Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mr. Jericho for I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Dear heavenly father, we ask you to be with us tonight as we do the business of the city for the good and the welfare of the people. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. Stand on the mics. Thank you. All right. This will be item C. This is approval agenda. So, we're going to ask the planning commission to remove item F.2, which is a strategic growth zone from the agenda if they want to, and then approve the agenda for November 10th, 2025. F2 is um like I said the strategic growth zone. There was some concern among some of the council members about the possibility of discussing a strategic growth zone since we just had two new council members be elected. Uh they'll be appointed you know sworn in probably January. And so the question is okay discussing the strategic growth zone discussing growth of the city density land use all that stuff. maybe that's something that should be considered again under a new joint workshop maybe within a year. And so one of the things that came up is is it possible for the planning commission to consider um tableabling this indefinitely until there's been a joint workshop. So of course it's completely up to you if you want to table it or not. Um there's no pressure either way. Um if you do want to table it then you would simply just say we will the chair can make a motion or ask for a second or and just say or if anybody else wants to make a motion and second to remove F2 from that agenda then approve the agenda. So at that point I'll leave it up to you. Make a motion to approve the agenda removing item F2 strategic growth zone.

I will second. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Very good. With that, I'll skip over F2 when it comes up, but we'll go ahead and go to citizens comment. So, anybody at this point is allowed to speak. They're allowed three minutes. State their first and last name where they reside. And Mr. Chair, at this point, you can open citizens comments. All right. Open citizens comments. Very good. Anybody see? Close citizens comments.

All right. The comments opposed. This item the consent agenda. This is approved. The minutes for E1 which we just as a review is October 14th. We got a John Walzone case zone number 25-4 site plan for Hopper Mini Storage and the site plan for Taco TJ the new building. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from October 14th, 2025. Second. All in favor? I I

Very good. This is item F or zoning appeals. This is going to be F1. This is a conditional use permit for Hopper Mini Storage, case number CP25-1. So the Hopper Mini Storage business is located off Hopper Drive north of the North Front Road. It is zone C2 general business district which allows for the storage if the conditional use permit is approved. The conditional use permit is an approved use with conditions. If the planning commission wishes to impose any additional conditions in searching through the city records, the community develop myself cannot find recorded CP for this property. Anything is most likely grandfathered in. In 2020, the community development director brought a site plan for planning commission from the storage unit which was approved by community development director but failed to review for a valid CP on file. Uh Mr. Mr. James Hopper would like to place another storage unit on the site and the community director be myself as appropriate to require CP now file private consideration of the site plan for another unit. So the plan commission did approve the site plan. This is the additional use permit that when site plan was approved contingent upon an approval of a conditional use permit and so with publication requirements and whatnot it's being considered today. So these are the standards that plan commission has to review for considering a conditional use permit. At any time you have any questions about feel free to ask me. So the board may grant conditional use when it makes specific written findings of fact based upon particular evidence presented to it at its hearing which supports conclusions that the proposed conditional use of complies with all applicable regulations including lot size requirements vault regulations use limitations and performance standards unless of concurrent applications and process for variance. So article 41096 states that the mini storage facilities can exist with conditional use. The site plan has been sub shown in conformance to the bulk regulations which you guys saw in the October 14th meeting. The proposed conditional use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other properties in the neighborhood. Uh this is a continuation. Purple is my answer to the questions. This is a continuation of existing use. In reviewing the historic valuation of the properties of budding location, there is no indication

of devaluation. I'm not sure how people would ever answer that question without going through a deep dive of the analytics. So I did do a deep dive in the analytics. So I just but I'm not sure how they would advance that in the past. Anyway, these are all the properties that are buying the hopper mini storage. And as you can see over time, this is 2015 to 2025. This is appraised value. And as you can see, this dash line is just a linear extension of this dotted line, which is the highest value property. That's a buddy that traditional that the hopper storage. And it's got an upward trend. In fact, when we approved that um additional unit, there was no reevaluation of that additional property to fight against it. So, I don't see any negative impact on upgraded values properties uh for hopper mini storage. Like I said, I'm not sure how they would have answered that in the past, but location size of conditional use, nature, and intensity operation involvement or conducted in connection with and the location of site with respect to streets given access to are such that the conditional use will now dominate the median neighborhood as the prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with applicable zoning district regulations and determining whether the conditional use will still dominate the median neighborhood. Consideration shall be given to the location, nature, size, height of building, structures, walls, fences on the side, the nature mix and the landscape and screening on the site. So the development is a continuation as mentioned of the existing use of budding of frontage road along other commercial uses with the exception of the church and then to the north they had residential properties but there was some screening. They did have screening on the north side and they did have chain link prints on the west side separate from the church but it is a continuation and the intensity of it is such that they're adding an additional building but that additional building is not greater than some of the existing buildings that are already on site. Off street parking and loading areas will be provided in accordance with standard step 4 article 5. These regulations such areas will be screened from enjoying residential uses and located such affect such residential uses from jurious effects. So the additional unit is to the west and are located behind the existing buildings.

Beyond the future unit is a church trees are currently in use to the north and east adequate utility drainage and other such necessary facilities have been installed or will be provided by planning dedications or guarantees and utilities are already in existence. So we already know this is an existing use. They already have roads, sewer, water. This is just an additional building. It's not the introduction of a completely new land use. Adequate access road rails, entrance, and exit drives and or access controls available will be provided by planning dedications or guarantees that shall be designed to prevent traffic hazards and minimize traffic congestion in public streets and roads. So that currently dumps onto that north front right now and so that'll just be a continuation of that. So roads are currently in place and ingress egress is readily provided. So there's small publication cost for the public hearing notice legally approved as a form. It's recommended planning commission have commission chair both open the public hearing receive comments close the public hearing and approve the conditional use permit case number CUP25-1. So at this point Mr. Chair you can open the public hearing.

Okay we'll open the public hearing. All right very good to talk if you want. Hi I'm Jim. I can hear as much. All right. All right we'll close the public here.

Okay. Very good. So at this point deliberation Make a motion to approve east per second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Very good. Well, at this point, you can save the rest of the night or you can also go and submit your A&E and ABCD and have fun with them. As far as this is, I probably will let you guys see. Okay. I Well, thank you for coming. We appreciate it. that.

All right, this is item F2, but we are skipping over this. So, we're going to skip and consider at a later date. This is item F3. This is R4, high density residential modification. So, planning commission city council has approved multiple changes to zoning regulations to accommodate reasonable changes in the market for residential development. The new proposed modification follows the same sentiment with the idea of housing that is unique to the area being proposed on a more regular basis. The new modification allows housing in place on a lot line similar to R2 zoning at least the 5ft separation between buildings. This modification allows buildings to be staggered in a closer proximity to one another increasing the density of development and encouraging a more vertical development potentially and enticing commercial development to take notice. So, so this plush modifications to text of the R4 district. So, most of this is staying pretty much exactly the same. The big one would be that the minimum sideyards would be zero. However, building must maintain a 5ft separation from its neighboring building unless approved by a variance or an exception would be for those buildings and approved lots. But minimum rear yard is 11.5 unless the driveway is located in the rear of the house. Then shall have a 20ft driveway accommodate off streetet parking and this was taken into account when I saw Jacob's farms and I thought that's probably appropriate to try to have some of that at least have a separation if you're going to have rear access because of for off streetet parking purposes. Maximum lock coverage. There's no limitation other than those required by the by the setbacks. There's small publication cost for the public hearing approved as form. It is recommended commission both one open public hearing receive comments close the public hearing and approve modifications to article 4.107 of the zoning regulations. So, Mr. Chair, at this point you can open the public hearing. We'll

open the public hearing. Very good. and we'll close the building. Very good. At this point, I just need deliberations.

How widespread is park for used around town? You know, a lot of

Glad you jumped ahead. That's a good question. Let me jump ahead. I have a map for a different item. Here you go. So R4 would be kind of the more dark brown. You can see it right here. So here's Excuse me. Is that right? Yeah. R4 is here and we have R4 here. We have an R4 here. You never really know when you do a presentation the colors will get washed out as much, but technically it was supposed to be a difference between the orange here, which is the R2 and the R4. But it's a It's probably about 10% of our residential. So 10% of the residential zoning is probably R4. We found that actually, you know, the hope is always that if you have a new zoning classification that gets adopted, actually gets used. And so we're pretty happy it's actually being utilized. So that's been nice. R3 is kind of it's just kind of interesting like when you notice these things as you progress, but you you R3 has never really been something everybody's wanted. They jumped from R2 to R4. they just jump right over R3 and that's come up a lot and that's just kind of interesting. We did have an R3 at one point when we were doing the 3lex back in 2019. The gentleman wanted to do a fiveplex and there was some contention. You know, we went through the resoning and R3 is one of the only zoning classifications we have that sets a minimum square footage requirement for dwelling units. And so R3 says, hey, you have to have a minimum, I think, of 3,000 square ft per dwelling unit. It's the only zone classification that has that in our sub regulations. The rest of them don't have that. R1A has a square footage requirement for the building, but not for the lot. You know, they have a minimum for the lot. But R3 says, hey, if you had one dwelling unit, you'd have at least 3,000. If you have two, you need to have six. If you have three, you need to have nine. And so, that was kind of interesting. So, we created R4 with no limitation in terms of how many dwelling units you could put on there. and it's been used quite frequently to try to introduce different types of housing, which has been really

interesting. But R3 doesn't really come up anymore. It's almost an obsolete zoning. I couldn't tell you an exact percentage, but I want to say it's around 10%. And the conditional uses um are allowed in that area if they're built as part of the the home itself for the the dwelling unit.

So conditional use is basically any use way it's written it's going to be well the way most conditional uses are written is that it's considered an acceptable use with conditions that the planning commission wants to put a condition on there which means technically it's an acceptable use. If you don't put any conditions on it, it's just, you know, considered an acceptable use. But it depends on what that conditional use is. And so if there's something that's considered perceived as being a good idea, but maybe you want to put additional stipulations on it, then you can approve the conditional use or you can deny conditional use. Maybe you think it's too intense for that neighborhood. It's on a case by case situation. For example, there was one of those R4s was right at the corner of 183rd at Maple.

Yeah. Um, so theoretically they could do a conditional permit for another coffee shop there, right? Yeah. Yeah. Conditional use would mean that they could do another Yeah. potentially for a coffee shop. And so then, but then of course you guys would see it. You know, I think we're down to what three now. So yeah, I know. I'm concerned. I will admit I'm concerned and I'm working on it to diligently bring in at least 17 more as fast as I can. So rest assured

caffeine will not be lacking in daughter. We will do our best. anything. I'll make a motion to approve the modifications to article 4.107 regulations. All in favor? I I Any opposed?

Very good. This is item F4. This is the overlay district for the US 5496 bypass. So the city recognizes that partnering with stakeholders and the state, the county and local government is central for the US 5496 bypass, which I'll here after refer to as simply the bypass to reach completion in order to participate further beyond monetary contributions to the rightway acquisition, city's asking the planning commission and city council consider adopting an overlay district in the zoning regulations and official zoning map outlining the area impacted by the bypass. This overlay district will have the same scope and implementation as Witchaw's overlay district and that any development proposing to build in or next to the bypass will have to go through a more rigorous review before approval. Planning mission is reviewing adding an overlay district to article 4 that outlines proposed corridor improvements and adds an additional layer of review. So this is just a portion of the bypass I will say but this is 150 ft buffer around the center line of the existing KOT designed bypass which would be from 54 running all the way up to 96 if you can imagine and the bypass has been in talks since I want to say the early 90s so obviously it's ongoing and it may never happen and it may happen. And so questions about zoning and land use restrictions and the legality and how do you implement an overlay district without creating undue burden economically on the property owners. And so the way this overlay district has been drafted, it's very much a copy and paste of what the county has with some modifications. One very key modification I'm going to jump ahead is right here. Uh, under subsection E, the zoning administrator, me and myself, can terminate the conditions imposed by the ordinance if the property involved is no longer contained within the

designated district. Basically, and Robert Cling, our attorney, is saying if KOT says it doesn't need the land, then it can be unrestricted. And that's that's interesting because when you read the ordinance I've drafted, like I said, it's a mimicry of the county. I had some concerns because that would mean the way it's drafted, no building permits can be issued inside of this yellow line and that theoretically somebody platted this whole section over here and they have lots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 they're crossing this yellow line. All those lots could not have any building permits issued on it. And so in that concern obviously we want more building. We want more growth. I reached out to attorneys who were talking about it and they thought according to our attorney at least one of them that it's somewhat of a tacid recognition that if the state does not buy the land they are implying that they don't care about the land that's in that district basically like I'm not interested in it and if that happens and the state's like we're not buying it then we can say this yellow if it's let's say it's this law is no longer in effect and we can remove it from the zoning map. That's kind of a way of trying to protect us from what we considered a taking, which in land land use parliament is basically illegal. Like it'd be like if I said you can't do anything with your land because we think there's going to be a freeway at some point. By state law, that's a taking, which means we would have to pay you for restricting your economic potential. And so to avoid that, we say, "Hey, KOT, do you want to buy it or not?" And if KOT says no, then we go, "Okay, well then this is no longer in that district." That way, if that property owner says, "You're restricting my economic potential," we're like, "No, we're not." Kot says, "I don't want it. You guys can

do whatever you want with it." So that kind of gives us a way of circumnavigating this. Another thing about this is that it shows the state. So we're kind of playing both sides. We're both saying, "Hey state, we're on your side. Do you want to buy the land? Do you want to compensate the property owner? Do you want to compensate the developer who buys the land?" So that kind of forces the state to make a decision. But it also we play the other side because then we say, "Hey, Mr. property owner like if the state doesn't want to pay you, we're not going to restrict your economic potential. So that gives us a bargaining chip with the state to say pay them and then also if they say we don't want to we say you guys can do what you want within the rounds of zoning and everything else the legality with it. So that's the justification.

Is there a time frame on that that they can that they have to make make a decision? the state? No, they don't. There's a lot of conversation going back and forth, but every time I talk to the state, um, I talk with the rightway acquisition supervisor, and usually he's the one who's most attuned to how much land they have, how much money they have, how much they have left to buy, and they don't feel like there's a real rush. So as they go higher up the chaot ladder, the sentiment is generally we don't think the project's going to happen or the project may not happen as quickly as we think or it may happen if everything if the stars align and they get enough funding, you know, so you never really know but there is no rush on their end to buy that. So, but we want to be sensitive to that at the same time to say, "Hey, if we start developing, especially in this yellow line area over here, we want to at least give the state an opportunity to say, do you want to buy this from the developer or not?" This section right here because if they do, then they could just write a check directly to the developer and then that would help offset some of the developers carrying costs almost right away. And so, that would help them out. So, it's kind of a way of partnering with everybody simultaneously without trying to put the city in a sticky situation. So, kind of skeptical for how that would would work. I mean, this is a I mean, this is a very high um this area's had a lot of growth in the last 1015 years. There's lane development right now just to the north. There's all those

all ducks to the west. St. just finished the dump stakes.

I mean, let's say that that last student's a farmer owns that land on the southwest corner of 167 in Maple. I mean, if he was going to sell it to a developer who was going to develop it and to say like high high value houses versus um what maybe KOT would give for undeveloped farmland. Um, it just doesn't I mean maybe they get the value the developer thinks they could get out of out of out of houses but or maybe they maybe not. It seems like this is this I mean you can we've got the language saying well technically we're not but it seems like this does at least put put pressure on on that on the land owner and that it it kind of it feels like it does restrict. I mean it doesn't technically restrict but it the intent of restricting seems to be there.

Yeah. And that's and that's a fair concern because I I think most of the property owners that this yellow line touches at least and I can't say dependably but at least most people I've talked to are somewhat aware that the state has at some point discussed the 5496 bypass. So they're not unaware of it. Um, and you can see some of the cutouts here of where the state has purchased land for the 5496 bypass and the K42 54 bypass down here. And so I think at least generally speaking, they are aware of it. But I do understand the concern. You're saying that hey, if we throw this on a zoning map, at least it makes it more implicitly clear like hey there theoretically could be a bypasser. But like I said, ideally the state would be like, "Well, we're going to pay for it." It may not be, like you said, the highest and best price, but at least they'll at least throw a dollar amount out there. And the property owner has the right to refuse it.

And if they refuse it, the state says, "Well, we're not going to pay you for it." Well, then it just the zoning goes away for that. The goes away. So, at least it gives them an opportunity to work with the state. I guess this just kind of also like I said it it makes it more of a joint collaboration between us and the state. So they feel like we're at least trying to do our part. Our contributions to rightway acquisition have been $2,500 a year. So not nearly enough even to really offset the cost of inflation and land appreciation. So, this just kind of says, hey, it's more of a we're trying our part to try to partner with you guys, but if they don't do their part, then we won't we won't say that they're restricted. Developer or whoever the land owner can sell it however they want. They can build however they want.

The state has purchased some of this land already, right? You know, some of it. So, like I said, over here and they bought this portion.

Yeah, they this one over here, this little triangle, they have that. They have this section down here. But as you're aware, if you go further south, this project, this 5496 project is also tied to the 54K42 project, which goes to the south. And we know that project terminates right down here. I don't know if you can see my pointer, but right down here, you run right into 23rd South, which is completely platted and has improvements there. So that whole project, I mean, we would have it run straight into houses. And so I don't think the state is going to condemn the 23rd South development with Paul Kelsey off of off 183rd, I'm sorry, 167 and 23rd. So I it's hard when we see all this development happening to think that this project is still going to manifest but at least we can give somebody particularly the state opportunity to work with property owner and at least give them bargaining ship at the same time I suppose but I do understand the concerns We need to open the public hearing and close the public hearing to be official.

Yep. So you guessed it. It will be first open the public hearing, receive comments, close the public hearing, and approve modifications to artic zoning regulations because we would put this on the official zoning back. So, Mr. Chair at this point, we'll open the public hearing. Very good. And we'll close the public hearing unless you have Did you guys want to talk about this at all? Nobody's running up. So,

very good. Close the public hearing deliberation. There's language in here about, you know, no property within the district shall be any use, including a commercial use requiring a permit other than those uses of when it was established. Any new use, but allowed by writing underlying zoning, blah blah blah shall be allowed only after the present use has been approved or provided for section. It just seems like if it is restricting, you know, the state wants the land, they can buy it. I just don't I don't think it's right to take somebody's land. I mean, this is taking existing land that's our our one and adding addition additional restrictions to it um for potential that future use that snow is going to be there or not. I hear what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I see it as state do still do that. This just puts it in basically says this is the area and before we approve something we're have to make sure it's not going to get yeah like I said mostly it's a partnership with the state mostly because we're trying to we're trying to work with the state as much as possible. They thought in the '9s that

this wasn't going to develop as fast as it's been developing and so they reached out to us before like have you adopted an overlay district and generally no I mean kind of for some reasons that commissioner Mulligan has said and I you know like I don't know if we want to engage in an overlay district you know this could create some potential legality if somebody said you're taking my property restricting it too much but then as time progressed and more cities have partnered May in particular said, "Hey, we're going to actively do this." Cedric County said, "We're going to actively do this." And then Witchah finally started contributing, not very much, but they have started contributing something to Rightway Acquisition. We said, "Okay, if we show that we are a good partner in that we are trying to outline where the bypass would be to at least let the state know that, hey, and any potential buyers that the state could potentially buy that yellow section from them, then at least we've done our part to say that we're trying to show everybody. We're not trying to first of all hide anything. It's right there. There's the OA district. And it's also on mobile land records. If you go to the county's mobile land records, it'll pop up. Not on our end because they don't deal with our zoning, but on the county, if you click through the layers that they have on mobile land records, it'll pop up and you can see it. And so we're just simply showing, hey county, hey Maze, hey state, like we're we understand we're partnering with you guys on this assuming that maybe it might happen, but if it doesn't at least we can reach out to the state and say do you want to buy it or not? And if you don't want to buy it, then we can just simply take that parcel and remove it from that district. It kind of forces the conversation in a way because then we say to the state with all of our growth, we're one of the highest growing cities, fastest growing cities, do you want to buy the land or not? So, it really kind of pushes it

back on them and say, do you want to buy this or not? If you don't want to buy it, then we simply remove it. And we have talked to a couple developers that want to buy this track and this track and want to do different types of developments and they're aware of the bypass. And the question they have is, okay, well, let's have the state write us a check. There's no nothing wrong with that, but we wouldn't if the state says we're not going to write you a check, then we'll simply say those yellow bars go away. So, I guess that's where my question. If let's say someone bought it tomorrow and wanted to develop it, and we ask the state that question,

can they simply say, "No, we're not ready yet, but we still think we're going to." And they could they could potentially delay it for 10 years if they wanted to or or can we address the issue faster than that? We address the issue because the reality is if somebody says I want to buy it, they have a due diligence period. Do you know what I mean? That due diligence is usually 160 days. So I would say hey state you have two days give us 48 hours and let us know if you want to buy us or not because they have money sitting there. The question is it's not a matter of do they have the money or not.

They have them at least some of the money. So the question is hey this is on now this somebody theoretically let's say wants to buy this hey state I'm going to shoot the email I'm going to include the map I'm going to show that this bypass overlay that we've adopted is there theoretically if we assume we do adopt it here's that overlay 150T buffer around the center line of your proposed design by it and if they say no then we go okay well then we're going to let them develop it the way they want plat it the way they want and I'm not going to put a reserve in here or ask them to separate that then we go build out our business if they end up releasing I'm going to call it what's up top does that mean everything below it then get released as well

no it' be on a parcel by parcel consideration which is a good point because obviously if this develops and what's the whole point of having over district down here because you just cut the whole thing off and that's a question that the state has asked and we've asked the state back like hey Guys, just like down here on the south side, 23rd South got plotted. You had the opportunity to buy it and they didn't. So, are they ever going to connect 54 to K42? Probably not, unless they want to do a big loop around, you know. So, we give the state ample opportunity. And to be fair, I know it's weird, but there's some developers who like the idea of having this here because that gives them a bargaining chip to potentially buy the land and then pressure the state to give them money and then they can take the money to reduce their carrying costs or reduce their loan from the bank. So, it's a strategic position that they put themselves in. But at least we're not trying to, you know, tell the state we're not partnering with them. And at least we're not trying to be hold our cards to our chest and say that there's we never considered this before.

I think it makes sense. I mean, it's a fairly likely area to be, you know, be built out soon and we're just talking about the roughly the two miles shown here. Correct.

Correct. yellow, which our our sides are right here, you know, so we go from here, you know, and jog all the way around. Technically, this design goes this way, you know, right along here, goes out that way, and then jumps over 215 and goes over to the plane. So, but we don't have any of that shown on there. We removed it, of course. So, we're just talking about the yellow, right? Now if the state does let's say somebody does buy that they want to develop it goes through the process state says no is the state done they can't come back 10 years later and say

the state is a is a government so they're technically never done so they can they can use police powers they can use police powers property they haven't had to do it that often but they they have combination of you needed property in Kansas you don't own property so they own the property your team get the property. So they can use police powers to take that property.

So they're they're never done. But the thing is for them to do condemnation, they would need to have a timeline. There has to be a process. They have to show the courts. If they condemn your property without your will, just like if we condemn your property without your will, we have to show the courts why we're doing it. It has to be a public good. And usually have to give a timeline and show the reasoning behind and the rationale. They don't have a timeline. So, they're not sure when this will ever happen. So, they're very hesitant to condemn also because if you condemn it, the court makes a determination of the value, not them and the property owner. So, let's say you think it's 10,000 an acre and they think it's 9,000 an acre and you guys settle on 9500. The court might think it's 15,000 an acre and then they're in trouble because the court determines that based on their appraised value, it's 15,000. they have to write that check. So they'd rather negotiate and not condemn. Especially around this area where we've seen acres go up from Commissioner Black is very much aware that it started out around, you know, 7,000 acre. It's very much now close to 30,000 an acre. So the state back in ' 92 when they thought they would be able to acquire all this land would be sweaty if they took you to court because then they're going to be paying out the nose to acquire the land. So, this is a complicated dance that we're performing here and we're all kind of dancing with two left feet at the same time. So, just to be aware, but at least we show that we're partnering with them on that. These are all good questions. Feel free to ask as much as you want. If

we didn't do the overlay and that land got purchased, would would the city still approach the state or would it just go? We have before. That would be just because you want to, not because of any obligation.

Yeah, because we want to. Well, I to be fair, I don't exactly love the state, but they're nice enough to work with on occasion, depending on who you talk to. So, it's the rightway acquisition guy. He's a very nice guy. There's some of the people people who work in the state I'm not too fond of, but most of them are lovely people. But that's beside the point. But when we reach out to the state, we're trying to be civil. We're trying to be a good partner there. Sometimes we don't even have to reach out to the state. developer buy who you know hires an engineering firm. The engineering firm is very much aware of this and they will reach out to the state and simply say do you want to buy it on behalf of the developer and so we don't need to get involved in that process but it comes up quite a bit as you're probably aware just with the amount of development it's come up a lot but whether or not we'll ever see it it's just really hard to say but when I first had this conversation in 2019 it was $500 million for the project and it's since gone up to a billion 1.2 2 billion 1.3 billion. So I doubt I would see it, but at the same time we want to be sensitive to that potential. Freeways can negatively impact residential value within a/4 mile, but they can have a positive impact on commercial value within a/4 mile. That's according to a study from Texas A&M, but that's also depending on if it's a fly over or not. the original design was apply but since then I think the state have generally decided they want to do an act grade bypass so right now I think just hard to say roughly four or 500 houses probably within that negatively impacted by this that we're going to support

well like I said we're not building the highway be the state that built it but we want to be aware of that one way that we could mitate ate that would be tree buffer rows, maybe higher density development that would separate single family. There's ways that you can mitigate some of the impacts of a freeway, but we also want to be sensitive to that. But like I said, it was it's not our project. If the state wants to condemn it, they could we wouldn't have any say in the matter,

right? They're talking about we're doing this as a way to show the state you want to partner with them and doesn't seem like partnering with them to lower them on our values, but any Kellogg runs along several neighborhoods and I don't see those values going down. So true. I'm not really concerned. Yeah, I'm true. Especially for that grade. I mean, if it was above that be a little bit

flyovers generally might have a more negative impact than an grade. So, like I said, originally it was designed to fly over and now the design has changed to more of an grade, but it could say, like I said, the state is its own government and they can choose to do what they think is best given their modus opera, which is to remove as much traffic as possible, as expeditiously as possible. That's that's their plan. So, a lot of major cities have a beltway. 435 around Kansas City is a prime example of that. This would be a beltway around Witchah. That would be their plan. But you're concerned about it. It's not there's not any concerns. You know, there's lots of factors to consider in something like this. Like I said, it's a complicated dance. Looking good for a motion. I'd

like to make a motion that we approve the modifications to article 4 as it pertains to Introduction of the corridor over Lake District. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? I say I or no. You can say nay if you want to.

So that'll be five to one. So that motion passes and be considered. Everything you're seeing today with the exception of the two use permit has to be approved by city council as a final consideration. This is item F5. So this is to remove R1B which is a low density single family residential district. So as the city grows the cost of a new proposed development is reviewed in terms of long-term maintenance of infrastructure compared to the cash flow. Higher density owners are generally seen as more positive for cash flow with lower density being seen as more cost prohibitive unless the development has a higher value homes typically exceeding 650,000. The R1B zoning classification is considered a floating zoning classification meaning it's not applied to any existing lots at the moment. This means that removing it will not adversely affect any properties or any of them potentially non-conforming. The city would like to add new zone classifications as grows and to avoid unnecessary text. City staff would like to remove this classification entirely. So the planning commission is considering removing the R1B zoning classification from sub regulations floating classification which is not currently in use classification not conducive to long-term economic growth and new zoning classifications being introduced with the city not designed to have unnecessary verbage that is not actively applied. So here's that zoning map again. As you can see we do have R1A which is that light blue but we don't have R1B. R1B is in the sub regulations. It's just not applied anywhere over here. It's going to be R1. It's going to be R2, R3, R4, PUD, I1, C1, C2. And so there's no R1B. If you wonder what null is, we don't have a zom classification for park. So this dashed hatched line over here is null. That's linear park. Line park is R1. At some point it was zoned before it became a park. Linear park which is part of the prair land

travelers which was given is kind of gifted to the city but still technically is owned by land partners has no zoning classification. So it's no man's land. So there's no zing for that one. That's why it's no small publication cost for the public hearing legally approve this form. It is recommended once again have fun public hearing save comments close the public hearing and approve the modifications to article 4413 zoning regulations removing the R1B zoning classification. So Mr. share at this point. Do you want to open the public?

Very good. Does anybody want to talk about R&B? Nope. Close the public. Very good. Deliberation in our packet. It's says article 4107. Yeah, that's a mistake. Folks 103.

Yeah, 107 would be the R4. So 103 is R1. Look for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the modification to article 4.103 of the building regulation to review the R1B zoning classification. Second. All in favor?

I I Any opposed? Very good. This is item F6. This is requirements for emergency warning systems or or emergency warning sirens. So, in the past, the county used to partner with the city requiring developers to install emergency sirens if it was determined that the new development would not be able to hear existing sirens due to their districts or lack of proximity to the sirens. Recently, over the last several years, the county has worked directly with the city instead of working with developers, requesting the city and public orgs to partner with them on putting up the sirens. And so, in the most recent placement of sirens for emergency warning systems, the city worked with the county to find locations on city own land instead of working with developers on private land to put up the sirens instead of requiring a third party to consider privately placing them. So, the planning commission is reviewing the possibility of removing requirements for emergency sirens from the subdivision regulations. Yeah, the county works with the city directly and doesn't require developers and replace them anymore. And so when I reached out to the county, I said, "Hey, do you have this in our southern regulations? Is this something that we should be considering?" And this came up in 2020. And they said, "No, we just would prefer to work with you guys instead because one, developers want to have money for the siren because it offsets a potential lot and so then they lose money. So they'd rather work with the city directly. So, the last time we placed sirens, we placed one over the public works the north park and we placed one over in the public works um area over by their old shop kind of right there. And so, this one's over at Maple Village, which is right over here. And the one they placed in public works is right over there. So small publication cost of the public hearing notice for this form. It is recommended planning commission chair have planning commission excuse me have the planning commission have planning commission chair open public hearing receive comments close public hearing and approve the modifications to article 12.131g removing requirements of

emergency warning system from the subdivision regulations because we will just simply work with the county ourselves sir. All right we'll open the public hearing and we'll close public. Very good. So section G just go away. Yep. Let me just simply remove it.

Yeah. It's interesting because they they give us this data so you can actually see where the sirens are and so like I said when I reached out to the county because they have a proximity radius you can put a little buffer around it and see what's being impacted by the siren. Does it make sense or not? And so when I reach out to the county, they're like, "Well, we prefer just to work with the city and public works as opposed to working with the developer and having to pay to place a sign in." Which makes sense. So I'll make a motion to approve the modifications to article 12.131. G removing requirements, excuse me, of the emergency warning system. Second. And what's that one?

Who was that? Speak freely. I'll say. Okay. All in favor? I I Any opposed?

Very good. This is item F7. So this is the light industrial zone classification or I2 introduction. So the city recognizes that certain land use may be more non-traditional within a specific zone classification or specific uses may be seen as more intense on the surrounding neighborhoods. Likewise, other uses though not specific to the classified as commercial may be more appropriately placed in industrial district building the industrial district as more conrict or more restrictive or considered more intense. With this in mind, the city is proposing introducing a might industrial zoning classification that seeks to bridge the gap between commercial and industrial allowing more intensity uses in that zoning classification that may not be the most ideal on the commercial corridor or the other commercial zoning districts. And so this is something that I've discussed with some of you, but you've probably seen some of these, but they've been popping up all over the place. and that's flex spaces with a big commercial uh garage door that goes up. And so we've had a potential developer who wants to do something similar to that. And the question about zoning came up and we thought well in theory maybe they could do it on a commercial or maybe they should do it with industrial but if you reszone something as industrial that sounds it sounds daunting. Like what are you doing tallow? You know what are you doing textile manufacturing over there? What's it supposed to be? And so the idea is like, well, it's kind of retail, but you might have some welding or something that's louder than a traditional retail space. So, does that make sense? And so, the idea of light industrial was floated. And when I went and looked at the zoning in Witchah, they have something called limited industrial. So, basically the same thing. And they've were reszoning these areas where you have the big garage doors and flex spaces as limited industrial. And so I thought let's you know in conversations internally with city administrator and other staff that seemed like a reasonable introduction might industrial to kind of classify some of these and maybe anything else that we might encounter that's not really traditional commercial but not as intense as traditional industrial.

So the plan is adding another zoning district to our listing area like industrial or I2. So we already have an I1. It's designed to bridge the gap between commercial and industrial. Allows a great variety of uses within with the exception of residential. We still not allow residential in that neighborhood even light industrial. So here's all the uses that I scrubbed from Witchita and I removed some of them because they didn't apply. If you don't like any of these uses in the light industrial, feel free. I can scrub it again or at least make that recommendation to city council to have it removed before it's adopted. I haven't vetted them all in its entirety. So, this is really a large part copy paste from Witchah's with some modifications because they had duplicative land uses as applied to the county versus the city of Witchah proper. And so some of those were removed. So this is kind of confusing here. um ideas, but um because the list seems like when you first explain it to me, I I kind of understand what you're saying. Then I saw the list and I'm like a lot of stuff.

That's what like funeral home. Where would you use a light industrial versus just industrial? I mean, you could consider I mean theoretically you probably could put a funeral home in an industrial district. I don't know. was the most ideal because it still has high traffic and just general traffic, not just commercial traffic. So, it's kind of a weird mix there. And like I said, this is a largely copy and paste. And so, when you see that the list is large when it comes to primary uses, it's cuz we're casting a wide net. So, this is more about being able to put industrial stuff just like over here in industrial district. you put lights up next to

potentially. Yeah, because a large part of it too with zoning is that proximity to one another. In theory, and I like I said, this is not exactly the most exhaustive, but is still one of the most exhaustive zoning classifications we have. In theory, if you imagine a a light industrial plat and every lot has one of these uses next to it, theoretically they should be somewhat copetic without causing too much complaint upon its partners. But you don't really know at the same time. And some of these things like a university or college, they take large swaths of land. So it I mean it's hard to say exactly how that play out. But zoning is not, as you're aware, is not the most conclusive. We use it as land use regulation largely to manage growth and development, but it gets modified over time because it's that's why we have conditional use permits and and special zoning and things of that nature. Kind of have the same opinion because I mean tell me what the advantages to having a nursery or garden center is with light industrial versus commercial. I could, you know, not sure.

Some of these I'm for the the zoning, but I think this list is a little too long.

Fair. No, it's fair. Like I said, it's largely scrubed for Witchah. So, I'm not sure if a lot of these things would run we would run into. I don't know how often we're going to have a nightclub. It's hard to say. Um, and also restaurants obviously are allowed in the commercial district. So, is that redundant? I guess the question is more of a hybrid use because you're supposed to be bleeding over from commercial into industrial but not going full industrial and not going full commercial. So is there allowing sort of a bleed over dayc care is up there? So I mean we could scrub it and remove a lot of these land uses down. It's hard to say because when you introduce a new zoning classification, you don't know how often people are going to want to apply it. like R4 took off really well, but we still have never used our recreational use zoning that we adopted, never once have we used our recreational use zoning. And so it's it's hard to say which zoning is going to be the most applied. And that's why even though we have this list up here, who knows what other land uses are out there that might apply for something like this. And so it's it's difficult. So we could simply, you know, drop it down to like 10 items and just say everything else is a is a conditional use that we can do something like that if council and planning commission is in favor of it. It's just like I said, it's hard to say if you adopt classification how it's applied and who's going to want it. And we know we have somebody potentially wants it now, but we don't know how often it'll be applied. I guess, excuse me. I guess where my my struggle is, I mean, back to my nursery and garden center when you have grocery stores that put a garden out for the summer.

Yes. And they just sell flowers. And I can see that being a light light industrial, but if Brady comes to town, I'm going to want them to be light industrial. How do we how do we control that? Like, no, you need to be a commercial zoning, not a light industrial because they're going to request what they want. Sure. And if it says it's up there, how do we tell them no? You're a commercial. You're more of a commercial design business. You need to be a commercial zone property.

It depends. I mean, if they the land they buy a large land, it would be contingent upon that. And if you say, "Hey, I don't want you to be a light pestil. You would simply deny the reszoning request." I mean, of course, obviously, that's city council and they'd have to make a final determination. But if they buy land and it's commercial and for some reason they thought they wanted it to be light industrial, there might be a reason for that. We're not 100% sure what that reason would be. Maybe they have I don't know. I'm not sure what the reason would be. Maybe they I don't know. I mean, you just it's hard to tell. Zoning is difficult. It's not an exact science, but if you saw something up here that you thought you'd want to strike from the light dust, we could simply just say approve it with the removal of this type of land use. What's your thoughts?

Yeah, just the same broad to you or me. No, no, no. Some of them like limited in general manufacturing and warehousing. It seems like those be pretty industrial. You know those are both pretty broad warehousing and manufacturing zoning is very broad because of that reason. It's very hard to define. Somebody might have a warehouse that's only 900 ft² and somebody else has a warehouse that's 90,000 ft. Yeah.

And the uses vary dramatically. So it's just hard to I I can see how literally this is probably twothird of what had on theirs. So they cast a wide net with their light industrial. They probably see a lot more land uses than we will ever see,

you know. I don't know when we're going to get a micro brewery. Hard to say, you know, but if the opportunity arrives, I don't know if we want a micro brewery on 54. So it's just kind of it's a weird thing. I don't know if we'd want a micro brewery in the industrial district. Maybe we would want them in the industrial park, but then you'd have a lot of, you know, uh, potential clients just driving down a industrial district to go visit micro brewery. It's hard to say. Zoning is a, like I said, it's it's difficult because you cast a wide net and you make it somewhat broad to try to anticipate things and then you scale it back and you add more and you scale back and you try to change it. So, but like I said, if you find something on here, by all means, say, "Hey, I don't want to I don't want to see that on there." and I will write it down and then when I present the city council I'll say hey planning commission was either in favor of this zoning or not and that and if you were in favor of it they want to strike AB CDE E F from the from the approved list of principal uses Like a day currently is um what is it considered?

Commercial. Well, residential in some cases. Yeah. Commercial. Residential. Well, for example, central business district has daycare. We have um oh gosh it used to be scribbles and doodles and now it's not and now it's the for launchpad. Thank you. Yeah, now it's the launchpad that's on the that zoning is central business district which is a type of commercial zoning.

So you said this is the list from Witchah like I'm 21st of May. I mean I can check a lot of boxes up here things that I know but 21st of May. So, this would be that would be an example of an I2 Mhm. zoning. I mean, is that how they have that zone? No, I don't think so. I think they have a zone commercial,

but I'm not interested. I have to go check it out. Like I said, it's they've cast a wide net. And I think largely because you might have a like I said with the the warehouse example, you might have a you might have a warehouse that's 900 ft. You might have one that's 90,000 ft. And in one case, you'd be like, well, it's allowed in the commercial, so we should just allow a 90,000 foot warehouse on the 54. And you're like, well, maybe not. You know what I mean? So then that's where light metal comes out. It's like, yeah, it's commercial use, but its intensity is greater than a traditional commercial district. So maybe we have this bleed over into maybe a little bit higher intensity. It's not quite industrial, but it's not quite commercial. So this is that bleed over. So yeah, it's very general in that sense. Want to be like, well, it's a warehouse. that's commercial. It's like, yeah, unless it's 100,000 ft² and then you're like, ah, that's not quite commercial, you know, and so then things get a little bit wishy-washy, but imagine this being a bleed over of industrial and commercial. So, you will see a lot of land uses on here like you could just do that in the commercial district. And in all likelihood, they probably would. They'll just buy land, do a restaurant like we're seeing right now in Taco TJ, the daughter Galleria. They just do it general commercial. But then somebody might do a micro brewery and it stinks. Maybe it does smell a little bad. Maybe there's a lot of noise. The micro brewery I'm thinking of would be our brewery in Kansas City. That's more of an industrial use and so probably wouldn't want a micro brewery on central business district. I mean maybe something you do but depends but it's going to be really low on there. I don't know if we're ever going to have a freight terminal. Like I said this is a lot of this is copy paste. I can't anticipate the future. So, but like I said, this is up to you guys, too. So, if you see something on here, you're like, there's no way I want to see that in the light industrial district, just tell me and I can write it down. I'm going to present the city council and say planning commission would like to

approve this contingent upon the removal of whatever daycare, nightclub. I think for me, I think it's not the list that bothers me. It's the overlap and the 9,000 and the 90,000 and who's going to you know, are are you are those conversations you're going to have before they submit to say, "Hey, you know, this this size of a of a of a business would typically go here, not here, try to push them that direction or Yeah.

So, you know, what I what would be frustrating for me as a business owner is if I put it in for light industrial and they come up here and we say, "No, you're really commercial." We deny it. Then that start over if they choose to start over. Sure. versus if if we if we're upfront with them and say, you know, you're really a commercial or industrial zoning, then they only have to do it once. They're going to still accomplish the same thing, if you will. Yes. Mhm. That's where I'm struggling is how you juggle the Walmarts versus the mom and pop, if you will. And that that's where I was asking my, you know, my question for you. How do you or do we care? Do we need to care?

You can always care. I mean, but Sorry. Well, the longer these lists are, the easier my job is. So, it's hard for me to argue. I want it like three times longer. So, then I can put where whatever I want wherever I want. So, it's kind of hard like this is not a long list. And there are a lot of overlaps in the building classifications. So, um, yeah, if you see one on here like say that you don't think you should be in light industrial, then scratch it. But this is not a long list.

No, that's what I said. I'm not necessarily against the list. I'm just struggling with the side, you know, how you how you make the determination. We want this as light industrial. We want this industrial without frustrating, you know. Well, mo most of our properties are zoned. So, they're buying the property that they already know the zoning classification of. True. And then if they want to change it to something that's a little more lenient, if they don't fall into any of this, then they're going to come to us to ask to reszone it to So, this list isn't like

this isn't like a do or die thing, you know? They're they're buying knowing that they're they're up against this less. Okay. So, if that helps. Okay. Sorry. Theoretically, they'll somebody buy and it's R1 and they come to us and say, "Hey, I want a library and I'd like to make it um I2." Okay. Well, you know, it needs it is it solid says, "Hey, you're good to go." Mhm. Meanwhile, that that owner dies and the widow sells it to somebody and she now wants to put a 900,000 foot warehouse there.

Now, it's zoned to I2. The warehouse is listed as I would there any would there be any would or you or the council have any say to that or the way? No. And that's where we want to be careful with reszoning just because of that. when we reszone something then that's right. We've given them the capability to tap into build any of these that are in that do something. So this list isn't as concerning as when we when they come to us and they want to resell the property, then we need to look at the adjacent properties and see if we're having a ill effect on anybody that's adjacent. So that's I hope that helps. Yeah,

you're right. Absolutely. I mean, we can't once something zoned, it's zoned unless they want to reszone it. But yeah, you're right. And most people when they get zoned, the building permits follow, the site plans follow. You know, it's it's rare to have somebody die

between now and then. I do say that though I am thinking of one person who did die between now and then, but they are moving forward with what they've proposed. You know, their partners are. But um but it's rare that that happens. Most people are like, "Hey, I want the zoning. I've already, you know, talked to the bank. They tendly approved my loan. I'm ready to go. I have my collateral. I've hired, you know, 310 architecture, whatever, you know, and I'm ready to ready to roll. You know what I mean? And so the zoning is because they've really thought out, generally speaking, what they want to do and they've looked at the market. Like I said, we do have a developer right now who's looking at that and they've really looked at the market and they're like, "This is what we want to do. We want to do something like this in DoD right now. We want to do the zoning." But the zoning would make more sense if it was this type of zoning as opposed to a Walmart zoning or a central business district zoning. But it's it's true though. The the frustration I think you guys are feeling is the same frustration that I feel. And like I said, I like to inflict my misery on you because you guys are volunteers. You can't escape. And so that's what's great about it. But I can't anticipate all things. It's impossible. Like somebody's going to say that they want to do a library and then in the back of that library they're going to want a petting zoo and then next to that petting zoo they're going to want to stick on top of it a residential meeting. Like some people have these ideas and how am I supposed to bring into make that cohesive and play out in real life? It's like this is tough. And so you know I like to say the city's a deal dream maker or dream breakaker. You know we help people realize their dreams or we shatter them. And so the reality is that happens not a lot but it does happen where people go home disappointed. So you never see them. You never comes to cleaning commission because they go home very disappointed. They try again. You know maybe they do something else. But I can't anticipate all things. But that's why you guys are here is that they're going to submit an application or before they do we talk and like what are you

trying to accomplish here? Like what do you what's your vision? And then we try to help them like maybe I2 is not for you. Maybe you want to do commercial maybe. But also depends on where the land is. How big is it? What's its proximity to 54? That's a big factor. Is it off 54? Is it on 54? If it's off 54, maybe they don't need high visibility. They can just do an I2. They want to do something tucked off in the corner. But it really depends and I can't say. So all your questions and concerns are valid and I can't tell you the future. No, I appreciate this.

Yeah, thank you.

You guys want to see both regulations? I think I throw that out there. I've adopted pretty much almost exactly what Wita was. The structure height is the tallest height we have. So if you don't like that, just be aware. But that's the tallest we have is the 80. I don't have anything taller than that. How many stories? We generally think about 15 foot per story. Okay. So that'd be perfect. Okay. So we're like five five. Yeah.

And uh Yeah. And a penthouse. Mechanical penthouse. So fivetory building. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the introduction of the light industrial zoning classification to article 4 of the city zoning and subdivision regulations. Why don't we have the chair open the hearing first?

I was going to ask that question. Yeah, we have to have we'll open the public hearing and we'll Yeah, you've been waiting. First class. Would you be strangers just walking in here?

Our role play commissioners Doug7 North Bruce. I just got a question. Uh you said Micah that there there's potentially one place that you're looking for where Is that I mean can are you allowed to No. Okay. I'm the other question I've got or something that come to mind is when we um a few years back we allowed a school to go into the industrial. So does this work both ways or where or if you're trying to put something that's lighter?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean lighter into an industrial. It's zone industrial. We put a uh a a speech school or something back in there. Is that basically why this is does it work both ways like that or is it just They can. Yeah. I think back in the day we adjusted the industrial it's I know we put restaurant in there. We tried a bar in theory. Yeah. No, we zone industrial but we were trying to you know open it up to you know, different businesses that were probably more commercial than industrial.

Yes, that's a good question. We don't have any rail. Rail really helps industrial. We don't have any rail. We don't have any marinas or rail or anything that really helps blow up an industrial district. And so we opened up the industrial back opened up meaning that we added more acceptable uses for I1 back in the day to try to promote more growth in that industrial park. um still have a lot of empty lots there. So, you know, it just didn't really help it as much as we were hoping.

This is mostly meant to act as a catalyst in the same way without having people go to industrial district for lighter uses in in theory. This will actually help them use lighter uses in a more non-commercial non-industrial way. It just kind of bridg like I said bridges that gap. So, but it does go both ways in that sense. So, well, I kind of I kind of think about it flowing one direction and and not for the other. So if you wanted to build uh a lighter hazard put a lighter hazard business in an industrial area, you can. But it's the risk of that's an industrial

area whereas you can't go into a residential area and put a you know a higher h high hazardous industrial complex in in the residential area. So yeah, it's good, right? Yes. So we have what's called cumulative zoning. So it tends to stagger upward. Like we go upward. So like for example, R1 is a great example. R1 is like, hey, you can only really do single family. But you go to R2, it's like you can do a duplex, but also single family. Then you go up to R3, you can do a triplex and duplex and single family. So we have what's called cumulative zoning where it kind of it trickles out. So that's a better way to explain.

It's better. It's mostly like you're going this way as opposed to like, well, I'm just going to kind of do this ladder movement up and down, up and down. It's meant to, like I said, be a bridging the gap between more of a heavier industrial and commercial. So, it's more of an upward victory as opposed to I want to go put and maybe if I answer the question, it's a little more limiting than full industrial. Yeah, full industrial is supposed to be like a slaughter house. Technically, street is going to be our central business district. It should be an industrial district, right? In theory. That's not really a light industrial use. It's it's kind of more like if you wanted a Tyson manufacturing plant, you would have that be heavy industrial. You would have light industrial.

It's supposed to be like compounding intensities as it goes up. Does that help? Yeah.

Questions? Pretty much. I mean I mean reason I mean you're not going to put a house in a Yeah, there are some restrictions to live sleeping units in industrial that's kind of a hard thing to pass but I'm not asking in a heavier zoned area. So it just doesn't work the other way. Yeah, we don't we're not having resial industrial just too many questions there that may get weird. So that's why the use limitation is no residential and industrial just like our current industrial no residential and industrial. So it's just it's just way too many issues that come up.

I just want to come on up if you have a question. Well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if I'm going to ask the right question. Okay. Currently, we have an industrial park. Correct. Crystal Hall 107 North. Yes, we do. And so this this zoning I2 is this like can be anywhere in our city or does it have to does it have to butt up to the existing industrial? No, it's up to you guys. That's where

how does this particular zoning work in terms of the city limits of Goddard? We have an industrial park area, right? And then would this melt into that or can they can just whoever wants this zoning can build wherever they want. Well, they can request to have their property resed. They could resone to this anywhere. Anywhere. Yeah. Just like any property. Okay. Just like you could resone with the current investor would have anywhere. But not but not residential, right? a residential person couldn't reszone this their their property to I2 or they could

they could they can apply for it. They could apply for it. Okay. And then their neighbors would have to come argue it, right? I mean that's Yeah. But also they would admit we're not allowed that because if somebody says I have a house and I want to resone I2 or I1, I would say no. No. If they just had the property, if they had a property, if they had raw land and it was currently zoned to R1 with no houses on it, then yes, they could apply for a reasonzoning to I2 and you guys would see it. The council would see it, planning commission see it. So, I think I know the question that I'm wanting to ask now then. So, I2 is not the same kind of zoning as like an R R1 or an R4. This is like case by case situation.

Yeah, in a sense. Yes. Okay. zoning is yeah it's everything is a case by case situation when it comes to zoning well but like some properties are zoned R2 some you know R1 R2 R4 and then commercial properties are zoned specifically right so this would just literally be a case by case conversation yes because we don't currently have any correct okay

thank you something these are all good questions um urban economics and growth and zoning. It's all it's not it's not one size fits all and it's complex and the market is ever changing and so that's why we try to be sensitive to it. But this worked I think so. Um, you want to close the public?

I'd like to make a motion we approve the introduction of the light industrial zoning classification of article 4 of the city zoning and subdivision regulations. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Very good. As mentioned, city council will suit all these items with the exception of F1. Last but not least, this is F8, sidewalk requirements. So, the city has in the past put some effort into trying to accommodate other modes of transportation, including bicyclist, pedestrians. The city completed its spices on pedestrian master plan in 2019, which helped outline goals and visions for how to bring about interconnected multimodal means of transportation in the city. As city progresses and tries to implement some of these ideals, if there is an opportunity to modify the sub regulations or reflect these potential ideals, the city staff will bring them before the planning commission and city council for review. Under article 12.1311B, sub regulations outline sidewalk layouts based on urban versus suburban environments. City staff is asking the planning commission and city council to remove this language and replace them with language more geared to walkability and the complete streets ideas and case by case situation. So red is verbatim when I'm asking to be removed and green is verbatim when I'm asking to be introduced. And so red is largely predicated on a generalized urban versus suburban kind of concept with a lot of it being predicated on the city engineers ideas and thoughts, feelings. Whereas green is largely predicated on the community development department's ideas and thoughts and feelings on the comprehensive plan on bicycles, pedestrians, transportation, what's called multimodal, which simply means pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles. And so we have different thoughts as we move forward in the near future about how we would want to introduce sidewalks. For example, in development, walking with anybody on a 4ft sidewalk is difficult cuz somebody who's coming the other way has to either step into the grass or you have to step into the grass. Right now, traditionally, an engineer is always just say 4T. Maybe you would like in some areas for it to be 6t wide or 8 ft wide. Maybe there's

some areas where we don't want a sidewalk or maybe there's some areas where we'd want to put a bicycle lane, dedicated bicycle lane. And some of these conversations have never historically come up in the past and we would like to introduce those conversations during the pre-development meetings that we have with developers. And so instead of saying, hey, you're going to follow XYZ as based on um language that was adopted in the past and interpreted by city engineer, we would rather interpret it ourselves. So that's the gist of it. This is some images that I've taken from complete streets just kind of to kind of have an idea behind it. But what you would see is, you know, you obviously this is a kind of a more urban environment, but that's this is not exactly even though I mean it seems pretty dense. It's not too far away from what you could potentially see for Goddards Main Street is especially historically we had some buildings that were this tall. Maybe not this tall or this tall in the past. Doesn't mean we'll never see these buildings again. And it's very possible God's main street might look like this again at which point you know you could theoretically and this is not saying this is what we do want to do every time but in select situations you might want to introduce a bicycle only lane with barriers that separated from the road or maybe this is called a BRT or bus rapid transit you might have something that's dedicated only to buses then you don't have bus stations and anything else that goes with it and you have larger sidewalks much larger sidewalks that engages more pedestrians especially on a commercial corridor like the central business district. And then you have these bumpouts here that are more dedicated, much wider crosswalks, like I said, dedicated bike lanes. This is something that's considered complete streets where it takes in account different modes of transportation. And then also walkability where you actually are engaging with pedestrian and making more amenities, you know, greenscaping, etc. This is a boulevard. You can see you can walk in between the boulevard between the traffic and then this separates it easier. So somebody was crossing the street, you would have this

island and then another crosswalk. So you don't have to cross a long stretch. This small publication cost for the public hearing notice. It's legally put as a form is recommended planning commission have a plan commission chair open the public hearing receive comments close public hearing and approve modifications to article 12 1311B as it transit introduction sidewalks and redevelopments. So I think 1311 B. That's the same one I had last time too. Maybe not. G. Okay. Good. This is B. Good. Good. 131 B.

All right. We'll open the public here. No. All right. We'll close the public hearing. So, I think typically in most of the newer um neighborhoods that have been built, they require a sidewalk on one side of the doors. Do you plan to continue with that or

ideally? Yeah. But sometimes we want to be six feet. I think it's preferable, especially on one side. I'm a little greedy because when I think about painting, it hits our debt limit. So, streets and sidewalks are a debt limit and we're only allowed by state law to have a certain amount of debt limit. We can charter out of that. But also, the more we borrow, the larger administrative fee that we collect when we go to permanent financing. So, there's an economic incentive behind it as well. But from a walkability perspective, how many times I've been walking with my wife and stroller and my kids and I have to go off into the grass or somebody has to pass me. And it's nice. I mean, I was thinking how nice it would be if 183 actually had a dedicated bike lane. I thought that would be interesting. But there's a lot of things to consider. That's what's part of the complete streets. But it is a case by case situation. I don't want to I'm not trying to standardize it for that reason. I don't want to say, hey, you know, 23rd South, you must have 8ft sidewalks around the whole development. It may not make sense. You know what I mean? But maybe in other neighborhoods, it would make sense, especially those that are budding the trail, that might make more sense. It is a case by case situation. That's why I haven't standardized it in that way. I haven't said specifically if you are in proxy, you know, thus it's more like, well, let's consider conceptually if this makes sense to introduce this type of walkability or this other type of layout as necessary. But yeah, it's very standard 4 foot sidewalk around one side of the street. So, but we maybe we want to do more. So, I'll make a motion to approve the modifications to article 12.131.1B as it pertains to the introduction of sidewalks and new developments. Second.

All in favor? I. I. Any opposed?

Very good. Well, old business there is none. new business. There is none. I will go to the staff report. So, um I know with talking about zoning and development and growth and everything else, there's a lot of questions that have been coming up. I did reach out to a realtor asking for MLS data. They have not got back to me yet. They did email me saying, "Hey, what are you looking for specifically?" And I sent them an Excel sheet saying what I want. I know some of the commissioners, especially Commissioner Hayden, has asked for more data as it pertains to renters versus owners. And so I'm trying to get as much data as I possibly can, compile it, and then continue the ongoing research as things in markets change. This is interesting data. So what I took is we get parcel data. The parcel is just it's tax data basically from the county. So it's your your lot and and data as pertains to your lot. So we get it every 3 months from the county. So it's good data. It's very reliable data generally speaking. And so what we can do is we can extrapulate that and parse it out in our uh software that we have. And so I took all of the single family detached traditional housing that's built. You know, obviously you can see over here that maple tree doesn't have anything. This is the shade right over there. But you know, the ones that haven't been built yet are not going to have anything. But so I took all the single family detached housing that's built and I said, "Okay, is the data that the county gave me, does the owner's address that's on that data record match the address of the house that's built?" And if it doesn't, well, one, it could be a PO box. So, I stripped out all the PO boxes. But if it's not a PO box, then you know, I said, well, theoretically, if the owner's address is, for example, California, it's probably rental property. If the owner's address is, you know, in the seasons, but the house is in St. Andrews, maybe it's a rental property. And so what I did is I said, okay, in theory, the yellows could be rental properties if the house's address does not match the owner's address, but if it does, then I consider an owner

property. And so then I marked it blue. So yellow is rental, blue is owner for single family detached. And as you can see here, trails in there's a hard high concentration of single family detach. That's just rental properties, which is generally kind of what we expected. Um, but we're also seeing that it's starting to percolate a lot. And what I notice is that as you tabulate all this, about 18% of all single family detached housing is a rental property based on this data with some discrepancy in there for error, but 18%

80%. So almost you can almost say about one in five houses that are single family detached are rental properties. you know, the the hope is that as as you introduce more rental properties that the owner occupied traditional properties would stay open on the market and then people would be able to buy them. Um, but you know, you never really know. People can do whatever they want with the property. So, of course, then we we inverted that as well. We said, okay, two family that's been built, how many of those are rentals versus owners? And almost, you know, 95% of them are going to be rental properties, which is to be expected as well. There are some that are surprisingly in the ridge of Mickel development. Almost that whole eastern culvert over there, the whole eastern, excuse me, culdeac is owner occupied, which is really interesting. But also, what's really interesting is that the county considers these, that's why they're not popping up. So, these are twin homes. You see how they don't pop up on the two family, but they pop up on the single family. That's really interesting because the county is classifying half of a detached, sorry, half of a duplex, a twin home as not single family attached, they're classifying it as single family detached. So that's a classification error out of the county. But what's interesting is that regardless of its classification, whether or not you want to whoops classified as single family versus two family, technically it should be two family, but single family attached, not single family detached, you still see that there's still a high renter, but then it comes as you curve on those twin homes, they're all owner occupied almost, right? As you have on the east side here, these are all twin homes up here as it curves all the way up here to the north. So, the twin homes have a higher percentage of owner occupied than the duplexes do, which is is interesting to look at cuz you look over here, it's like I said, it's about 3 to 5% are

owner occupied, but twin homes is almost 47 48 almost 50% is is owner occupied, which is really interesting. This is our subdivision map which I send up periodically. I have updated it and I will show you this blue table. I I will blow it up so you guys can take a look at it. We have 16 active residential developments. They're listed. Here's a legend so you can kind of identify and they're obviously included in your your report. They have the breakdown of land use. So let's say 167 will have single family and two family. And then how many buildings, which I say buildings instead of lots because potentially you could have multiple buildings on one lot. So I say buildings instead of lots on this particular layout. And then the number of units and the number of people and then what stage it's at and then uh how many permits have been pulled and then how many have a certificate of occupancy and of that certificate of occupancy of the permits have been pulled what's that percentage and so you kind of tabulate that. So I blew it up over here so you guys can take a look at that and it is in your report as well. Like I said we have 16 active developments. Most of them are in the infrastructure not most of them excuse me some of the more recent ones are in the infrastructure stage still. We're still trying to work through that. Entitlements. Obviously, we have the reserves that Moses 25. That's the apartment complex that's behind Walmart villas at Pretty Rich Pleasant Ridge Creek that's in the infrastructure stage. We just bid out recently. Most of them have moved past in time bill. That's the last entitlement one. The rest of them are in infrastructure. I mean, something's being placed in the ground. So, they don't have any permits pulled yet because you have to have a paved road before you can have a building permit. But I've got you can see the percentages over here that the permits that have been pulled. out of the permits that have been pulled, what's the percentage that have been issued a certificate of occupancy received. So, and then we tabulated over here combined the total of them. How many single family, how many duplexes, twin homes, how many multif family care centers, how many units, number of people, building permits, certificate of

occupancy, percentage of permits pulled, and percentage of certificate of occupancy out of that. And so, they're tracking pretty well. I mean in terms of permits pulled out of all the platted duplexes and homes about one in three so one in three about 31% have been pulled and of that 71% have gotten a certificate of occupancy and then about 20% for permits have been pulled for the single family and then of those 70% roughly almost exactly the same as duplex have a certificate of occupancy. So, we're getting a high certificate of occupancy. People are building and they're getting finalized, which is always good. But that is it. Like I said, I'm reaching out for MLS data and as soon as I get it, I'll try to I'll try to present more data for you guys so you can kind of see how things progress. But that is it for me to finish comments. Just start down here. So, I just uh I did want to bring something up kind of thought about after our last meeting. Um there seems to be when we have some contentious items that that the the citizens have a lot of questions and so I wanted to see what you guys think about when Micah sends out letters. Um if we if you put a note in there that said we would be here at 6:30 half hour early just for a question and answer session strictly. Um no no necessary business but we give them a chance to ask micro questions so we give them a chance to ask questions and vice versa. That seemed like a reasonable request you guys interested.

Yeah. My only question would be how would we know whether would people need to register up front, you know, or would we start showing up at 6:30 every time? No, I I think this would be I mean Mike would be able to tell us, you know, if there's something on the agenda that he thinks people have questions about. I don't know that it's a monthly commitment. It'll be a case by case basis, but normally I think understanding I just think it might help we put the time up front as opposed to the time during the meeting. I don't know if you guys have any opinions. Yeah,

you couldn't conduct any official business. Generally speaking, I mean you could if you more than one of you showed up that's quorum. So that means technically, you know, you might have to be considered minutes and live streamed. So we potentially would live stream it as well because you have to have that transparency if you have more than four of you show up. So, in theory, you probably would have to run the live stream a little bit early. Um, but we would just simply say it's a Q&A with no binding action. So, especially when it comes to zoning, it's because you need to have your due diligence, you have to have your public hearing, you have to have all that. So, you couldn't say that we're going to you couldn't really say during the meeting of how you're going to vote at 6:30. Like, if somebody's like, "How are you going to vote on a zoning meeting?" You can't be like, "Oh, we're definitely going to approve it or deny it." You like, you really can't say that. You can just simply talk about ideas and thoughts and theories and questions and answers, but then you have to actually once the planning commission meeting got underway and you had the zoning meeting, you have to open the public hearing, close the public hearing and have deliberation and motion and second all that, but we keep it civil.

Well, I guess that's part of the reason why I brought it up to to me. you know, the the process during the meeting is a little confusing if you haven't participated before where, you know, you think you're coming to ask questions and get your questions answered, and the reality is you're here to make comments and and not necessarily be addressed by any of us if we if we choose not to. So, I thought maybe it would be an opportunity for them to come and have that two-way conversation under the understanding that it's just a simple question and answer. But, and we don't have to decide on anything tonight. I just have that thought. I want to bring it up and see what you guys think. We can talk about it again. It just always seems that we have some some citizens come in that are very frustrated because they can't get their questions answered and then sometimes goes sour. So, you all ever get emails from citizens direct to you? Yeah, that's one I mean

I rarely get emails. Occasionally I do. Um but most of the time I think I think people get nervous because it feels like you're on trial, right? You come up to give citizens comments. Agenda is not even related to you and you think you're on trial. You see people shaking.

You know what I mean? You're like like just calm down. But yeah, the emails I I view on occasion. If I get an email and they're like please read this, then I read it. I'm required to and so but sometimes I'll get phone calls very it's like very rarely somebody will actually come in my office be like hey explain this to me that's rare sometimes after that it's like phone call after that it's email most people just show up and they I have a lot of questions here you guys go here's all my questions you know I can't answer any of those so I think that's where uh chair coin kind of came into with that idea I don't I don't really understand the order of operation where we have people that can come up at the beginning like

citizens comments. Yeah, that they're commenting on a certain subject that's going to be later in the meeting. It's kind of an odd It's kind of odd.

I get that. Yeah, we did I did publish it in the newspaper. Um and I confirmed in the Times Sentinel that you guys will be looking at changing the layout of the agenda in December. It'll have to go to city council for final approval, but it confirms the times that all is published. And so I have to wait 20 days of course and so you guys will see in December, but um you would consider it would be um old business, new business, then zoning is the way the new layout would be zoning both old business, new business. So you'd be old business like anything you talked about in the past that at the table would be old business. You talked about that first then new business and then you have zoning. Well, I think there's some confusion about the opening it up at the beginning for citizens comments.

They don't know that they don't know if they're going to have the opportunity to talk on that subject again. It's kind of should it's kind of duplicating things. Um yeah, and I can I sometimes I tell people, hey, we're going to have an agenda item. If you're here for the zoning meeting in theory, you know, we'll have a public hearing for that in which you can speak your piece during that time. I think we legally speaking I don't know I have to check with attorney but are you saying you don't want to have citizens comments or I mean maybe they're general cit they they come to talk about one thing and then

you tell them that they're citizen comments in the beginning. So they come up and they say something and then we get to the subject later and then they Jamie opens it up for Yeah. comments and then they come up and say the same thing. So I I think there's some confusion about what that first citizen's comments is supposed to be and maybe it's just me kind of confusing to me. I just I don't think they understand how perform I can get that because I wouldn't understand the entire way and how

right I guess that's part of my thought of having this pre question and answer I think it's probably worth try and see how it goes but my concern is because someone was so passionate about what what they perceive that's going on that I can quite often be strict about making sure that that stays me Okay, that's a fair So you would call it like open forum for 30 minutes prior to the planning commission meeting. Yes. And and the the idea would be to to lay that out at the beginning. It's simply a question on record. Just on record

on record forum a Q&A before prior prior to with the goal of making the the meeting portion more like what you're thinking more more consistent more direct more direct they they they've had a chance to ask their questions. Now they can we can't keep them from making their comments as well. But no as part of that 30 minutes we go through how this works. We could we certainly could that would help is the more that I agree 100%. So I'm trying. Okay. We could talk about this next one. I just want to throw it out there. Good idea.

Think about it. see what you know the positives and negatives and like it for a try. And then are you are you willing to be the the caller of that meeting if it's necessary?

Yes, absolutely. I'll try to give you guys advanced notice. I usually try to do anyway and let you know, you know, where your wind breakers and all that good stuff, you know, in advance. Um but yeah, most people don't care what's happening in the city. I say this all the time. They don't really care what's happening in the city unless they hit a pothole like that they call public works, right? They just want to go to work, show up, go to bed, you know, and come home. And but zoning is different because state law requires us to send out letters. You get a letter from the city and you're like, I already paid my water bill. What's this for? You open it up and you're like, a zoning meeting? Where is this? You know, what's happening? Then you go to your neighbor and the neighbor's like, I got the same letter. And then all of a sudden, you have 30, 40, 50 people show up, you know, and and that's that's different, right? I mean, you can see from nobody cares about policy and regulation. That's so you know I mean it's very difficult for somebody to be like I really want to engage and understand zoning regulation. You know what I mean? It's like nobody really wants to do that. But but when it comes to reszoning what's happening what's happening next door and now I have a letter from the city saying if I want to talk about it I should show up. And so here I am showing up. My neighbors telling me it's going to be the worst thing in the world. I don't know what it is but they said it's pretty bad. They they know what they're talking about. So I'm going to show up. And so yeah, I can certainly, you know, inform you guys if it's going to be contentious. Like I said, try to anytime there's a reszoning, it's generally going to be contentious. So maybe just be something's going to be allowed. It's rare that it's not. Um, and we'll certainly give parameters on that. You know, hey everybody, welcome to the Q&A. You will only be allowed a certain amount of time because you can't have one person just dominate the whole meeting for 30 minutes. So we'll be like, "Okay, maybe 30 minutes or sorry, three minutes to kind of talk, give your opinion and whatnot and ask some general questions. We'll answer it and I'll time it." So a dialogue and then the buzzer will go off. All right. Thank you. Anybody else want to have a dialogue? We can ask some general questions and timer

will go off and once it's 7:00, we would have to at 7:00. We now going to conduct official business of the city and we'll be happy to go forth. We should time responses to time questions. We should How long?

Basically, I would hit the timer and give them three three minutes to ask a question for you to respond, you know, so they would have to ask their question fast. Um, and then the answer would be hopefully equally as fast and give people time to cycle through. It's very possible 30 minutes if a zoning case comes up, you're not going to be able to go through 60 people's Q&A in 30 minutes. And as we talk, we can we can push it up to a longer time if it feels necessary. But I just want to commit to an hour two people here that have three questions and we have 10 minutes. So

yeah, if it was contentious enough and you guys agreed. So you would have to agree in advance that you wanted to have a 30 minute Q&A before the meeting starts. And so I would kind of get a pulse and make sure everybody's okay with that. And then I would send out the notice, but I would also let everybody know that, hey, we have 30 minutes and that the meeting will open, the Q&A will open at 6:30. And so we can even have Dane will be able to put it on Facebook. And so she can say, "Hey guys, you have Q&A in 30 minutes." And that's, you know, if you have any questions. Thank you. Is that it?

Well, last planning commission meeting of the year will be December 8th, 7:00. Are you scheduing? No, I don't. There's potentially one resigning coming up, but we haven't got any paperwork for it yet. So, you did that last year. I did. Yeah. Occasionally. Just want to see if you guys are listening.

I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. All in favor. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, guys.