation and I just got a couple of quick questions. The sidewalk you referenced, um, is the I can see the big sidewalk that I think has already been built in front of the fire station, is that little white line that goes across, is that perceived to be a continuation of that same sidewalk? Yes. Okay. And so how far to the um uh let me think north or south does that sidewalk go and is it only on the property that the city owns?

Yeah, it is only on the property and we're actually kind of terminating. I guess there's two walks that are running north south of the proposed parking lot. one kind of dives into the driveway um much similar to to what's there now and the other one closer to Lee Boulevard um ties into the existing where there is an existing I think that's kind of a specialty paving that crosses the driveway there and then ties into that existing pavement. So we're not really proposing anything on the fire station half of the property. Um really the only other pedestrian improvements we're doing around that area is introducing the crosswalk there uh across Lee Boulevard.

And that is I can't really see what the where it says RBFB. Just to the right of that is the walk. Yeah. I don't know if you can see my is that the flashing light scenario? Yes. Okay. So that's probably the safest style of crosswalk. Is that a fair assessment?

Yeah. I my understanding um is that given the amount of traffic um both anticipated for the site and on Lee Boulevard that that's the appropriate level of crosswalk um for that situation. Was there any consideration to having some kind of a short um I guess I'd call it a wall, but a short stone wall, if you will, that went across the entire uh section where the parking is. So, from the crosswalk farther over uh to the edge of the property, that would assure that a car coming off of Lee Boulevard, out of control in a sense, wouldn't make it to the sidewalk.

You know, that wasn't considered, but I think that could definitely be a possibility. I' I'd like to ask for that to be to be considered. I mean, it seems like it's, in my opinion, it's less safe to have all the parking right on Lee Boulevard, and it would have been more safe to have had it going up and down in between. People that didn't want to worry about that would have parked all the way to the back.

But on the flip side, I get that this is what people asked for, and I get that you got a lot more open space, green space where the children would be playing, and that's farther away from from the street. I completely get that. But if there was um and maybe it would need to go across all of the city's park city's land um to just assure that that's not going to happen in any scenario u because I would assume that uh something like that would would stop a car or it might destroy the wall but it's not going to get into the parking lot or maybe the sidewalk.

That'd be my suggestion. Um I I'm curious um when it comes to the um rental uh space that's in the middle of the fire station um andor uh anything else that's kind of interior. Um who who locks this up? Who unlocks it? Who stays for security purposes? Are we are we approving a full-time employee that's at this park whenever it's open? uh what what's the status of all that?

So, we have wreck attendants that currently uh service the fire station meeting space. So, we would be coordinating both of those rental and use spaces um internally. Terrific. Yeah. So, we're not adding any more costs to do that, although that person would work longer hours. Yeah. I mean, we have multiple wreck attendants that service the wave here, the lodge and and as I said, fire station one and also this facility.

Okay, that's good. I appreciate that. Um, I I just want to kind of get back to the question from before. Um, it felt like you spent the entire year going through conversations with all these various people and getting all these ideas and it felt like the second Interact meeting slide that you showed at the beginning uh obviously was dramatically different than what it is now and I get why it changed. Um have have the um people that were at the second interact as an example have they been updated and given a chance to comment about this plan? Uh they have not.

They have not. Yeah. Okay. Now this purely a response um to that second interact meeting. Is there a plan to do anything like that or is it required between preliminary and final? Um I'm assuming we would have an interact meeting for the final development plan. Um but I'm probably not the one to uh answer that question. Mr. Chair, uh Michelle Crick's uh Leo Planning Department. Uh interact meetings are not required for final development plan or final plat uh per the Leewood development ordinance. Interact meetings are required with the resoning special use permit preliminary development plan preliminary plat only.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. I I've got a problem with the fact that this potentially doesn't go back in front of the community. I I think it should given what's happened on Lee Boulevard, given given the safety concerns that are currently present in a lot of people's minds, um I think we owe them the opportunity to come back and and comment on this plan. That's that's my own personal opinion, but I I think there's a step that seems to have potentially been missed. I would have appreciated having more insight about all this at an earlier point in time. Um, and I completely am in favor of a playground here. I'm completely in favor of the removal of the old city hall. I walked through that at one point uh when the construction was going on on the other one and was shocked that it was even being considered. But I get why it was in the grand scheme of things. There's a lot about this. I like the the safety issues of having all the parking right up front and no barrier are highest on my list and and and then I should finish and the um ability for everyone that came to any interact meeting and some notification to anybody that didn't uh that's close enough to this I guess to have their prop their proper input uh at the end.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, if if I can just make a comment. There is a public hearing tonight and that's the time forut. But you aren't going to change the plan tonight based on anybody's input, right? And they didn't see this plan. They saw a completely different plan at the last Interact meeting. So it it seems like with everything that's happening, it it'd be smart to take one more step. That'd be my own opinion. Thank you, Commissioner McGurn. Commissioner Belzer.

Um, okay. Thank you. Um, yeah, I just I'm gonna piggy back on on some of that. I completely agree that this plan is very different and I understand that there's a public hearing tonight. However, it's Thanksgiving week. Not everyone is going to be able to participate. We have another packet full of comments from the public that we just received tonight. We had a lot a lot of comments and information from the public from people who are at the interact meetings. I agree that in light of all of these safety issues and the conversations that are taking place that this really should go back to the public and have further comments. Can you put that that slide back up?

The final plan. Yes. So, can you what can you elaborate on the RRFB crosswalk? What does that stand for? Um, I knew someone was going to ask that question and I'm a landscape architect, but I have someone to the right of me that could give you a much better answer than I

Brian Scoville, city engineer. Um the RRFB stands for rapid re rapid rectangular flashing beacon. And so uh the given the speeds and the volume of traffic on this road that is the uh what the federal guidelines indicate is an appropriate uh traffic crossing measure. Um it is a more uh newer measure that was recently maybe in the last 10 8 to 10 years has been approved for use. We've been wanting to use it for a while and so about 8 to 10 years ago we got approval to start implementing these. Um it does not require a car to stop it. It doesn't flash a red light. So, uh, it does notify cars that there's pedestrians wanting to cross and it is a, uh, a law that drivers are required to stop for pedestrians whether there's flashing lights or not. So, uh, there is signage on on the, uh, crossing to remind pedestrians to watch for cars. Uh there's advanced warning signs uh prior to the the crosswalk indicating that you know there's a crosswalk ahead. The uh pavement markings are enhanced with high visibility markings. So they're uh what we refer to as continental style or the piano key style as opposed to just two white lines. So, uh, the RFB in combination with the enhanced pavement markings and the additional signing, uh, provides, uh, several, uh, what we would call counter measures to enhance the crosswalk. Um and then just something that we are discussing internally here uh as at the staff level

is what else can be done with these crosswalks knowing that we don't um it's it's very challenging to justify going to the next level which would be a a pedestrian hybrid beacon or a hawk uh in order to meet those uh FHWA requirements for that is very difficult. So, we're looking at what else can we do to enhance these? And we're talking about adding uh an inroad sign, basically a sign post in the road that's that's uh crash worthy, so if it's it's hit, it doesn't uh you know, hurt someone. And that additional signing in the road might help slow cars down and remind cars that this is a heavy pedestrian area. So, we're looking at implementing that not just at this location, but at others in the city.

What is the speed limit on the street right here by this? So, I believe this is 35. Okay. And so, um, I'm just thinking about the crosswalk, um, off of 119th, close to State Line, kind of off High Drive, that kids use to get from like, let's say, Hallbrook to Leewood Elementary.

Isn't that a light that when you push that button, the the light turns red, or does it just flash? Because it's flashing all the time. Is that a light that turns red when kids are crossing there? Because it's just a crosswalk in the middle of It's not really even exactly on High Drive. So on 119th. Mhm. I don't recall off the top of my head. I'd have to check to verify what's that or what exactly is there. Okay. because I I feel like it turns red and traffic stops when

So we have uh traffic there are a few signals that turn red and stop cars for traffic. One is uh in addition to these the hawk that I mentioned separate from the hawk. So tell me what tell me what the hawk is. The Hawk is a traffic signal where you press the button and then there's uh three lights o on a bar that's over the top of the road and they they flash red back and forth and then they turn a steady red and that requires cars to stop. Once cars stop, if there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk, they're able to proceed. So, it's a kind of acts like a stop sign almost

uh versus a regular traffic signal. A pedestrian pushes the button. There's a countdown timer. Car stopped. They continue to remain stopped until the timer ends and then they proceed with a green ball. So, uh kind of a big difference between the two. The hawk is also a newer crossing measure that's been introduced that is very uh helpful and effective, but it requires a significant uh number of pedestrians speed and volume. So there's several variables uh and number of lanes uh to be considered and we generally don't see that type of pedestrian volume uh except in front of schools. So, we've implemented several hawks in front of schools recently and we are continuing to do that. Uh the there is a signal in front of Brookwood on 103rd. Well, that's being proposed to be replaced with a Hawk as an example.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I also have I'm not sure if there are questions or just concerns about the concessions concept in a park of this size. It seems I don't know if unnecessary is the right word. I don't I'm I'm very concerned about that as bringing more issues than benefits. Um, this park is small area, so kids and families are going to come to the park and play for a while. They can bring their own snacks, whatever. I just I I'm maybe I need to know a little bit more about the concessions. I read about a coffee shop. I there was a lot of information in this packet for the first time that we've seen it. So, I I just was a little bit confused about that concept and what the actual benefits are of having something like that in this pretty concentrated small area. Unless it's going to be used if you're renting the space and having an event or um the city's going to do some kind of activation there and you know want to have some vendors there, but on a regular basis. I was really kind of confused by that.

Yeah. And as far as the concessions is really uh directed towards the outdoor traffic. Um the kitchenet and that south garage would be more directed towards the people that are renting the space. So when you say outdoor traffic, are you referring to those who are coming to be at this park? Yeah, the playground area basically. Yeah. Okay. Well, I just I I have concerns about that as a concept in just in general. Okay.

Uh Chris Claxton, parks and recck director. I just wanted to comment that it's a pretty small space. So, at the end of the day, if we decided not to operate concessions, it could still be used as part of that kitchen area. So, it isn't like we would have to go in and do a bunch of remodeling or anything to make the space usable.

Okay. Well, I I think I mean I picked up on that also in all in the our packet that that's a that's kind of a pretty big issue for some members of the community. So, I think that's something that should be looked at as um it heads to the next stage in the plan. Um, okay. I think that's it.

Mr. Fisherman, I have a quick follow-up question uh to Brian uh on the RRFB crosswalk. Uh are there signs that go along with the installation of that crosswalk that uh that tell the tell the cars that they are required to stop for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. There are advanced warning signs notifying the drivers that there's a crosswalk ahead and then there's a crosswalk sign and that crosswalk sign is what tells drivers they are required to stop. I mean that is the that's a law whether that's the state law.

Yeah. Whether it's signed or marked with pavement markings or not that's a state law. So whether they do or don't is a whole another story. Right. So we provide additional measures, signing rem, you know, markings, reminders to pay attention and be alert and be courteous. But u a lot of drivers don't understand that, you know, when there's a pedestrian, they're supposed to yield to the pedestrian.

Yeah. My experience is that I cross Lee Boulevard at 89th Street frequently and uh when you when there's a lot of traffic and you push the button and the beacon goes off, uh traffic, they don't understand what to do. I mean, even though you a pedestrian is standing on the side of the road, they don't know whether to stop or to slow down or to go or what. And if it's the state law that uh that drivers are required to uh to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, I think there ought to be a sign that says that, right? And uh stop or yield. I'd have to double check what the I think there's a difference in the the state law specifies one uh or the other. It doesn't say both. I don't recall. Uh, but I could look to see what other signing is allowed uh for these, if there's a different sign type that is uh compliant with the manual and uniform traffic control devices and see if there's other signing that might be more helpful. Um, we've we've been using what I would consider the standard off-the-shelf signing that is compliant and but there may be alternative signs available that we could look into.

Well, that would be great if you do that. Uh, if um if drivers would would understand that they really do need to stop there and that that is the state law, that would be uh ultimately more safe than what's going on now. So, thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. I have a couple for for Kristen, the the architect. Um, as you know, you have three of your former members of the the parks and recreation advisory board sitting here. And uh this this has been studied for I'd say at least 15 years since I was on the parks and recck board. It has been the long range u uh plan. So, uh, unlike Commissioner McGuran, uh, I have not had the chance to go through the old city hall, and I've seen the pictures. I've seen the report that was in our packet. Uh, there's a lot of of of emotion to wanting to keep that building. And looking at the report and everything, I was I was wondering from an architectural standpoint, I know that was considered, but just to give me kind of a lay person's viewpoint of why couldn't it be? Is it just the cost? Is it the mediation? I I was reading about lead piping, possible asbestos. What what what can you tell us about that?

Yeah, there was a a lot of abatement that needed to happen. Uh lead, asbestos, mold. Um there were a lot of issues with the building itself that we looked uh and priced out what it would be to restore that. Um and that seemed to be cost prohibitive I guess from the governing body standpoint and particularly when given of what its critical purpose would be seems like all those purposes could be addressed um with the old fire station building. Um, from a historical standpoint too, it was pointed out to us that the old fire station was actually the original city hall um, before the what is now considered the old city hall building was constructed. U, so yeah, I I think really it kind of came down to a practical matter um, of the cost to restore a building that um, where the uses could already be found by restoring the old fire station. And when it came down to if it has to be one or the other, um there was a lot more support for um keeping the old fire station than the old city hall building.

Okay. Now, now the the old fire station that that's proposing to be kept exactly you have the kitchenet, you have a meeting room, can you be a little bit more specific in what is going to be housed on the inside of it?

Yeah. Um I think and stop me if if I'm repeating myself, but that north garage is where we're going to be um storing the old fire station. And then the larger central garage will be that uh multi-purpose space um that people can rent. We want to make sure that that kind of opens up um both for viewing to the north garage and then also for use to the u the south garage which is where the kitchenet um would be located. And then we're kind of using the what I'll call the east wing. Um that's going to be essentially a hallway with the back the public uh restrooms um that again be accessible to the general public even when that space isn't being rented.

Okay. So the the bathrooms, you know, unlike some of the other parks that we have now where we have put facilities for for people, there's going to be an exterior entrance to the bathroom. be an exterior entrance, but the door to the multi-purpose space um would be locked unless it's being rented. So, um we've it would be worked out such where we would have limited access to the restroom for majority of the time and then you would be able to get access for whoever happens to be renting the multi-purpose room space. Okay. Um, will the multi-purpose space be able to open up to the exterior or is it going to be completely enclosed?

Um, you know, we've we've talked about that. There's some, um, challenges, uh, or some drawbacks, I should say, um, and having those doors operable. Um, just as far as, you know, from a heating and cooling standpoint, um, energy efficiency, I I think that is probably still on the table whether, um, we want to have those doors open or not.

I I I heard Miss Claxton state that the new fire station also has meeting space in it for public use. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Um, concerned me is that we have a lot of meeting space now. We, it's kind of funny, we hardly had any before. Now we have the wave. Uh we have the new fire station one. We're going to have the old fire station. I mean, how many meetings can can North Leewood handle? It's kind of funny because we went from zero to like three in in a couple years, but that's a lot of meeting space within just a couple miles of each other. So, uh, again, that multi-purpose space, which is why we're calling it that, will also could be programmable for the staff. So, maybe there's a yoga class up there, maybe there's a kids art class or something like that. So, it wouldn't just be rental space. And again, we're controlling the use of both the space in the multi-purpose area of the old fire station as well as the meeting space in the new fire station. Now, of course, we work with the fire department to make sure we're not, you know, um because the other part of having that as the option is that we would know what's going on at both locations so we could, you know, make sure we're not having conflicts with parking um in that space.

And and is the parking lot too big? I mean, I I I saw what 35 spots in it. Well, that's, you know, driven by the space, the interior space of the fire station, the new the old fire station remodel. So, that's depicted, you know, uh, with codes. So, so you need 34 parking spots with codes. Okay. Right. Any additional questions? Commissioner McGurn,

I'd like to just follow up um and and reconfirm. My recollection of the interior of the original two bay station is that it's got a beautiful wooden interior roof, if you will, if you're looking at it from the inside. Is that all being maintained and not covered up with what's there today? All that as well on all the sides is in very good condition. uh as well as the ceiling that you mentioned. So, we would want to keep the integrity of that space as much as possible. That was beautiful. Thank you. That's great. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant before we move on? Okay. Okay. Before we get to the public hearing, I'm going to let's do a quick fivem minute recess and then we'll begin the public hearing uh at that point when we come back.

Ready to start?

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we will continue with our meeting. Next up is the public hearing. Uh there was a signin sheet on the um on the outside of the the city council chambers. I'll go through the signup sheet and then if there's anyone else that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to speak. But uh because of the folks that signed up, we'll just go in order. Um is Dennis Marie? You're welcome. Please give us your name and address for the record. Dennis Maragetting, 9618 Lee Boulevard.

Okay. Uh, everyone will get four minutes tonight to speak. Uh, in front of you is a little colorcoded system. You'll get the yellow at about 30 seconds and then when the four minutes is up, it'll red and beep and very good. And then you're done. Right across the street from the old city hall.

Actually, you walk down their sidewalk goes into our driveway. thing I was concerned with initially before we started talking was the crosswalk and that it was uh positioned so close to our driveway. I was wondering if we could just put it over to where uh lined up with one of the street lines and that so there's less poles along the sides of the street. But then after that then I thank you all for the questions that you asked because those are very in-depth and very nice. I was not aware of the first rendition that we had which I think be a little more appropriate than the one that we have at the present time. And the biggest problem that I would have now would be making sure it's not like a party house and it doesn't end up being uh a social get together where everybody just runs and goes away and we're there to help clean up and that type of a thing. So basically security is the basic thing that I was thinking about. Everything else is fine as far as it's under control. And I think we should do something with, you know, for the kids to make sure that the uh street lights or whatever or better than the flashing lights, whatever is necessary, they happen to you know be accounted for. That's basically what I have uh uh you know in mind at the present time. And if there's any other questions for me, feel free. Otherwise, I'll pass on to the next person.

Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. John Hoover.

I'm John Hoover. Uh we're at 9705 Lee. We moved in in 1966. Uh pardon me. And uh if I don't uh I didn't catch a lot of what was being said because back here we can't hear very well. So hope if I don't um if I say something that uh I should have picked up earlier, then I'm sorry. Um, I went to a meeting here a few weeks ago in the park. Uh, that was my first encounter with any of this and, uh, there were a lot of people there that were concerned about tearing down the city hall. Um, in that meeting, Deborah Filela was there and two other council people and uh, we couldn't find out what the cost uh, would be to re u rejuvenate it. Um the person that was there from from the architect firm didn't know and he didn't know what it would cost to tear it down. Um but somebody was there who had looked into it uh thinking about some other project with the city and and they had some numbers that were considerably less than what somebody else said the city had for for uh reurbishing the city hall. So, I have some concerns myself and a lot of the people there did. Most of the people that I talked to were very concerned about tearing it down. I I know there would be expense involved in maintaining it and so forth, but it it's a chance for you to leave something there that uh means something. It means more to me than the fire department building. Um it it's more um more something that that was original with this this city. Uh gosh, when I come in this building, I I can't believe I've been here before. But um when we first moved in, we had meetings in that city hall. And uh if a meeting if the the um project was important, why it was

pretty hard to get in there. Sometimes people waited outside. I understand why we needed a bigger one. And we've we've moved on a lot. But if we did do something with that building, and there were a lot of people at that meeting that had some good ideas, I thought about what we could do with that building. And um if we could, it would be a way of making this project a little bit more meaningful for me and for other residents. Um it's just something I think we should look into more closely. And I don't know where we stand, but the numbers that I got from the person that was there as as the costs were considerably less than what the numbers that were being thrown out. And so I think we should look into it further.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoover. Uh John Blum.

My name's John Blum. J O N B Blu MB. I live at 9631 Sagamore Road about two and a half, three blocks away from the park area. I pass by there a lot and I think it's a great idea to have a park. It'll be a very nice resource for the neighborhood and um the the walking sidewalk gets a lot of activity. um amongst joggers and walkers and there's an a bit of bicycle traffic along and I think it'll be great for them to have a place to stop and rest. Um, but what I really want to talk about is uh the city hall building, the original city hall building, which I think is quite charming in its own modest way and representative of how Leewood was as an early suburb of the area. Um, we don't have a whole lot of historic places in town being just maybe 70 years old, 70ome, 75, whatever. So, I I really want to uh request consideration for just restoring it. And it'll be a resource if it can be stabilized. I sorry I don't and I don't know why it's been neglected so much since this building was built, but it's basically kind of a shame in my opinion. Um I don't think I don't think that just knocking it down would gain enough space uh in the yard to make a huge difference. It's not a very large footprint. So that's my

request for you to consider that and I really would appreciate the idea that um this whole project becomes known to the public more. It's been pretty difficult to track. Um and I've been to a couple of these sessions with the plans which are very nice and a lot of people are very interested as you'll see in your packets. Um, but it's just kind of hard to keep up if you don't actively look online and talk talk to the council people or find out what's going on. And I I think I really appreciate the parks district uh being involved in it and interested in it too. It'll be nice. Um, so I also think uh I don't know what it would cost to demolish it and remove it, but look at it in an optimistic way. If you didn't spend the money to demolish it, you'd have that money to use on the restoration as just a contribution in effect. So, thanks for listening to my opinions and thank you for thinking of these good questions tonight. I appreciate it.

Thank you,

Andy Swisser. Hi, I'm Andy Swisser. Uh 2229 West 97th Street. Um, I have some opinions on on the layout and and design of that, but my my sole reason for being here is pedestrian safety. Um, I I really believe that we need to have a sidewalk on the east side of Lee Boulevard. Um, I have three kids. They all go to to Brookwood. Um, and there was a recent uh crosswalk on 98th Street uh installed here just this past year. I a dozen times had to walk through that with my kids to teach them how to use that because of the propensity of cars that don't have to stop at the crosswalk. Multiple times while teaching my kids pushing the crosswalk, watching cars cross by while the lights are flashing. Um, I feel like those crosswalks kind of give a false sense of security on that with kids. They really need to be taught to watch for the cars, make sure the cars stop before they even cross. Um so that's one of the things uh increasing pedestrian and especially child pedestrian uh traffic to this area that has to cross. So if we're on 97th Street, we've got to cross there or go down to 98th Street, cross there, come back and then cross back again to get to the uh park there. Um, so that's a multiple times

unless we're we're walking across uh people's front yards that we'd have to cross Lee Boulevard. Um, so I would really be a big proponent of uh including a sidewalk at least to 103rd Street to 95th Street for this uh project as well. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Gary Shaw. Good evening. My name is Carrie Shaw. I live at 9618 High Drive. I don't know if you guys have the new site plan, but my home is in the norththeast corner or southeast corner of this picture or the upper right. And so we're directly behind the old home that used to be there. and our north wall lines up with the south wall of the new fire station. So, we're right there impacted. Some of my neighbors are behind me with this talk, but they live to the north of me. The next one, um, just to give you a little my background. Again, I was I've been in construction for 29 years. I was a developer, general contractor, now I'm a tunneling company, and we're infrastructure rehab. I'm not telling you that stuff to do to to make elevate my status. What I'm telling you about is that there are a lot of flaws in this plan that I see. And I and fortunately, the city has worked with us over the the fire station was changed from a two-story building. That was one thing. The oak tree that was on the property behind us, it's 70 feet tall. It's over 100 years old. It took me all the way to the state to get that tree to be able to stay. And I'm not a I'm a preservationist. The company I'm in, we're a water preservation company. We move water through sewers and water pipes all over the state. So, we're preservation interested company people. But I thank you guys also for listening to our concerns because it's you're not going to please everybody. You may please some of us, but you're not going to please everybody. Um, we have done work all over the United States. This building, this city hall would not be being tore down if we were in Washington DC. Alexandria, Virginia, Charleston,

South Carolina. Those two buildings that are nearly 75 years old would still be here. There'd be a better use for them. When we moved in, there was a fire or police department right behind us. We knew the names every one of those policemen. We gave cookies to them. We gave them donuts. They would come in. We'd talk to them. The people to the north of me, their kids used to play with the firefighters whiffle ball in the backyard. When we moved in, this is a functioning city services site. This isn't a park. This is not something where people should be actually mingling. That fire truck, we've seen it for now. I've been here since 2012. We've seen it when those guys have to get out of there. It's serious. And it's not easy for them to have to maneuver between what's going on. The reason there are no sidewalk on that side of the street is there's no parking allowed on that side of the street. There's no that those fire trucks have to be able to get in and out and up that street in case there's traffic. So, some of this going across. I can't imagine the poor family that's got that blinking light in front of their house. But, um, we lived through the new fire station. We like the new fire station. what we haven't gotten since we've actually asked and after talking with Brian Anderson of the parks department before he retired when he realized all we were asking for on our on all of our four houses back there was a burm with pine trees. That's all we were asking. We get some architecturally designed run little things that aren't going to block anything. They don't I mean my dogs are stand taller than the bushes that as high as they'll get. And so the other day, fortunately, I did get to talk to the park superintendent and he talked about replacing the dead trees. If you look at that design and you look at the sparsity between the or what's there on that Rock Hill behind the Brown's house which is to north and what's behind

mine, you would be you guys would be you if you saw the light that we see and you see the noise that we hear and some of that you guys would say, "Hey, they're not asking for something unreasonable for more trees." A lot more trees. But the other thing that we're asking is there's a fence on top of the retaining wall. It's for safety. We want that fence extended to the north and extended to the south property lines and brought from the from that east boundary to the street of Lee and that so that we have a barrier between our properties and the park whatever you know. And the reason I'm asking this and this is not something that could happen. It has happened when the police department left the trees that used to be that bare that ground between the house and the old police department. People were camping in those trees. How did I know that? Cuz my dogs would go out at night and they'd start barking. I'd walk back there and I had talked to a couple fellas and said, "Hey fellas, this is not a campground." I know.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. What's that? We appreciate your comments. Your time is up. My time is up. Yeah, that's why that's why the buzzer's going. Anyway, I we need a fence. No concession stand. I have the covenants and restrictions here from 1951. I also have the releases. Item eight, no business building shall be erected. I understand your time is up. This is important. I understand. Can I make one last point? No, your time is up, sir.

We asked for 12 years now for a not an interact meeting. We've asked for a roundt for the 16 houses that surround this site and there have been interact meetings. There's been everything. There has been no meeting to sit down with the homeowners that will live with whatever happens here. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your because we need Thank you very much. Thank you, Heather Curry.

Good evening. My name is Heather Curry. I live at 9440 High Drive, so north of 95th Street, but I walk down Lee all the time. And I have been to multiple meetings and presentations about this topic. And I have to say I am basically amazed and surprised that this plan is what is being proposed to you at this point. From what I have heard from going to these many meetings and listening to people, this is not what the residents of this area want. It just it just isn't. And as you said, I appreciate what the points you brought up. This plan, I had I have not seen it before. I have seen other plans. I don't know why the I listened to the man who wanted to do the coffee shop in the in the old city hall. It seemed to me maybe I misremember, but it seemed to me that they were willing to take on all the financial obligations of restoring that site. And the only thing I have heard that the city doesn't like about it about his plan was that they would no longer own the land. But he also seemed to have a plan to address that as well. So I don't understand why that was thrown out. Why? I mean, nobody's ever said, "We we're not doing this because we're not doing that because it's just we want to hear your opinions, but we don't really care what you say. I feel like you're just checking a box." And then I know this is your regular scheduled meeting time, but it was just kind of icing on the cake that it's

Thanksgiving week that you have your public meeting. So, I really wish you would reconsider this whole plan. I know it's been years. Let's let's do it right. Give it some more time and uh listen to what the people have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Curry. Ellen Brown.

I'm Ellen Brown. I live at 9614 High Drive. Uh I wanted to thank all of you for listening to what we've said in the past. I like all of your questions. It seems like you put a lot of thought into it um in looking at the site plan and I have been coming to these meetings for 13 years since I've moved into this house and I have heard every iteration of everything that's been talked about. Um if you look at this current site plan directly to the east where it says um play area and then there's a green space and then that's a fence line of someone's house. So, um I don't understand like why those I've heard that it's not exactly how the landscaping is going to look, but I don't understand why those trees are there and then there's all that green space into someone's backyard. Um directly to the right of that, which would be the south, is my house. And there's also not any plantings behind my house. Uh, we were promised a burm. We were promised tall trees. We were promised lots of things. At night, my house kind of looks like a Walmart parking lot because the doors for the fire station are clear and we can see everything that's going on in the fire station. And when they first put those lights up, they were 10 feet too tall. So, they had to come and redo those um so it didn't look like a circus. Um, I'm a little concerned. The concession stand makes no sense to me because I don't understand how many people you're expecting to be at this park to serve hot dogs and drinks and stuff. Um, if I think about a busy concession stand, lots of people, and then I look at that crosswalk and I look at the

parking lot and I look at Lee Boulevard, I walk dogs all the time down Lee, I I cannot imagine getting across that street with multiple people. If you're thinking about an event that you need a concession stand, how all of these people are going to cross Lee Boulevard to get back to wherever they live. Um, with a parking lot of people trying to turn left into the crosswalk. I just don't understand uh that. I'm also concerned about lighting in this whole building area. Again, Leewood has not done a great job protecting the neighbors to the um would that be the south or the east behind this fire station. Um we see all of that light in our backyard. Um so I would ask again that there's a burm that there are actual trees, not juniper bushes or dead pines uh placed back there. Um, and I think that is it. But again, I appreciate all your thought that you've put into this. I like the green space back there. Um, I don't really understand what's going on with the fire station, but um, we'll we'll kind of figure that out as we go. So, I just hope that you protect the neighbors who that's our backyards and we hear everything that goes on and we see all the lights and um thank you for understanding that.

Thank you, ma'am. Olivia Byum. Hi, I'm Olivia Byum and I live at 9613 High Drive and I live in the culde-sac that backs up to this uh plan. So, I'm here in support of the Browns and the Shaws and the Falers who all live Oops, sorry. All live right there behind it. So, and also I have a um teenager who likes to ride his bike and um I have so I have some huge concerns about the privacy for that area, the noise, the lighting. We all moved into this neighborhood because it's quiet. We live relatively close to 435 and yeah, we can hear a little bit of traffic, but it's not that bad. So, you're talking about creating a new um you know, playground activity. uh multi-use, more parking that would actually be used. You're going to bring in a lot more traffic, so more noise, more lights, uh that really the traffic is a big concern. Lee carries quite a bit of traffic for a two-lane road. I don't have any I don't want it to be less than 35 miles per hour. I'm not asking for that, but um I have huge concerns like Carrie brought up, Mr. Shaw brought up about we really shouldn't have a sidewalk on that point. I hadn't thought about that. That is a really good point. If there's an emergency and that firet truck needs to get out of that parking lot and we've got kids and we've got moms with strollers and I was a mom with a stroller, but you know that's not always a sense of urgency. Okay, they need to get out of the way. That's not that's a safety concern having a sidewalk there. So, I don't think that's a solution. Um, we know that there's the traffic light down at 98th. We've got that at Brooky

or not Brooky at 87th or 89th. So I also think those aren't respected. We've got teenagers. We've got distracted drivers. We're really going to think that's going to saw people. It's not. And who is there a police officer going to sit there all the time? No. So, you know, there's some serious things that need to be considered before you move forward with this. I feel like there's been a lot of holes that are still there. I agree with what you said. How do we get to this point? I mean, I'm just kind of jumping into this, but whoa, there's still a lot that needs to be figured out. So, um, I don't like the concessions. I don't like more people coming there. Why do we need a playground in the back? That's my last point, and I think that's a really valid one you need to consider. Why put the playground behind the fire station where it's not visible? Okay, yeah, we might have a random driver that might veer off and hit somebody, but what what do you say about Brook Batty? That's right there along the road. Okay, that hasn't happened. Anything could happen, right? We can't prevent accidents, but you're going to put a playground in the back where people can hang out, right? Hang out, do things they shouldn't be doing in their backyard. So, move that. Move the demonstration garden to the back. That's not going to be used very much at all. I'd really like to, you know, that needs I don't know why the point of even having that, but move the playground over where the demonstration garden is. That'd be an easy fix. You're going to have to have lights on it all the time because homeless people are transient population is going to go to your bathrooms. They're at 95th admission. Just a concern. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. I really hope you consider those things.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to participate in the public hearing or online? Yes, sir. Please come forward. State your name and address for us.

Sure. John Maroy, and I live at 90 uh 2327 96 Street, so just to the north of the community garden, uh which we've enjoyed. You know, we uh my concern first of all has to be about the safety of the kids. Um and so, uh I we we walk Lee Boulevard every pretty much every day. um between the bikers and there's a ton of bike traffic. Uh so that's a concern is you now have a parking lot where people are going to be coming out and it's going to introduce danger to those bikers. Um I think not having a sidewalk, I understand why there's not a sidewalk because of the fire station. Um but I think not having a fire a sidewalk is definitely a concern for the the children that would be coming to the park. Um I my initial uh complaint about this in in the very beginning which is this has been going on for seven eight years or whatever it has been going on is I I can't imagine putting a park next to a fire station. I just I think if you look around around the country or whatever I'm sure that that's not ideal to have fire fire trucks that have to rush out in an emergency and then you've got children and scooters and we know about the scooters. Um, so that's a major concern. And and and then just again having all the scooters coming into the park is a concern. And then as a resident who's probably the most affected, of course, I need to meet my neighbors as well, but um not having the landscape and the burm and uh and I think is a concern to me personally. So most concerned about security and then I would say personally the burm and having protection and things like that. So, and and of course, I'll go along with everybody else. I think the concessions and the food trucks is not Yeah, it's it's just definitely not not a desire of ours. That's for sure. I'd like to concede my

time back to this group. But anyway, thank you very much. I appreciate your and no disrespect to anybody. I know everybody's worked very hard on this. Uh and everybody likes the idea of a park or whatever. Um, but uh how far is Lee, you know, the Leewood Park from we we went to that park all the time when our kids were young all the time. Um, so I don't know. It's it sounds great, but uh anyway, I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to be heard on this case?

Sir, please come forward. Thank you. My name is Rick Burnau. I live at 9656 Meadow Lane. I am also the president of the Leewood Estates Homes Association. And I appreciate all the comments that I've heard from the residents. There isn't one view of our entire association of 1400 homes. There are many ways that people see this. But I think what's really happened is that over the interact meetings and other things, the plan has gotten better each time new ideas come up and it's been revised. But I would ask, as you had mentioned, uh that maybe some more time be given to let the neighbors really say here is the final plan. any other things rather than moving and just saying from the last interact to this meeting here's the changes let's approve it because I think that we can get a better one that deals with some of these issues of the BMS the uh trees lining up the crosswalk for safety and things like that we really appreciate everything you're doing I'm not sure what actions you need to take but my request would be give it just a bit more time and ways to inform the neighbors of what's going on. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this case? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Block. Seeing none, I move for closing of the public hearing. Second. Second. Commissioner McGurn. Uh, all in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed? Nay. Public hearing is closed. Mr. here. I apologize. Just for the record, I'd like to note that um Commissioner Colberg has dropped off. So now the vote will be 6-0. Thank you. Miss Claxton, would you like to have an opportunity to respond to the points raised during the hearing?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say that um there had been quite a bit of desire, I guess is the right word to use since 2010 when we first started talking about this space uh to have um the green space to have something more than uh what was like at Brook and also just the play features. I just when we talk about a playground, it's a little bit different. A playground to me is structural. That is not something that we're proposing for for this site. Uh we understand that the neighbors do not want to draw a lot of um people. When you have a destination playground like you have at our bigger parks, the all-inclusive playground, Tomahawk, those will draw people from all over the metro depending on what type of, you know, amenities you have there. So, I think that um staff is cognizant of what we would try to do there. Uh I can't speak to anything about the city hall because that's not something um that the staff, you know, that's a governing body initiative. So, um I think we'd continue to work with the residents as we've tried to do in the past. Um so, those would be my final comments and I don't know if um Scott would have anything that he wanted to add on the comments.

Scott, give you an opportunity as well if you if you wish. One short in regards to the the vegetation and screening uh around the perimeter. What we had shown is based off an existing survey where we saw existing trees and we just tried to infill where those were. My recollection is some of those properties already have in some of them don't. Um and so there may be a need to infill there, but um we'll be responding all to the requirements of the LDO as far as the screening requirements um that would occur along that perimeter. Okay. Thank you very much.

All right, that brings us up to discussion. Any commissioners like to uh discuss this case?

Mr. Chair, Mr. Black, I'm happy to start. Um there was a lot there. I appreciate uh the comments, the like I said the large packet. Um my time as the commissioner uh referred to I I go back with him to the parks advisory board some time ago. I think I've uh been a volunteer between this uh commission and that committee going on about 15 years. So I've been involved in those. The thing that I remember from much of that time is uh the need, the desire, the the requests for more parks north of 4 435. Uh I do live in the south and there are a lot of parks down uh in my part and uh my recollection is there there's there have been a lot of comments over the years about needing more uh recreational or just park areas, pocket parks. you know, I I you know, I don't know exactly what the terms have been used over the years, but smaller parks in the northern part of the uh city. So, I guess that maybe just starts my comments of I I think this is a unique um beautiful um uh you know, use of this space that I think would really be an asset to uh the city overall. Again, I appreciate the folks that back up to it. I think, you know, the city was over represented obviously with the folks here that it was not a bigger uh you know comments. I understand that that the the personal uh you know whether your property touches this property, you know, and I I appreciate all those comments. Uh but I I think for the bigger for the greater good of the city uh I think something along these lines is uh you know or this plan I should say uh is is very nice from my perspective. Um, you know, the city hall, the old city hall, I think the the reference to um the fire station actually being the original city hall, I think has more historical significance to me. I um uh you know, the the cost and as a taxpayer in this town. I don't

know that I want my tax dollars to go to restore a building that the experts have said is beyond uh restoring basically. Um you know, I think of my own house and the upkeep. My house is only 30 years old uh and what it takes 25 years old. So, you know, to to do all that for this building and then have folks come out and say, "We don't want you to use it for anything public," you know, seems like a waste of time and and money to me. Uh, so again, I I you know, whether the park, you know, I I think being close to a fire station, the the fire trucks are not at full speed coming out of the out of the fire station. Um, you know, the sidewalk, I think that that, you know, the comments that were made about the sidewalk, uh, this is a preliminary plan. I think that that stuff can be fine-tuned uh with the final uh the landscaping landscaping is not part of the preliminary plan uh application. Uh as as uh was mentioned um you know again I just I I I I know that there are negative things with everything that we take on as a as a community as a as a body. Um you know there were there have been lots of times for folks to interject on this. I think we could continue this to next month, next year, you know, five years from now, there's still going to be people coming out say with with opinions. I think it was said pretty well that that not everyone is ever going to be happy with no matter what we do or don't do. So, with that, uh, I think that this is a fine proposal, uh, and I am supportive of it. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Block, Commissioner Fishman.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I'd like to start my my comments by saying that I agree with Commissioner Block that this is a great place for a park. Uh there needs to be uh more park, more recreational uh u resources in the north part of the city and I can't think of anything better to do uh with this property uh than to create a park. That being said, uh, I do have a number of concerns that I'd like to express. Uh, let me tell you that I have been a resident of Leewood, probably living four blocks from this location since the early 1950s. And from my standpoint, uh there is nothing more emblematic uh no uh no building more emblematic, I should say, uh as to the as to what Leewood was when it was first developed. There's nothing more emblematic than the uh the old city hall. Uh I think it has more architectural and historical significance uh to the general public and and I must say it to me uh than the fire station does. Uh so if we're interested in preserving history, I think that is more uh well uh well done uh by saving the old city hall. Um, also let me say that there's been conversation about the cost of maintaining the old city hall as opposed to the uh to the fire station. I'd like

to note uh that it may be very expensive to uh rehabilitate the old city hall. However, I've seen nothing about the expense of rehabilitating that portion of the fire station that will remain. And so, you can't really argue about cost because uh both alternatives have a cost. Neither cost is known. Uh I you know you're actually going to take the plan is actually to take down a portion of the uh of the fire station. You know until you get into that you just don't know what that is going to cost. Um, I also want to note that uh I've read all of the um uh all all of the comments that were made by the citizens in resp uh from the interact meetings. And my informal guess is that uh those people wanting to save city hall outnumber uh the people that are in favor of maintaining the uh the fire station by I don't know maybe a factor of four or five. So most people it seems to me want to maintain city hall. Um, the playground in the current plan is a concern because it is buried back behind the fire station and I really don't think it is safe for children to be uh to be playing in a playground that cannot be seen from the street. uh it is hidden back there and I don't think that that is an appropriate place

to put a playground. If I were designing this, I would maintain city hall and I would put in a nice playground and this garden on the uh north side of the uh of the de of the park. And uh and I think that would be a better use, but I've not been a I've not gone to these city meetings. I haven't gone to the uh to the uh committee meetings, etc. And I kind of feel like I'm throwing cold water on a plan that a lot of people have spent a lot of time consider considering, but I think it's my job to just tell you how I feel about this plan. Um, and I do understand that pedestrian safety is a huge, huge concern. Uh there are no sidewalks on the east side of Lee Boulevard and there just aren't. Uh if there were, it would be a a different situation, but there aren't. And putting sidewalks on the east side of of Lee Boulevard is a much bigger issue than we are dealing with tonight. So my concern about uh the pedestrian safe safety is a real one. Uh, but you know, I have to also mention that whatever you do with this property is going to end up being a safety concern because people are going to have to get from the uh west side of Lee Boulevard to the east side of Lee Boulevard, unless you just leave well, even if you leave the property absolutely vacant, kids will go there to play. So that's the pedestrian safety to me is a concern, but a bigger issue. So, those

are my concerns and thank you for uh for listening. Any other comments? Um, Commissioner Bzer,

you thank you. Um, yeah, it it is an interesting comment and it's definitely true and those of us who have sat um on this bench for many years know there's absolutely no way to make everybody happy. It's just not a possibility. But for me personally, it's my I feel that it's very important to ensure that what we're doing is making a lot of people happy. And it's my feeling from reading everything that I read from the comments that were placed up here for us tonight and the comments that we heard from our community. The people are not there yet and are not happy and that is a huge concern to me. Um my first concern will continue to be pedestrian safety, the safety of the children, the safety of the children in the park, the park behind a building. There's many pieces to this and you know for a lot of us this is the first time we've seen this. It's a different plan than what was than what was there before. It's very different. Um, I appreciate all the time and energy that has gone into this and I know it is a lot, but to for me to see this for the first time here right now is a concern. Um, and I I feel hearing what the public is saying and what the neighbors are saying, I understand those concerns. I hear them. I I really I really understand them. I I'm I think the mood around different parts of Leewood lately has been very very focused on safety for

a for very very valid and very important reasons. And I think we have to really look at that in a different light. I think if we put crosswalks but we don't put proper signage, no matter what the signage is supposed to be, I I think we need more. I think we have to air on the side of an abundance of caution and I think we need to do more. Um, it it would be hard for me at this point to be able to approve this plan the way it is, especially since it has not gone back to the public after the last interact meeting when a lot of major changes have been made. I feel like it needs to go back for another round. Um and that my personal opinion is that this board or this um commission needs more time to discuss it and really learn a little bit more about it ourselves.

Thank you, Commissioner Bills or Commissioner McGurn.

Thank you. Um I'm going to narrow my comments to two thoughts. Um and and that does not indicate that um I don't share a lot of the comments that were just made. I do, but just for the sake of time, um I do want to thank everyone for the effort that was invested so far by the city staff and by the citizens. Uh as pointed out earlier, it's happened over the years. So that's excellent. And and as referenced before, I was on the parks and rec board and we talked about this, I don't know, seven years ago or something. So um I am suggesting a continuence u so that more progress and more community influence can be made before we vote. Um, I think the the fact that I agree with the fact that uh us seeing this tonight for the first time and having not had a work session about this, having not had input previously, um I think um causes um some angst. Uh and I'd like to get to the point where I think huge progress has been made. I think more progress is needed. Um and now uh you all understand the input that we have provided in addition to the input associated with the community after a new plan was developed beyond what they had seen before. So, it feels like um some additional time would allow for those conversations, those updates, the the progress needed to uh establish hopefully a um final preliminary plan. Um, and then I would just like to ask uh given the various uh numerous questions and comments about the missing burm and trees. Um, I'd like to ask the city if there's anyone on the staff tonight that

could speak to those comments. Um, this is the second time in what, three months that missing BMS and trees has come up. The other one was probably I'm forgetting the number, but two decades ago. Uh, and nobody or maybe three decades ago and nobody was still around that could speak to that. But I'm curious if those if that burm was supposed to be much larger and if significant trees were supposed to be on it and that was what was passed in the plan associated with the new fire station on Lee Boulevard. Uh Chris Claxton, parks and recreation director. I don't remember anything about the burn with the fire station because that was not part of my overview. Um I do know that Mr. Shaw mentioned that he had recently met with um some of our forestry group, our superintendent. There's at least one tree that's dead, perhaps more by now. Um, I was up there a couple weeks ago, but I do know that the staff plans to replant those. Uh, whatever's missing, they're going to replant those with whatever they can find, you know, um, that's available at the nurseries right now. So, but I don't have any information about the burm.

And I appreciate that your focus wasn't on that outside aspect of the property. Um, is there anybody else that was with the city three years ago when all this was decided? Not tonight. So, it it feels like there's an answer that's owed. So, Michelle's got something. I'm sorry. I apologize. That's okay. I l I looked right to the left too fast.

I I just kind of zipped right by. Um No, anybody that is currently on staff actually was not here with the planning staff was not here when the fire station went through. So, we'd have to go back and look at what the landscape plan looks like. Perfect. and work with the parks department to see about getting it back to what that approved plan was and double check the burm. Um that'd be perfect. Yeah, we we did do um probably about 18 months ago or so a um a landscape inspection with the previous um with the contractor and uh did a full site visit and had number of um landscaping that was either missing or in very poor health. And so we were working with the contract at that time. Once we kind of released the contractor, then our parks department and our arborists, our horicultural team, they were able now to get in there and really um check the health and maintain the health of the of the plants.

It may be too much to ask, but do you do you happen to remember if you thought based on what was approved that the burm and the trees that have been planted were following what had been uh approved? So there is uh the one BM that actually comes to mind is along the southern property line and the contractor actually placed evergreens um on the side of the burm I believe. Yeah. And actually where they placed it based on the knowledge and expertise of our forestry group that those trees would not have survived where the contractor had placed them. And that that you said was on the south side of the propert.

That was on the south side. Yeah. There's a small burm like between the drive and then the property to the south. I could be wrong, but it kind of felt to me like the they were talking about the eastern border where those four or five neighbors backed up to that. So, yeah, we'd have to go out and take the landscape plan and take the grading plan and actually see it because nobody on staff currently was was around at least with planning when that all was approved. I think we'd appreciate an update when that's available. Yep. That'd be great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Natleman.

Had to unmute quick. All right. Um, here's some of my comments. Um, I first want to thank those who worked on the plan and the revisions. You know, I agree with one of the written comments in our packets. It was signed by the 96th Street residents that this could be a jewel in North Leewood when it's completed. I think there's a lot to like, including the place for programming with classes. However, um my two main concerns are of course pedestrian safety and that the residents have not really been updated um with this plan and presented to them. Um the public hearing during Thanksgiving week is really not adequate. Um this may well be the final plan, but I'd like to give the residents time to review, so I agree that a continuence makes a lot of sense.

Thank you, Commissioner Adelman. Commissioner Carver. Excuse me. Uh, I agree with the idea of a continuence and hearing the neighbors. Uh, I'd probably want to add something a bit different on uh changing the on the demolition of the old city hall. I don't see why there would be a need to try to uh revitalize that. I think it's uh it's too big of a task for the tax dollars that we have now. And I do think the plan that we got today is a whole lot better than the first one and could really be an asset and uh I think meets the future needs rather than trying to take care of something from the past.

Thank you, Commissioner Carlberg. Any other comments from the commission?

Okay. Um I would like to thank the public both that are come out on a uh Tuesday night before Thanksgiving. I I know that's probably not what you wanted to do uh on your Tuesday night before Thanksgiving. And so thank you for making the sacrifice to come out and share your your comments with us. Uh and also the people that all the comments in the interact meetings and and the emails that we got. Uh we do read those and and we do appreciate all the comments we get uh on this. Um as I alluded to earlier, I I got my start on the the parks and recreation advisory board as did uh commissioners block and murn. Uh, and I can remember since the the dawn of time of getting on that commission, uh, Miss Claxton and staff were talking about, uh, keeping an eye on this property for future, uh, development for park space. And at the time, we were hearing that from residents and from city council people, uh, council members that were on at that time of, you know, North Leewood didn't really have anything. Uh, and since then, we had Brook Batty, uh, and that's really been about it. So, I can certainly understand residents wanting some green space uh to just, you know, have to to go and and and sit and and mingle with other residents. So, I I definitely agree with the um with the parks aspect. You know, city hall, I I think the city council already made their decision with it to to uh to raise it. So, uh, while I understand the history behind it and wanting to keep it, um, from the pictures in there and from the deterioration and the product used, the lead pipes, uh, you know, unless Travis Kelce is willing to write us a nice check, uh, to preserve it, it's it's going to cost a lot of money, and it's really not usable. I mean, it's not ABA compliant. It's got stairs all over the place. It's uh I I don't know what you would

repurpose it into except a u a building that is is, you know, preserved on on uh on Lee Boulevard, which I I certainly understand that. I'm I'm a fan of history. You know, Casey Mo's going through uh some some challenges on Main Street right now where they're tearing down buildings from the 1800s um because they're they've deteriorated to the point of of um not being useful. just it become damaged buildings. So I I completely understand that and get that. Um I have not been a part of any of the meetings previously and I know just looking through our our packet this has been talked about recently uh multiple meetings over the past uh at least two two years based on the minutes. So, uh, I think a little finetuning, uh, would not be out of the question to give all of us a comfort level, uh, and to get, uh, the public a little bit chance to get more input. So, with that, any other comments?

Okay, Mr. Chair has commented Michelle. Um, I do actually staff is actually um, requesting either a recommendation of approval or denial to the O to the December 15th governing body meeting. Based on some of the comments I'm hearing from the discussion, we are actually asking for a recommendation of approval or or denial. So, this can go to the governing body meeting in December. Why is that? That is how staff has been directed.

What's the reasoning behind it though? I mean, what what's an aggressive timetable? This is um on the governing body's agenda to have this wrapped up by the end of the year. Some sort of movement. Anyone like to make a motion?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Block, I move for approval of case 124-25 Leewood Fire Station number one in Park, request for approval of revised preliminary development plan located south of 96th Street and east of Lee Boulevard. Is there a second on the motion? Second. Second, Commissioner Carlberg. All in favor of approving uh case 124-25 Lewood Fire Station One in Park, please signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Nay.

Nay. Uh that is 245 against trying to get my math right this time. Michelle uh with the commissioners uh Carlberg and Block 4 and uh commissioners Natleman, McGurn, Belle, Coleman, and Fisherman against. Is there another motion on the table? Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Burnern,

I'd like to make make a motion for continuence of case number PC124-25, Leewood Fire Station One and Park Revised Preliminary Development Plan. Second. Second. Mr. Chairman, I've got a question that I'd like to ask. Uh, is it appropriate to vote for a continuence on a matter that has just been denied by a vote of five to two?

I believe so. Miss Knight, can you repeat the question? Is it appropriate to uh uh to move to continue or to to approve a continuence of a matter that has just been denied by the city council? I'm sorry, by the planning commission. It wasn't denied. It was a motion to approve. That motion failed. That's true. So, a new motion can be can be had. It's the motion that that failed. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Is there another? You gave the motion, correct? Yes. Motion. Is there a second on Commissioner McGurn's motion, Carl?

For continuence. For continuance. Is Scott still there? I'll second. He said, Oh, did he say? I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I didn't hear you, Commissioner Carlberg. Okay. Commissioner McGuran with the motion. Commissioner Carlberg with the second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All in favor of continuing case 12425 Leewood Fire Station One in Park, please signify by saying I. I. I. I. Opposed. Nay.

Let me do a roll call vote because I did not hear everyone. Uh, Commissioner Nelman. I. Commissioner McGurn. Hi. Commissioner Bzer. I. Commissioner Black. No. Commissioner Fishman. I. Commissioner Carlberg.

I chairman Coleman. I That's one, two, three, four, five. One. One, two, three, four, five, six, four, one against Commissioner Black being the negative on that one. Okay, Mr. Chair. Yes. Are we um is there a date certain that you're wanting to continue this too? Uh, Commissioner did not.

No, it's open-ended for city staff to determine appropriately. My computer's dead, but I think your bylaws say it would be the next meeting. I But I don't have the bylaws in front of me. Third third Tuesday in January. Fourth Tuesday. Fourth Tuesday. Fourth Tuesday in January.

Can we have a work session on this before that? First things first, if we put it on to uh the next meeting, which would be January 27th. Is Has the calendar been issued for next year? Yes, it's going to get emailed out tomorrow. That'd be awesome. So, thank you. So about the bylaws, the next meeting would be the 27th then

from memory. That's my my memory of the bylaws. It's the next meeting. All right. Thank you very much for everyone in the audience. We appreciate you coming out. Um couple things on our personal agenda. Uh we have our holiday gathering on December 9th and uh we do have a work session scheduled for January 13th. Maybe this should be anything else. M scheduled but yes that's true.

No. So currently we do have the work set a work set session scheduled for the January 13th 2026. Um, at this time I do not know what the um agenda would be on that. And then of course we have our regular meeting on January 27th. So that'll be our regular uh business meeting starting 2026. Very good. Everyone have a very happy Thanksgiving and uh we'll see you in a couple weeks. Thank you. We are journed.