Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's the main thing. wire to wire. That's why there was 31 single word spoke. It was just motion. Really? Okay. Back. I've got six o'clock on my clock, so I'd like to call the meeting to order. Roll

call. Huggin here. Lane here. Templan here. Martin. Milbourne here. Mock here. Schultz here. Uh, Commissioner Martin is absent today. Thank you. Moving on to our agenda. Item 3A, approve the planning commission agenda. Any changes, corrections, modifications to be suggested? Motion. Motion we approve the agenda as written. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Agenda is adopted. Item 3B, approve the minutes of the planning commission meeting held on April 22nd, 2025. Changes, corrections, or additions. I make a motion we accept the minutes as presented. Second, move and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Opposed, same sign. They are approved. Item 3 C, disclosure of conflicts of interest. Anything on the agenda tonight to disclose? Nope. Okay. Item 3D, disclosure of outside communications regarding commission business. Anything on the agenda tonight that you've had discussions? Okay. Seeing none, moving to item four, the call of the public. Members of the public who wish to address the planning commission regarding items not on the agenda may do so at this time. Any presentations forformational purposes only. No action will be taken. There's a 4-minute time limit. Anyone like to address the planning commission tonight? Please come up the podium. Give us your name and address. Don't all come at once. No one online. Correct. Okay. With that, I'll close the call to the public. Moves us to item 5A, reszoning of 8550 Kill Creek Road to

R1A. Matter is a public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What you have before you is a reszoning request at 855 Kill Creek Road to R1A. I might add that this will be our first R1A application in the city. So there you go. I'll bite my tongue. Uh did go through the preuncter steps as far as notifying newspaper, putting up signs, uh notifying the public around the site. Haven't heard from anyone on this particular reasonzoning request. This is kind of an interesting location as far as the tract itself. It is an address that uh faces Kill Creek Road. However, the back of the lot as you can kind of see in the aerial there has the golf course in the background and then to the south are the duplexes which are zone commercial for some reason. And then across the street are R1. But nonetheless, these areas here are all residential in nature. And you can see there's plenty of uh space between the duplex and the property line on this track. So don't see don't see any conflicts between the proposed R1A and the duplex use to the south of this particular tract. The reason the applicant asked for the R1A in this district is is really for the setback reductions themselves. It has nothing to do with the ability to develop the track. But under the RORO, we have a 50 foot front setback, 50 foot rear, and 25 on the sides, which would make this track essentially unusable. So, it gives them flexibility to put the house on there. probably still have to use some peers in the back, but the flat area in the front would most likely be where the septic and lateral fields would be. So,

it would make it a more developable lot than under the RO designation. Now, it also I mean the standard things that we'd go through as far as size of the home, it has has our minimum requirements. So changing R1A does not give them any leeway as far as putting up a lesser structure than what our current code allows. So it just gives them a little more flexibility to basically take a lot that's unusable under the R O zoning designation and and make it uh something that could be developed into a single family residential unit. With that, I'll run through some of the brief briefly the categories of the zoning compatibility factors. Character of the neighborhood. I basically touched on that as far as the residential use nearby compatibility. The proposed zoning is also positive as far as staff is concerned. Land use plan and the uses in the area are residential in nature. And then with the golf course to the to the west certainly is a a buffer between this potential use and the RORO. And that's what the golf course is owned is also ROROR suitability which it's restricted under its existing zoning. I touched on that. It's the reduced setbacks that allow the R1A or why that's the uh preferred reszoning category. It basically takes a lot that's undevelopable and makes it uh essentially uh usable under the R1A designation. Utilities on the site since it is over one acre they can't have a septic system. So that is and there are there are not sanitary sewers available in the area. So that would be the route they'd have to go. But then there is water and electric on the site. So, uh, utilities are available at this proposed

location. As far as the proposed zoning would adversely affect the safety or the portion of the street network, yes, there would be an additional curb cut, but it is far enough from the duplexes that um staff can also work with making sure it kind of aligns with the residences across the street to not create any confusion in that area. environmental impacts. Don't see that there would be any significant increase in potential for environmental harm with this reszoning request and don't see any significant change as far as economics of the proposed zoning. It's not something that we need a whole lot more of is large lot housing, but once again, this is what the applicant has requested and does make a a lot that was not usable potentially usable. Uh relative gain of the public health safety from the denial of the application. don't see that there'd be any interest in the owners of the nearby residences and certainly haven't got any comments from them during the period in which they could have approached for a protest petition or something along those lines. And also it is consistent with our comprehensive plan showing a large lot residences basically east of Kill Creek other than sort of the carve out for Arbor Ridge because there are sewers available on those locations. So with that recommendation of professional staff is to approve approve this resoning and as you know the planning commission makes a recommendation to the city council who makes the final decision on this issue. And with that Mr. Chairman I'll stand for any questions you may have. Thank you Brad. Questions for Brad. I had a general question. I don't know if it's the So, Ror, I was just thumbing

through it. Ror says that it's around 12,000 square ft. The minimum lot size. Minimum lot size, 12,000 ft. Um, it's got this 50ft setbacks. And then what was the other piece that I thought was interesting in there? 120 foot um 100 foot leng minimum length on on uh the frontage. Yeah. On frontage. My question was going to be around like if we end up zoning a piece of land that is too small for the the zone that it is, should that be a call out when we do it when we zone it that way? Like it seems like wouldn't we set ourselves up to have to reszone this if we had whenever we did it as RO initially? If we're saying that it's really not buildable as RO. Well, I don't know the history of this. Was this lot? It was always a lot as it's Yeah, I remember looking at, you know, times the the duplexes have come up a few times and I've Okay. looked at it on as go, "Wow." And actually, there's actually a couple lots farther north along Kill Creek as well, and those are completely I don't care what we reszone them there. It just it goes right from the curb almost straight down the Yeah. Do you know how wide that or depth of it is from the street? Yeah, I don't recall, John. I'm looking towards the tree line because it drops off pretty good at that tree line. Yeah, but I did play around with just a couple shapes to see if you could get a minimum, you know, 1100 square feet is our minimum house size and you can get one to fit there. It'd be more certainly a basically a ranch, you know, longer and narrow as it would come. Where would you put the septic in that thing? Well, as I understand it, they want to put the septic in front where the uh where that flatter area is. Now, they might have to do a

different mound, sand mound or some sort of different type of septic system, but you know, that's for them to figure out and work with the building official department on how that could work or not. But as far as the reasonzoning itself, septic really doesn't come into play. Just we just look at it as it's got a minimum of one acre and that meets our requirement for septic. What is the what is the acreage? I don't It's around 1.3 acres. It's I didn't see it anywhere in the in the pack in the when I looked it up. I think it's like 1.03 or 1.13 something. It's got to be barely over one. Yeah, it's barely. Has anybody proposed a project for that lot? Well, I have talked to the applicant and they have not proposed anything specific other than the only thing they can do is is an R1 is a residential unit. public comment time and that's what we have here. Anybody else have any questions for Brad before we open it up for the public hearing? No. Thank you, Brad. Okay, so this matter is before uh the commission as a public hearing. If you'd like to make a comment or share any thoughts, please approach the podium. Give us your name and address. Perhaps not. Still no one. Is there a cliff? Is there a cliff between the road? I'm sorry, sir. For the record, we have to get your name and address and ask you if you could come to the podium. Thank you. Okay. Allan Penny. I live at 8635 Kil Creek

Road, which is more or less across the street from that lot. Uh, is there a cliff between the road and the creek? There's certainly a drop off there. Drop off. Okay. And I've noticed that there's deer that kind of go across the road about that about that location. Uh they're rather well behaved. They see they uh kind of look both ways before they cross the street. And I would almost think uh uh that it'd be appropriate to put a deer crossing sign in the area somewhere, but uh it's just a thought. And uh oh, I had a couple of other things, but I didn't bring a piece of paper up here with me. So, okay. Thank you, Mr. Penny. Thank you. [Music] Anyone else for public comment? Okay. Well, I'll close the public hearing at this time. Matters back before the planning commission. I could, Mr. Chairman. I I did look at this map here and it does show the south property line is 254 ft in length and then on the north it's 101. So, there is a there's a fair amount of distance in there. That's Yeah. The question is at what point does the cliff come in there? Yeah. Because that does take a pretty steep. Did you you probably weren't around for this, but the house that's down at the bottom of the hill there at Shorewood where it takes the curve that was originally built by Fred Farmer. And I

remember Fred years ago complaining about the septic from when they put in the duplexes, they decreased the water flow down that hillside to the point that he was getting a bunch of water down there. Now, I haven't heard anybody complaining about that since Fred left. So, I'm gathering whatever the issue was got addressed, but I suppose to the extent there is an increase and to the extent they put their septic closer to the road, maybe it's not a big issue. But I just wonder whether that's a concern about the water flow. You know, it's pretty I'm guessing it doesn't perk a whole lot along that cliff. Yeah. So familiar with that out of the farmer's house there. Um it's it's in a flood plane. I mean it's in a floodprone area to begin with. Um but as far as runoff coming from the construction of the duplexes, I wouldn't think that the septic uh systems would be contributing to that sign. Well, I'm not saying that Fred knew what he was talking about, but construction of homes certainly could have, you know, it increase impervious surface and it certainly certainly could have contributed to increased uh runoff from there. Yeah. Haven't heard anything recently, though. Okay. And I did just uh pull up on the screen here. So, this is this is the lot. And these these are contour lines. So, the closer they are, the steeper and you could you could call that a cliff. Yeah. Um you can see up by the road. Essentially, the area that's mowed is flat. Um, right. You can kind of see the relation of the steep area to the to the road here on that. Any other comments, questions? I mean, I think this is a good infill resoning and I concur with

staff's professional opinion on this one. So, I'd be in support of this one. I uh I see this Kill Creek's designated arterial roadway. I wonder how much right away there is there now. And is there any idea of expanding that to meet what an arterial road standard might require? Would that be taken into account? Well, certainly, but I think that would come up. And I don't know that just because we make this change, it's going to make this lot's going to be buildable. As you can tell, the the road doesn't appear to be centered particularly well within the rightway. So, there's going to be some work that's going to have to be done with the architect and when the plot plan goes before goes to the building official for approval. But your point's well taken that that lot even with the reduced sector because they still with the R R1A they got a 25 foot setback in the front. So, Brad, am I am I reading right what what Mike just highlighted there that the the road is actually farthest to the left of the right of way already? Yeah, it's I you always caution people don't take this literally because sometimes the aerial image can get shifted from the property lines, but there has been over time some uh kind of curious overlay of the ride ofway with this surveyed and so it could be that the road is not centered in that ride ofway here. Got it. I know closer to the intersection of 83rd Street. It's it's there's kind of a question there, but it's not this is don't take this map. It's called as a general rule. It should be centered though. General should be centered, but in general, it's not surprising if it

isn't. Right. Clear as Thank you. So, what is the setback for an RORO from the It's 25 ft from the property line, from the buildable property line. of the road. So, I'm trying to understand why the difference here with this is the setbacks is why we wanted to go to an R1A with it. Yes. Because the setbacks in the RORO are what? 50 ft in the front. So, they're 50 feet and the neighboring properties are C2. So, they wouldn't have fit that anyhow, probably. I'm Yeah. And that's curious to me why the duplexes are C2, but that's just the way it is. I kind of remember that actually. I don't think I was on Planet Commission at the time, but I kind of remember that. Maybe we talked about with the comprehensive plan. Yeah, they were built in 99. So, yeah. So, it would have been around. Just out of curiosity, how did they get put on C2? Hi. They put them in there. Okay. Other comments. Yep. Motion. Um, I make a recommendation that we um uh concur with staff's recommendation to um reszone this to R1A. Uh you, as we said, this is a a council decision. Correct. We're making a recommendation. Correct. Okay. Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion?

Roll call. Schultz. Yes. Huggin. Yes. Yes. Templin. Yes. Melbourne. Yes. Mock. Yes. Lane. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Item 5B, reszone north of K10 and east of Evening Star to C2. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On May 15th, Dota City Council annexed five parcels of property owned by Clare View LLC. Three of those are being requested to be reszoned. C2 and they total about 80 acres of property and they are just north of Evening Star Road and adjacent to K10 Highway. I did want to point out interesting they there is a very small triangle that somehow was breached uh evening or pardon me K10 highway. So there is and that is actually one track even though the highway cuts off the corner. So that will actually be reszone C2 as well. Um certainly the applicant is I'm hoping the applicant is talking with Flint Development how they can just either donate or sell or come up with a Wow. an arrangement to take that and remove that. But nonetheless, that's where we're at with this situation. uh once again went through the the standard procedure in this case because it's uh adjacent to county property or unincorporated Johnson County. We did a thousand ft notification for the tracks and also did the notification in the paper and sent out letters to nearby residents. I have spoken with several residents about this property or this this and the upcoming resoning and one has asked for a protest petition and how to go through that process. So there is some interest by

the residents on uh how this is going to affect them in the near future. And once again this is one of those things we've been dealing with a lot lately as Dotto's expanding with development. It's moving into the rural areas and we have situations like this where we have to notify members of the area that are in unincorporated Johnson County and then ask them to participate in the process through the public hearing. One thing that we want to talk about is what can you do in the C2 district? And I I pulled this straight out of the city code. said automo automobile implement sales lumber yards contractor's yards I think it's more likely to be some sort of retailing service miniarts those type things uh but certainly there's a lot of different uses that are allowable in the C2 and that's what you have to consider is all the uses not just something now nothing has been proposed nothing has been brought forward to city staff it's just at this point the applicant who is in the audience tonight Weld owns this property property and so they're requesting that these three tracks be reszoned to commercial and this is consistent with our comprehensive plan. Jumping ahead a little bit there, Mr. Chairman. Uh once again, the zoning compatibility factors as you can see as I go through these are going to be very similar to the upcoming resoning process. Uh we know that this area is transitioning from rural residential to commercial. We have reszoned property south on Eingstar to commercial and also light industrial. So, and we've resoneed property on 95th Street, 93rd Street to different uses from RUR, which is the county's designation. And these carry the county's designation into the city. And

so that's why the applicant needs to request a reszoning to move forward. And it is really the first step in the whole process. compatibility of the proposed zoning therein with the uses of nearby properties. We talk about this a lot. The site plan is going to be part of this process that moving forward and this is just the reasoning. Certainly the designation for buffering and the site plan and noise attenuation also lighting all those types of things are much more critical when you have a commercial next to a rural use. So we will certainly be looking that very closely as city staff and making sure that there's adequate buffering these adjoining properties suitability under or is it under its could it be restricted significantly restricted under the existing zoning the area could not be developed in a commercial sense under the RUR designation so that's why the applicant has requested a change from RUR to C2 the property has been pasture and does lack infrastructure and so therefore there's not been any proposed land use change since the highway was put in. So extent that there's a needen within the community. Now we have uh looked at all these things. Part of our growth process is to find ways for economic benefit and because we're looking for ways to expand our tax base with retail types uses. This is something that we are certainly looking forward to in Dotto and this has been part of our comprehensive plan and our land use map in the future for this area. Availability of required utilities. This will be reserved by rural water district 7. There are no sanitary sewer lines in this

area. There is electrical service available. The, as you know, the Evening Star interchange has been improved, but the northbound section is still a very rural gravel road. So, it's not ready, and that's why it gets a negative for the utilities in this area. But this is something we've gone through on a lot of these resonings as we've as the expansion to the west primarily has happened in Dodto. One of the things also to note on the on the next items, not all the tracks have direct access to evening star, but they are under one ownership. So the site plan and when we go through that process, we'll make sure that all tracks have access to Evening Star Road. So I gave that one a neutral. As far as the environmental impacts, uh part of our process is storm water detention, lighting, all those types of issues that we look at during the site plan to make sure they're mitigated as best possible for the residents of the area and also just be environmental stewards of the property as best possible. And I would note that we've resold many tracks and C2 recently in Dodto that have had these issues with the utilities or lack thereof. And it's still it's part of the process. It's the first step to moving forward to a a growing and more vibrant community that has greater retail activity or potential than what we have right now. And then of course the the residents nearby the detr could detrimentally affect their property as far as north of Evening Star and this and then 95th Street would be most impacted by development of this property. Consistency with the comprehensive plan the future land use plan as I've said many times it is consistent with what we've looked at. Now, we haven't spent a lot of time

studying north of Evening Star Road, but it's now with the improvements to 103rd Street and Lexington. This is now and the interchange itself is now a much more desirable location. And because of the transition of this area from rural residential staff is recommending to the planning commission to approve this resoning request. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will stand for any questions you may have. And as I mentioned, the applicant is here in the audience tonight. Thank you, Brad. Questions for Brad. So, Brad, you you said they're reszoning three tracks, correct? And the the fourth one is R3. And then the well, I'm not counting the little triangle pieces, but um because there's also another one a little bit further to the north that's going to be reszoneed potentially to R3, but there is a there is a smaller about a 10acre track that was not part of this application that was annexed into the city. And that and that track is at this point going to remain rur. So this piece on the souththeast side of the highway is part of is actually a portion of the track as the county identifies it with one. That is correct. Yes. That's why we're saying three. So even though it really makes no sense to do that C2 since it's all part of one track, that's that's why we're doing that. Yeah. I mean, that's the way the county is is listed is so that little triangle piece has the same ID, tax ID number as the bigger piece on the north side of the road. That said, we have reszoned portions before. Yes. And you can reszone portions of tracks. So question. Yeah. I

I surrounded by industrial and I totally isolated from any access. I don't Oh, yeah. It's It's a completely unusable tract. I guess it's just another step we'll have to take someday in the future. Yeah. I I don't know what's going to happen. It's it's part of I believe the the Flint development kind of drainage area. So, even even if it was own light industrial or even given to Flint, they couldn't do anything with it. It's just part of that drainage system. I think the the Culver crossing is right near there underneath K10. Thank you. How would these tracks get sewered? Does it do they flow to the southeast or how would ultimately that be done because I've been looking south. They flow almost directly north. Okay. Um, so there would have to be a sewer solution implemented, probably a pump station that pumps pumps it somewhere in the interim or we have a a kind of a regionwide sewer master plan that has a interceptor sewer going north all the way to the railroad and along with I think that's decades off. Okay. Other questions for Brad? Thank you, Brad. The matter is a public hearing. So, anyone from the public who'd like to speak as to this issue, please approach the podium. Give us your name and address. My name is Jerry Donlin. My wife and I live at 9825 Evening Star Road. The

uh tracks of land that uh uh you're looking at changing the zoning on uh are going to be uh butdding up against the back end or I guess it would be the east uh border of of my property. Uh there's three of us right there and we've got a total of 10 acres tied up. I'm in the middle one. Each one of us is 110 ft wide and a/4 mile deep. Now this development if if you approve it and it starts I mean I heard uh what miniart retail space stuff like that commercial development can mean a lot of different things. And right now there's a big battery plant going in less than 3 milesi from my house. I have no idea what type of uh toxic waste they're going to produce, how they're going to dispose of it. But as far as commercial development, uh if this is approved, uh can whoever is going to develop that uh are are they free to put uh manufacturing or the receipt, handling, storage, and distribution of anything potentially toxic or hazardous to the environment. that shouldn't be permitted in the C2 zoning, which is what this is supposed to an industrial, which would be the M1's. So, what you're talking about is an M1. Okay. Well, I I appreciate you said it shouldn't, but would they if if they were going to do something like that in developing it, would they have to get prior of approval for that or would it just fall under their commercial development, free to do what they want? So commercial development is not free to do what you want. It's got to fit within the parameters. The parameters are as were

generally described. They're largely commercial uses and is distinguished from industrial. Industrial uses typically they can't just do what they want to do there either. They have to get a special use permit for the kinds of uses you're talking about. So I I don't know that the C2 designation is maybe as open as maybe you're thinking it is in terms of them just saying, "Well, I can do whatever I want to do." It's it's it's limited to those commercial uses, primarily retail. So, if they were to apply for a special use permit, they'd have to get it from you folks. That to go through council, but special use permit wouldn't permit that in this zone any um Okay. Now, the multifamily dwellings, um is is there any limitations on that? Is it apartments, duplexes, town houses? Uh, so I think you may be talking about the next resoning request. At this point, we're just talking about the C2 request. So hold that thought until we get All right. Well, then I'll be back up again. Okay. If you don't mind, I I'll read this to you. So C2 permitted uses are general automobile and implementation sales, lumber yards, contract yards, offices, neighborhood retail and similar uses are permitted for general uh for general listings of permitted conditionally permitted use by a North American industrial classification system NIC permitted uses will be determined based on compatibility. So essentially, if it's not one of those things that they said it, it's generally not going to be accepted in there. And even when they are going to ask for um to build something, they're going to have to run through a permitting process and and make sure that it's all kosher. So we might not be the governing body that approves if it's a special use that doesn't fall under that. But either way, a site plan has to come through here. Okay. Where are the access points for that?

proposed commercial development. I mean, from K10 to where the the the end of that that that corner is up there. Uh how many access points are they going to have? And uh I've got another concern because how many big trucks are going to be running in and out of there and up and down our road tearing up the road? Uh who's who's going to take care of the road? So, those are excellent points and they're points that would have to be dealt with in terms of a site plan. The question is, is this an appropriate use of the property at this location? That's the issue before us today. And so, you've got three tracks that border the highway with an exit ramp. And the question is, is that an appropriate place to put a commercial use? So, those are the kinds of questions we deal with. as far as what they actually build, those come up in site plans, those come up in your plat. The issues that you're talking about in terms of access and how they build it out, and all that's going to be premised also upon how do you service it in terms of getting sewer there because we don't even have sewer there yet, right? So, the question is, is this an appropriate use at this location as opposed to an industrial use or as opposed to, you know, more intense residential or large lot residential? What's the appropriate use? That's really the issue. Well, uh that sewer was my next question because we're on septic, right? Uh if they put sewer in out there, uh what are we going to have an option of tapping into it or will it run clear down north to uh what 95th Street? How far will the sewer go? Great question. One we probably don't have an answer to yet because we aren't there. We don't know. But that but that would be a preerequisite for them to develop. Well, we'll have to figure that stuff out before they get a building permit even

though we don't have it figured out today. So before they get the building permit that will have to be in their plan. Yep. Correct. Which Yep. had to be run by you folks. Yep. And it'll have to include road networks and what they're going to do with that and how they're going to handle the sewer issues. And there will be certainly other opportunities for neighbors such as yourself to talk about how this road alignment works, where their entrance is going to be. All of that is part of the development process. This is just the step to determine whether that's an appropriate use. All right. Well, I don't know if any of my other neighbors want to come speak on this, but uh I'll be back up when we talk about the multif family dwellings. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Judy Donland, 9825 Evening Star. And I would just like to say I don't feel that this is good use as commercial. Everyone who lives in the area is on acreage and there are thousands of acres on the other side of the highway to develop yet. Thank you. Thank you. Bill Simon, 38555 West 95th Street. I agree with what she just said. It's not appropriate use of uh this property. Um, if you want to see what a mess you can make, come out to my house. You did that uh whole thing for the Flint organization. I'm getting the mud and my ponds are filling in. So, come on out and see me, okay? I got the uh county

coming out tomorrow and Shirley Alder Brand. So, uh be ready to dredge if you do. But this is not a a proper use of this property. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the planning commission on this matter? I'm just confused and have some questions. I'm sorry. Name and address for the record, please. Vistana Bonakanol Lean 40555 West 103rd Street and we're the the owner of the property is Tsquare LC and we also own property north of K10 and my first question is the gentleman talked about the property north of Evening Star Road and I understand property east of Evening Star and west, but I don't understand where it's north. I think he misspoke. I think he was talking about east of it. Okay. And so all of this is farmland and and all of us who adjoin this are maintaining that farmland and we have cattle on our property who aren't going to like a lumber yard. And it's it's a it's a small piece that you're talking about. I don't know how much you can do with that piece of property in the middle of farmland, which we intend to keep as farmland. Now, I may not have decades left, but what I have left, I would like to maintain that farmland.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have decades left. My name is Eric Alen. I also live at 40555 West 103rd Street, also part of Tsquare LC. Again, I want my kids to farm. We live just down the road. That one square. I mean, there's an old farming family that's no longer there now. They moved, had to build a house somewhere else. That family, my family, what, 70 years? 75 years. 75 years farming next to each other. They're gone. We got another family north. They're probably going to be gone because of this. We're 12 minutes to get here and you're talking about expanding the retail of Dodto. There's nothing between Dotto and there but farm ground. So for that square to be reszoned, how many family farms are you okay with going away cuz that's what it's going to end up doing. Just like this gentleman who I'm sorry I am your neighbor but I don't know you. Same thing we see it before our ponds are filling in our lakes are filling in. It's going to cost 100k to get an excavator out there to dig out that which nothing is going to happen here to lessen that burden. So before you reszone it, how many family farms is that worth? That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Um I am Aaron Connard. I live in 9755 Estar. I think a big thing to take in consideration are all the businesses down that road. We have the tree farm business which I mean he pulls in

customers year round. He does amazing. We also have Caddy from my house is a farmer that takes cattle in. He's kind of the part of the reason he got beef. And then across the street from me is a jewelry counter kind of. They make it. They've been there since before I was born. and I've lived at my house for 25 years. I'm 25 years old. My son is three and I'm raising him there. I don't want him to feel the city life. That's not fair. We all live out there because we want the quietness. We don't want to have our neighbors looking in our window. We don't want 50 million kids screaming down our road doing 50 m hour when my kid could get hit, my dog could get hit, or like we've had in the past, a cow could get out and your car is done for. Why is it fair to kick out all those businesses just to put in a commercial business that you guys think we need when in reality that cabinet business, the tree farm and the cows, I mean those are necessities. The tree farm cuz people love Christmas. They want that sense of nature. The cabinets, that is a small owned business. He's been there years. the cattle. What would we do without it? Like why take away someone's security? Like out there is my security. That's it. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. My name is Penny Bonakan. I live at

1346 East 2350 Road. Um, I moved out there because I wanted a rural area to live. I moved out there when I married my husband. He had lived there 84 years. I've lived there almost 60. My sister-in-law's lived there longer than I have. We've maintained the farm well, I think. Um, as have our neighbors, and little by little, it's being eroded from us. I I I'd like to ask a question. The land that's in question tonight, what kind of soil rating does that have? I'm sure we have no idea collectively. Class one, class two soils. [Music] I have no idea. I can look it up. We thought you were looking it up. Yeah, that would be interesting. I mean, we have prime farm ground around here, and it's a shame to squander it for developments and that can go anywhere. Um, we would like you to to understand what what treasures we have in our midst and help protect those treasures rather than put a quick stop on every corner. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Sally Johnson and um we're at 38095 West 95th Street and um I think I own that little triangle of land

that you were talking about and um though I agree with everything that's already been said, I haven't I mean that was the first I had heard of it that I mean nobody's approached me about it or I mean I just kind of wanted more information about that property. What's that? Which property are you talking about? Um 38095 West 95th. So that little triangle of land up at the top is part of our property that our house is on. The one that's surrounded by blue there, the triangle. No. Oh, okay. I would think we probably aren't reszoning your property. Okay. Well, I was thinking that it was Let's see. Where's the 95th Street? Right here. I thought we were right here. Yeah, that's one of the ones that's circled in blue there. That's one of the tracks we're reszoning. But you live on 95th Street. Well, our house sits on 95th Street. Then it goes I mean, the highway kept our land already. So, yeah. Yeah, I might have to look at I was just So that would be north of those pieces of propert. The blue line that's on the north end of that runs along what would be about 99th Street. Yeah, she she might be north of Okay. So it's lives a bit north. You said 38095. Mhm. Okay. I think I think you're a little bit north of the triangle there. Okay. All right. [Music]

M Johnson, did you have another point you wanted to make? I No, I was I was just curious about that. Thank you. I hope hopefully we put to put to rest the concern that we're reszoning your property, right? I hope so. Okay, good. Any other comments from the public? Hi, I'm GW Well, 707 Main Street, Odora. I'm the applicant on this. Um, so certainly appreciate everyone's uh feedback and I understand when when development comes near your home, it's it's a very sensitive topic and certainly understand and appreciate all your comments. Um, as developers and as local developers, we really take our cues from the city's future land use plans. Um, this property is listed for sale. Uh, it's not listed for sale at prices that are agricultural prices. And so when we look at opportunities for development, especially with the K10 access via the exit ramp there, uh, and the other developments that are happening at that K10 intersection, um, and look at the future land use map, uh, our goal is to bring this property in alignment with the city's future plans so that we can, uh, go forward and find end users for this property. Um, city of Dotto recently dropped residential property taxes significantly. um thanks um 100% to the commercial and industrial development that's been going on in the community and I know the city is active in pursuing uh retail and commercial developments uh as uh adjacent to the m the uh industrial that's happening. So that's why we've brought this before you. We think it it is a proper land use with its K10 access. uh it is what the future land use map has shown for some time and so we're looking forward to bringing a development that will be attractive to the community that will

grow the tax base and that will not be a problem for the neighbors. Um we just don't feel like whether it's us or someone down the road we don't feel like this is going to be farm ground for the next 20 years. So if there's any questions I'm happy to answer them or if not I'll let you continue to discuss. Thank you. Matters still before the public. Anyone else want to speak? I have one more question. Sure. Did Dodto just annex the three parcels that we're talking about? They did, but not all the rest of the land. I think there's a fourth parcel that's not part of this. Correct. Yeah. A small one um just to the north of uh the one could be the city council annexed five tracks. There's only four that are being proposed for resoning. Three of them are those the commercial tracks and then one multifamily tract which we'll talk about next. So is it this one? Yep. And this one and those three that I can't reach. Yeah, it's the ones that are circled in blue. Well, the the little teeny triangle is the same tract as I understand it as this. This and this will count as one part. So, this represents three tracks here. The fourth one is up here and we'll talk about that next. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments during the public hearing? Still no one online. And I will close the public hearing matters before the commission. Comments, questions, concerns.

My comments and concerns. I know it's zoned this way, but I hear you. We are losing our farm ground. So it's difficult when you know this has got to change and I trust the developers that are working on it. So sometimes you've got to weigh that with your decision. And believe me, I hate seeing our farmland destroyed. And I just talked to somebody at our church that said the farmlands being destroyed. And it's just heartbreaking. I mean, that's how we feed our United States. It's how we live. and these it makes it hard to sit up here sometimes. It really does. So, we understand what you're saying. Uh, I know this was just annexed into the city and this is the the first zoning into the city zoning categories and since there's no sewer and it's sounds like it's going to be a while before that gets put through there, I just I don't know at some point this will be the appropriate category. I just don't know that with the road the way it is and no whether this was would be the proper category to come in. I would like to see something else, but I understand it has to be something for the city category. This is just the the reasoning if it comes to development. There's going to have to be site plans and other things. And hopefully that will all be

taken into consideration so that the rest of the property around it isn't disturbed as much as some of the things that have happened recently. That's my hope. I appreciate that you trust the developers. I ask that you trust the land owners that have been there and some of that land has been in a family for over a hundred years. I do. It's just 75 years. I understand. But we've been good stewards of the land. Yes. And we appreciate that. We believe we should be trusted and heard. Absolutely. So, um, the issue before us tonight is whether or not this proposed change to C2 zoning is appropriate for this location. things that are taken into account are those things that are in the staff report that were descri described that the practical reality is that whether it's currently used as farm ground or not, it fronts K10 on an interchange in a very busy area where there's going to be development at some point. The owner of this tract has asked us to reszone it and we have a duty to them as we do to the neighbors to say, well, it's their property. What do they want to do with it? Oh, they want to do commercial zoning. Is that an appropriate use here? Well, it fronts the highway and it's on the interchange. Is that a better use than doing two 10acre tracks with rural development? Probably. If you think about it in the context of how to build a city, this is the place you'd probably want to put commercial property. Um, the fact that it may historically have been farm ground, I get that. But by that same token, we've had a highway that's been built there for a very long time with a whole lot of cars going by and you have a giant industrial complex that

was built long before I was born that's on the back side of that. So to the extent that there's going to be development there, the only thing we can do as a city and as a community is try to control it and say where do we want it? Where should it go? Um none of those things lead me to believe that this is an inappropriate place for a commercial zone. Now, I totally understand that development is disruptive that um that's the reason we have the process of the the plat and the site plan and we have city staff who supposed to help figure out what happens with with runoff and those kinds of issues. You've got county officials that are coming to take a look at your ponds ponds that are filling up for runoff. That's the right call because it shouldn't happen that way. But that has to do with controlling that development as opposed to whether this is an appropriate use of land. Um, and I for that reason I think I I would I would favor changing this to a commercial zone at this area. I think it is consistent with the overall plan and quite frankly it's probably where the commercial ought to be as opposed to someplace even further away from the highways and trying to build that out as residential or trying to leave it rural there. It just doesn't doesn't work in terms of the overall plan. So that's my two cents. So I'm kind of going to echo the same thing that the chairman just mentioned. Um this is a very busy highway on K10. I mean it's a great interchange improvements on the south side of occurred at 103rd Street. Uh the future land use plan has shown commercial and mixed use at this interchange. I understand the u public's concern with erosion, traffic, access, worried about what's going to go in there. Um I mean, again, what's before us, like the chairman said, is a land use um decision tonight. uh all those concerns that the public has, you know,

that'll be addressed at a later meeting, you know, with access and have to do a traffic study, have to do drainage study, all that stuff will be hashed out with staff and then it'll come in front of planning commission again. So, you know, this would be the first step in the developers, you know, progress to get to that point. And also on another point, I mean, the land owner wants the Arizona, they want the best and highest use for their property, and we're here to protect the public and make sure that that best and highest use does not impact the neighbors. So, um, so I generally follow what chairman said and this staff's professional opinion on recommending approval. Um, you guys know where I said is I like commercial up next to residential a lot more than I like other uses. So, I think this is reasonable. Um, and frankly, proximity to K10, it's it's um I think it's going to happen. So, yeah, I don't I'm in favor. certainly think it wouldn't be appropriate to make that industrial at this point certainly because there's plenty of industrial ground across the street. I got that. So, I don't think it's appropriate development for industrial and I really can't see it being a proliferation of of residential uses. Certainly, the part that fronts the highway wouldn't be. And I'm not sure any of that really would work out there, but to me it seems like it's an appropriate choice. Park. Any other comments?

Motion. Make a motion. We recommend approval of the subject property on agenda item 5B for zoning from R Uh R O R to C2. Second R R U R U R to C2. Chairman, this is a tax on online. Could you just reference the professional staff that you agree with that um the criteria? We've been trying to do that with the motions. Just we're going to deviate specify recommendation by Thank you. Commissioner Milbour, would you modify your motion to reference the recommendation of professional staff? Yes. I guess recommend approval of uh parcels noted in the agenda item 5B with staff's professional opinion on recommendation of approval from R UR to C2. Second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call. Templ. Yes. Huggin, yes. Schultz, yes. Lane, no. Milbury, yes. Mock, yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 5C, reszoning north of K10 and east of Evening Star to R3. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. uh the issues that were raised for this or the previous resoning very similar to what's being proposed or the the same issues regarding the item on 5C. However, the applicant has requested a change from RUR to R3 multifamily. As you know that we did change a few years ago the density in

the R3 to 24 units per acre, but you can also have single family and duplex in our R3 category as well. So there is the opportunity for different types of housing development on this tract. So, I'll run through the the criteria briefly, but I don't I'm not going to spend as much time on it as I did because very many of the items are very similar as far as the improvements necessary for north of Evening Star, the gravel road, access to Evening Star Road and utilities along those lines as well. Um, but we did do all the notification requirements, signs, etc. for this particular track. As you can see, it's a little bit further north along north and to the east on K10. Um, there also is one of those little triangles hanging on the other side of the K10 Highway, which is now in the Flint development area. There's almost 30 acres of property in this location that the applicant is requesting to have reszone to R3 multifamily. The land use plan does show this as mixed use, this tract itself. And the the track that I referenced that was the fifth track that was annexed that doesn't have an application for resoning is just to the to the west of this tract where the kind of jogs out a little bit to the on the map. I guess it's where the blue line is where it goes north and then it just cuts over to for to the right for a little bit. I'll just go and point it out right where the cursor is that also under ownership by Clariew LLC. So with that, but I really think I wanted to emphasize

the, you know, the character of the neighborhood, compatibility, the proposed uses, very similar impacts to neighbors as far as uh uses and the the need for the site plan process, which we have talked many times about and the traffic impacts, the lighting impacts, the noise impacts. Certainly could be some more police and sheriff involvement, fire issues with a multifamily development than what we're talking about with the commercial development. But once again, the issues that we are before us is have a property that's once again along K10 highway with an interchange and it's been part of our comprehensive plan land use plan for in this case mixed use which the applicant is asking for a multifamily R3 which I said is up to 24 units per acre and then also you can have duplexes and single family residential. We went through a lot of that modification of the process as far as lot wlets for for those for the duplex and the R and the R residential district as well. We will require site plan development, storm water issues, lighting evaluations as potential for this develops. Uh we've talked about the utilities, how they're not in place at this point, but certainly under an R3 zoning would have to be on a sanitary sewer system, which could be several years away, but this is a area that could be served since there is development across the highway that will have ultimately have sanitary sewer nearby. So, as I said, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go through all these. It's a very similar type of recommendation and staff report as far as the the concerns and issues that might come up with a track like this, but what we've

had, as you recall, on Kill Creek and K10 also some issues where we had multifamily and it's best to have that buffered up against the highway versus a single family types of development. So, with that, staff does recommend approval of this reszoning change to R3. And I certainly stand for any questions you may have. I missed what you said there. Did you say that 9.7 acres that's just to the left of that little kick out there is also owned by the same? Okay. And that is not under consideration today? No, it is not. Okay. Can you think of any other R3 we have in the city that doesn't have access or street collector road? No, I sure can't. Um, but as pointed out earlier 9.7 is not part of the deal, right? But it is it's all under single ownership. So, um, and that will be something obviously we would require prior or the planning commission would ultimately make that decision on a site plan. It just troubles me because it's kind of an island without having access to the street and R3 is the most intense residential development we have. And you're correct, Mr. Chairman. Seems like that's kind of a missing piece. It is a little bit, but um I suppose at that point I haven't asked specifically the developer, but you know, it's one of those things that didn't maybe exactly know what they wanted with that spot. And why would you want to reszone something then maybe reszone it back? I mean, and we've had that happen a few times with planning commission where somebody's reszoned something and then resoned it zoned it back and it's maybe this one is just track they felt like we'll just leave this one alone for the time. Yeah,

that's is what I'm trying to avoid. it is it not a requirement of a of a any of our um zones to have a a way to access it? I don't know that a requirement of all the zones for a building permit. Yeah, but for building permit for but for reasonzoning purposes have to know how they're going to get to it. I guess we don't have many truly landlock parcels and I guess you could consider this one a truly landlock parcel. So doesn't come up often. Yeah. first I've seen it. I think this is Pat and I think GW can but I think this parcel just inadvertently was not included when the legals. So I think they would have liked to on it but it just didn't get some time for that. That's correct. I have a reasoning application that will be submitted tomorrow on the 9.7 acres. We did not get that turned in in time to be on this agenda. Okay. Well, that that's helpful. Yeah. Any other questions for Brad? Not for Brad. I I did have a Was was Yeah, if you don't mind. Um is the 9.7 reapp is that for R3 as well? No. So the idea with the 9.7 is that would be commercial also, but there would be a road that would access the R3 through that commercial piece. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. No other questions at this moment. I would open this up for a public hearing. Again, if you uh wish to address the planning commission on this application, please give your name and address and uh give us your thoughts.

Jerry Donland, 9825 Evening Star Road. Uh, multi-family dwelling. That can mean a whole lot of things. Um, it can mean a whole lot of things as far as whether they're apartments, duplexes, town [Music] houses. But one of my concerns is what type of families are going to be occupying these dwellings and living out there by me? because uh like one of my neighbors mentioned uh we don't we don't really want uh people being able to come close by and look in our windows or what whatever. But, uh, if if these guys get this approved, before any actual, uh, uh, physical development starts, they have to submit some type of a development plan. Yes. That needs to be approved by you folks. Um, is there any type of multifamily dwelling plan that any of you can tell me you would not be in favor of? Cuz one of my big concerns, everybody's got to have a place to live. I I get it. And I'm all about our social safety nets, but uh I'm I'm not too thrilled about the possibility of low income government subsidized housing button up to the back end of my property. And I think if it was your neighborhood that was facing the same situation, you'd have similar concerns.

How long after a plan is submitted and gets approved does the actual uh uh physical development the the trucks and move building materials everything before it starts coming in? I'm just trying to get an idea of uh how much time we've got left to enjoy uh our property. Well, if it's any help to you, none of that's going to happen until the sewer gets developed. So, there's going to have to be some thought put into it and some money and some real planning to get sewer service to that area because where's the sewer money going to come from? Well, it's going to have to come from the developer unless there's some sort of other other supplier, but it's not going to come from, you know, city tax money. We can't pay for that either. We don't have that kind of money. Mhm. So, you know, there may be some sort of tax abatement or something to help with that, but all of that's going to have to take time. It's going to have to take planning. And at this point, there's I don't believe there's been any studies done in terms of how to sewer that area. So, I this isn't something that's likely to develop in any time in the near future. It's going to take a while. Okay. Well, I recognize again the question before us tonight is is that an appropriate place for this kind of development. You made a very good argument that says it backs up to my property and my property's large acreage development and my large acreage home and I think that's an excellent point. So, I appreciate that. All right. Uh, Bill Simon, 38555 West 95th Street.

And this property does back up to the south end of my property. So, I'm that triangle. Well, I don't think he even have it on there. Um, further north. Yeah. And Mrs. Lane, I appreciate what you said earlier, but I remember something you said at an earlier meeting, too. Now that we got all the plant annex, we don't have to go west. I remember you distinctly saying that in one of our previous meetings and where why are we going west when we could go south? There's tons of acres out there that need to be developed. And you got a big two-lane or four-lane road going right out Evening Star Road through it. What is wrong with that access to put businesses on each side of it or curve it a little further on a ammunition plant that's sitting idle? So I think that's what that's what I would do if I was you. And I guess the other question I have is where's the rest of the Dodto population in making this decision tonight? Is it just the people that are next to it? This affects their tax base. Wouldn't they want to under understand what's going on? And the third comment is I would say ditto to everything Jerry said, but I would say I I think if you're going to ask for reasonzoning, we ought to be able to see roads and and sewers and everything else before that before that final decision is made on all of these to come in and say we're going to do it. And I trust Mr. welding cuz I think I knew he's dead. But uh to trust anybody on doing things is just not in today's world. And so I can just see a whole line of apartments across the south end of our property. And uh the sewer line, hell, I could come in through my property with it

before it's over with and I could just maybe suck out all my mud out of my pond. Um but I'd say this is not an appropriate use. This is an island. There is no road access. There's nothing on this plot that says we ought to approve this tonight. And that's what I would say is don't do it. Okay. Period. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. S. Judy Donlin, 9825 Evening Star. I would like to just point out a couple things on your map over here if I may. the uh this is our property here. This center piece that goes through these folks right here just moved in within the last probably three to four months and spent almost $700,000 for this home. So they could be in a rural area out of Cedar Creek where they used to live and to have all this in front of them turned into commercial. Bunch of hogwash and that tells me that there is really no respect for the property owners in the area. We've been out there 40 years and we never would have even thought about moving out there had we known this was coming this late in our lives. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? With that, I'll close the public hearing. The matter is back before the planning commission. I have a

quick question for staff. Is are the tracks that the narrow tracks here and the um well actually what the adjacent property properties are they all rur as it stands today? Yes, they are. Okay, thank you. Those are not in the city, correct? Except for the 9.7 that didn't make the the cut. Yes, the 9.7 has been annexed. Got it. Comments or questions? Well, to me, this looks and feels an awful lot like the Kill Creek K10 where we kicked it back because I if I put myself in their shoes, I'm not in favor of multifamily development next to large single family residential. I just I don't like the way it presents. Um I would prefer that it was buffered. I know that that generally comes with a site plan, which is what we had the last time. Um, but that's kind of where I sit with it. My problem is I don't know. My my problem is I I don't know how access is going to work on this. And it just seems like certainly to the extent that that the neighboring development is already there in terms of the the large lot residential without having that connection, it just doesn't seem like appropriate place to drop highintensity residential development. And so I kind of feel like we don't have enough information to make that decision as to its appropriateness. it may be. Um, and you know, I think just relying on the fact that the properties are under common ownership, they won't always be under common ownership. We're given a reasoning and saying it's appropriate to

be there. So, I I do think it's something we probably ought to give some additional thought to how that's going to work. And I just don't remember us dropping an R3 with it wasn't actually fronting an a large arterial road or wasn't part of another development that did have that. Um, it's just to me that's a hard cell. Thank you. I'm kind of same boat as Charles with the putting up to the large lot. Same kind of deal we came up at Kil Creek. Uh, I don't agree with the be on the compatibility factors. I don't agree that that's compatible with the neighborhood. The adequate availability of sewers obviously is a factor that's not not there yet. Uh on G it says the extent to which the use is allowed. Proposed uh zoning would adversely affect the capacity or safety of the street network. Well, there's no access to the street on that property. So I find that that should be negative instead of neutral. So there several points on that that I don't agree with on the the staff part. John, you just made Patrick very happy because that's what he's been asking. Look at the thumbs up from it. I'm doing I'm trying. I'm trying, Patrick. I'm learning. But that's kind of where I'm at on that. comments, discussion, motions. I hear what my fellow commissioners are saying. I still listen to the public comments. Again, again, I'm going to

echo some of the comments I had on the last agenda item. You know, those are all issues that can be addressed on the site plan. I can hear chairman Timland's um comment about access to the tract. It's out there in the middle of nowhere, but again, the developer cannot move forward with developing that landlock track of land without submitting a development plan showing the access. Um again, this thing is on the future land use plan is mixed use and I still think it's an appropriate location for this type of zoning. Uh, I agree with staff's professional opinion on the comments that they made and I think this is the right spot for it. Okay. I think uh some of the comments sounded like the neighbors thought this uh project when I say a project I mean construction was be made may be approved here by by our action. This recommendation to the city council doesn't authorize construction or you know that there are many steps that have to be taken in the future and I you know it is a little hard to envision how this access will work for this property but the but the entire neighborhood It's going to have to change for this to be a place where somebody wants to build high density residential. Just like the area to the

north of this property, to the north of the commercial and the south is going to have to change in character for commercial to be appropriate at that location. uh you know, you're not going to go out and build a Walmart in a bean field if there's no people living around it. And that's kind of the view I take on this. if uh if the farmers I it's a shame for people to live on nice fertile ground the way they always wanted to live and and feel like they're being forced out and and I wish I had a better answer for that but I don't see this action tonight having an impact on those neighboring farmers for a long time. What about our property values? So, just so I understand and just hearing what you just said. I'm sorry. We actually we actually closed the public hearing, but if you would like to come back up, I just have a quick reopen the public hearing for additional comment. I move that we reopen. Second. Second. All right. Go ahead. Eric, Colleen, 4055 East 103rd Street, West 103rd Street. Thanks. So, what you're saying is we all need to change so one person can get a reasonzoning done is our whole our whole lifestyle, our whole livelihood, everything has to change. But we're all there. We're all making a living. We're all, you know, taking care of the ground that's we've

been taking care of for generations. So for one reasoning, it's up to us to just adapt. Out of fairness, that's not what I heard Commissioner Huggin say. Oh, sure. He said that in order for them to actually move forward with construction and to build this, there's going to have to be significant change in the area. Then why are we worrying about a reasonzoning now for something that's 30 years down the road? Is it an appropriate use at this location is the really the only question in front of us. Not whether we can build it, whether it should be built, what will have to change or what has to be done. It's a question of if you're looking at this map and you're looking at an interchange with a highway. Is it appropriate? This has got a different question than the one we had before, which was the C2. This is a residential development that fronts the highway. generally you're not going to build large lot development along that and so you probably are talking about some more intense use. The issues that we've discussed are you know the road network and do we actually have a way to connect to it and those are the kinds of things that we can talk about in the context of this but it isn't a question of whether or not they will actually build it. That's going to come up in terms of them submitting plans submitting building the the plat and the site plan. All of that will come back before the process through the city. So, is it an appropriate use? Are you looking at it currently? Or are you looking at is it an appropriate use 10, 15, 20 years down the road when you're making this decision? Well, it's a good question because I I I want to address Mr. Simon's comment on that as well in that it in a perfect world, it'd be nice to be able to do this and legally make the decision based upon the full set of facts of how it's going to be built out. The state statutes don't really work that way. State statute says you have to decide whether or not it's appropriate land use separate apart from the question of actually what's built there and in doing that you have to think of okay what's the most intense thing that

could be developed there and would it work that's really the test and so we don't know what those answers are and we're not allowed to quite frankly under the state law the question before us tonight is if that developed as residential would it be appropriate there and residential and high density and for the reasons we've talked about. That's what those are the things. The staff report commented on those and and John's pointed out several staff report items that he doesn't agree with and that's what we're doing tonight. And that's all fair and I do appreciate the education and guidance. This is something that I'll be taking over here. So, this is the first time I've had to worry about this and it is but I have seen it in the past and I have seen no don't worry about that. It's not going to work like that. Then it does. Then we come back to the government and whichever committee or council we have to go to and say, "Hey, you approved this despite our protest. We're asking for some protections. We didn't get those." A great example is no semi-truckss on Old K10. Or I guess if it's on that map, it'll be 103rd Street west of Evening Star Road. That got denied. You know, we've seen increased speeding. We've asked for more police presence to monitor the speed. It's 45. I have a radar. I've clocked people doing 60. You know, when we come and we've asked for help, we've been told, "Hey, don't worry. That's another that's another committee or that still has to get approved." But then our concerns aren't heard those. So, when we start to see one domino fall, like I understand, and I apologize, Mr. councelor or commissioner, I'm not sure about the title, so I apologize. Um, sir, uh, is we start to see like we've seen this before where we were told, don't worry, this is just a formality. They still

have to get past that. It's just and you I mean, you can hear how many people live on that road that are in this room. like there's the entire neighborhood is here with concerns and we just watched the first motion basically pass. Thank you by the way, ma'am. I appreciate that. So, I mean, you keep telling us not to worry, yet when we've seen this in the past and we've gotten told the same thing, we still end up getting screwed over. So, I'm going to stop you there because I don't think anybody's told you not to worry. You're here tonight because you're committed and you care. That's fair. I apologize. You're here tonight because we're committed and we care. None of us are telling you this is nothing to worry about. It is a question of a domino. I get that. You've made it clear that you oppose the first domino. We've told you we have a legal requirement to make a determination based upon what we can and we have to confine our decision to that. I understand there will be other dominoes and I fully expect to see you back here and making those points and when the city tells you there aren't trucks beyond the street, I expect you to go complain to them and go to city council. That's how democracy works. That's how this system works. So, please keep coming. Please keep giving us your comments and don't think for a minute that any of us are telling you don't worry about this. No, you're right. That was hyperbolic on my part. I apologize. You did not at all say not to worry about it. That was passion over logic for a brief brain fart. So, I apologize. But, but I do appreciate that you are recognizing our perspective and where we're coming from. And that was not meant in any disrespect by any ways, but it does kind of feel like we're pushing that rock up a hill and it's going to have to roll back down on us. But thank you for your time, guys.

You know, we've got a big crowd here, but you have I've been doing this for 10 years and I can't tell you how many meetings we've had where there's not a single person here. And until it affects you, you're not involved. So, the city's been having a lot of meetings on different community events and planning. I would encourage you to attend those. Submit your surveys to see what's going on, what people want. If you don't want it, then by all means, that's your opportunity to speak up. It's not difficult. Thank you. You saw me emotional before because it is not easy for us to sit up here and make If I may, I'd like to close the public hearing again. We reopened it before that comment. Objections? Nope. To the public. Uh Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to say that this will the recommendation night will go to the city council on June 19th. So for folks in the audience, it's the council meeting on the 19th, which is Hasn't that been reschedled today? Well, that's right. Pardon me. That's Junth, the federal holiday. It's the 18th, Wednesday. So, this will go back, this will go before city council no matter what we decide tonight on June. June 18th. Correct. 7 o'clock in these chambers. Thank you. Matters back for the planning commission. Any comments further discussion? I I have a motion. See if I can get through it properly. follow what Patrick's recommendations are. So, I'm I'm going to um make a motion that we um deny um the motion to recommend approval for item 5C uh for reasonzoning of parcels uh

3F21301 through uh 104 from uh to R3 multif family um for the city council So you're recommending denial recommendation to the council. Correct. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Further discussion. Is it adequate if we reference the discussion here, Patrick, or do you need specific findings? No, I think you can just reference that for the reasons that you earlier stated because you're pretty clear that Yeah. For for the record, for the the two primary reasons are um road access, what what John brought up, and um I don't think it's an appropriate use of land uh abutdded up against uh large single family lots. Thanks. You still keep your second? I keep my second. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mock. Am I approving my denial? If you vote yes, you're asking to deny. Yes. Schultz, yes. Lane, yes. Templan, yes. Huggin, yes. Schultz, Milbourne, no. Motion. Motion carries. Recommending denial. That one always goofs me up. Thank you. Uh, does anyone have an objection? Moving on through the agenda. Take a break. You good? Good. All right. Item 7A, site plan for sign and right of way for residences at Lexington. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the Lexington

Avenue coming through town has quite a wide ride of way and we do have several signs in the rightway. The process for approving a sign in the rightway is a site plan submitt before the planning commission. And the applicant for the residences of Lexington, Dustin Baker, is here tonight requesting that the median on 90th Street be allowed to be used for a sign. I have included the potential sign in the packet for your to look at. I also wanted to point out there was a temporary sign in the median while construction was going but this point the applicant would like to get an approval for the location of it sign itself. Um staff is recommending as you can see it's 175 ft wide now primarily most of that 175 ft is to the east of Lexington Avenue and you can see where the median strip is is there. Uh our recommendation is to allow the sign in the median strip. It is about 8 ft wide and it'll be centered and be 20 ft back from the western edge to allow for some line of sight issues for vehicles that might be pulling up to the that sign location and wanting to enter Lexington Avenue with a left left turn. So with that um that's basically a pretty simple staff report. We do have, you know, Tri Century Bank, JTs, and then those locations. Uh, the town homes also have a a sign in the rightway as well. So, it's not uncommon to have this, especially on Lexington Avenue, which has such a wide rideway. Stand for any questions you may have. So, the sign will allow for 110 ft of

rideway. Yes. And there's no sight distance issues. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, this sign is in public. Yes. Or potentially. Who's responsible for this sign? The applicant is responsible for maintaining the sign. So, don't we do we make them sign an agreement? Isn't there a rightway use agreement that it is signed? Patrick, you might remember the school district has one at the West Y that that message board sign they has is there. Um and I and I remember some sort of an agreement to the effect that African understands it's in the right of way might be able have to be moved that sort of thing. Patrick, do you recall what I'm remembering too? Or somebody runs into it then the applicant has to get out and fix it. That yes, that is correct. If you'd like to put that in your motion that the applicants are responsible for maintaining repairing the sign would I'm curious has has the city ever had this this rideway have a track dedicated within this rideway that can be part of an agreement that you know specifically makes the sign holder responsible for that contract. Yeah, I don't I don't remember. It's been quite a while since we did that other one. And are there others? Well, we haven't approved a new sign in the rightway since I've been here. Yeah. So, it's been more than 10 years. I just don't recall. Uh I don't I know we didn't define a tract or anything like that, but there might be some indemnification language uh associated with that. I just can't I don't recall the specifics of that. But the first step is planning commission approval. We know that much

and this is this is up to planning commission to approve. So it won't go to council. Mr. Chairman, the like to address planning commission if I can I speak. Is there an objection to please? Um apparently no objection. Um uh Dustin Baker algo of development. Um, uh, Mr. Huggins, um, I'll just say that whatever I'll just make the comment on on the record that whatever I need to do in dimmification, maintain it. Um, I understand I have to maintain it. I need to mow around it. Um, you know, a car hits it, a semi hits it, that's on that's on our development. and whatever agreement that Patrick needs us to sign to that effect, I'm willing to sign. Thank you, Brad. Um, I don't want to get into this. This is a long discussion we had with lit signs and electronic signs. Is there anything that we need to know in as it relates to how many lumens this thing puts off or anything along those lines? Uh, I didn't specifically ask that. Now that the approval of the signs actually goes to the building official department. Okay. The sign will be lighted. There'll be some backlighting on the lights as I understand it, but nothing glaring or something that might interfere with driver's vision. Okay. And it shows 60 watts is what the lighting. Yeah, I assume you were fine, but I just thought Yeah, it would be prudent to at least ask. You don't mind? No. Considering how we flugged the Dota United Methodist Church for their sign, I think, you know, we gota be fair. Yeah. I thought it was kind of a a duty of ours to at least poke a hole or two or ask a question. It's a very nice looking. It is a nice looking sign.

Further discussion motions. If you would like me to, I can I can make a motion. Sure. Can I make a motion? Yeah. I don't want to get in trouble again. I would like to uh move approval of the sign with the condition that the sign is set back 20 ft from the western edge of the median to allow for 110 ft of ride ofway and line of sight for vehicular traffic and subject to a right of way use agreement acceptable to the city with the applicant accepting responsibility for maintaining the sign in surrounding area. I second that. Sounds good. We're glad. Further discussion. Roll call. Schultz, yes. Huggin, yes. Templan, yes. Lane, yes. Mil, yes. Mock, yes. Motion carries. Sounds like a lawyer could have wrote that up. Thank you. Item 7B, consider final plaque for Geer Concrete at 10680 Evening Store Road. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We recently went through a special use permit process for approval of the Geiger Readymix plant on South on Evening Star Road. One of the conditions in that approval was for the applicant to plat the property, which is what you have before you. We have reviewed this plat. It doesn't contain a utility easement around the north, west, and south sides. Also has dedication of rightaway along evening star to allow for an ultimate arterial through that area. does have our typical language for delayed improvements which we require on all our plats and it does maintain

the presentation and the the allows for the approval of the or the construction of the site plan as presented at the special use permit public hearing. So with that, I'll stand for any questions you may have. So I'm sorry, Brad, you said it is consistent with this the site plan we saw. Yes. I guess that rightway is going to be dedicated along Evening Star. Is that adequate for that future road coming through there? Yeah, I thought 60 of a total 120. Awesome. Kevin was talking about that being 120 was thinking we needed. Any questions about that? Discussion. Thank you, Brad. motion. This is again approval by the planning commission be referred to council for acceptance of the easements and rights. Correct. I move we recommend approval of the geer ready mix plan and item 7 as stated by staff. The Additional right away on Star Road. Got dueling professional motions going on tonight. How about that? Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call. Lane. Yes. Templan. Yes. Hkins. Yes. Schultz. Yes. Matto. Yes. Milton. Yes. Motion carries.

Final item on the agenda 7 C. Consider final plat for God. God states. I believe it's Guardian. Guardian. I not sure the applicant is here in the audience tonight. Maybe they can clarify that for us. Guardian. Guardian. Thank you. I was taught whole language as a kid. I can't pronounce anything, Brad. All right. This has been an interesting process as far as this plat, but it's before you tonight. Now, it is a minor subdivision plat because it's only five lots, but it is probably one of the larger residential plats that we've ever had before us. This is a part of the JA Farms that was recently purchased by Russell Lindmark, who's the applicant tonight. We have met with their consulting engineers and the applicant looked at their view their sketch plat and provided comments. Now this is interesting because it is the request is for a b private gated community with a private road and we don't allow private roads except with city council approval. So that will be an additional step that the council will have to take. And I believe Mike that you brought this up to the development committee several months ago when this first came up that has several couple council members on it and they didn't see any problems or issues granting that request. So we relayed that information to the applicant. So you can see that there are five lots on this tract. It's quite large track and the the road network is it's been very strongly shown there, but it does weave its way through the area and does include at the north. One thing that city staff wanted was to take that up to the property line. So ultimately, if there were ever to be a connection with Gardener Road and this development or this property does chooses not to go or allow for public

access through this area, there would be that potential for connection. So we've met with the applicant. We've worked through the the process and the steps. Additionally, there's going to be a water line that will have to be installed, which will be a public water line. But these are all improvements that will be made 100% by the applicant themselves. And then, of course, they'll have to get approval for from Joe, city engineer, on the standards for the road. We do have a typical rural road that we've talked about with the applicant that they will be responsible for constructing and maintaining. And then lastly, actually two two additional things. There will be a gate as I mentioned which does include what a term called a NOX box which allows for emergency services to uh proceed through the gate if there's a certain reason to do that. Then finally we did get additional rightway dedicated along Corass Road. We actually show corus as an arterial within the city of Dodto and we've got additional right ofway for improving or at least for that location. You can see it's kind of right along Corless the wedge shaped piece. Yeah. Right to the left. Yeah. Right there is being dedicated to the city. So it meets our standards for the minor subdivision. There are once again improvements that the applicant will have to make as far as and dedication of easements and as I mentioned the Knox box things like that but I'll stand for any questions you may have and once again the city council does have the ability sole ability to approve a private road in Dodto. So you would be making a potential motion to approve the

plat as presented. How do we approve the plat without the city giving the the city council giving approval for the private road first? Well, that's a good question. We had that uh I think that kind of discussion and felt like if we hold that out as far as the city council approving, you're still accept the city council accepting the the private easement essentially. So that's within their jurisdiction as we see as far as moving the process the plat forward from just planning commission to city council. But this is a final plat. So they aren't accepting a public road. We've had final plats be approved uh with contingencies from the planning commission before. Usually they were cgraphy errors or something pretty simple, but I think it's allowable. Patrick's online if he needs to. Maybe you should. No, I I agree. As long as we call that out. Yeah. Okay. If we approve this, are we the city then that the city council is going to be approving a private road along the access easement as drawn essentially. And I did ask the applicant about that because it does look like it kind of worms its way through there, but they did have their engineer look at making sure the curves and all that were were consistent with typical design speeds for that area. And also they wanted to preserve as much vegetation through the area as possible. But I don't see this ever. Well, we did talk about it potentially connecting with Gardener Road, but at this point it's all going to be held by private owner. And whether that connection ever happens is something that will be decided by future

city staff and planning commissions. Where's Gardener Road come in here? It is. It's fairly close to being straight. It's right on that section line right I believe to the There it is. Well, so this is that gardener Oh, that far over there, right? Yeah. Gardener Road is like another half section to the north. Yeah, we got to we have to understand that we've got a whole another half section. A whole another half section that's owned by a split property along the extension of Gardener Road. Okay. Yeah. As well as there's an 80 foot cliff at the north end of our property. Yeah. Okay. It's fun to traverse a little bit. Switch back. So, this the the property we're talking about is is if if you're looking north, the the bridge over top of K10 would be right behind us. Correct. Okay. You guys will be in shouting distance of of my house. Your neighbors. Yeah. Brad, doesn't this plat say it's dedicating cordless right away? Yes. So wouldn't it take council action? Yeah, they'll have to Yeah, I mean this will go to council for acceptance of easements and rights away. So yeah, and we typically we've even had a few plats if you remember the carriage houses where there wasn't any easements or rightway, but we always still take those to city council for approval. So how long is this drive? Oh gosh, I off the top of my head, I don't know if you can recall, but it's it's a fairly significant distance. So, it's about it's it's definitely more than a half mile. Yes. Because So, how long a dead end road would

allow in a development? Well, if it's a culde-sac, I believe our standard 600 feet. Is that Yeah, I think it sounds I was going to say eight, but yeah, something less than 1,000 ft. So this is a little bit longer than that. Oh yeah, quite a bit actually. So wouldn't the same crit the same rationale for not allowing a culde-sac to be more than 600 ft apply to this road? Well, you're right and I it's kind of our opinion as we went through this whole process that the council because it's a private road and if the council approves it, some of those issues go away as long as and once again I don't ever see a situation where there's going to be a problem with you a lot of times we have those because we don't want too much traffic or emergency vehicles to not be able to access a potential fire or something along those lines. But with with the large lots on this and the proposed plan by the applicant, I've just felt it was How many dwelling units could they build on each of these lots? Just one. These are all zoned RORO. The RORO, they're only allowed one dwelling unit on each of those. So, it's kind of like county zoning basically where you just have a large lot. And then once again back to our land use plan, everything kind of east of Gil Creek other than that Arbor Ridge and some areas around there are shown to be rural large lot tracks and that's what the applicant is wanting to do. Okay. Would we be allowed to give a little bit of color commentary to help them understand the reason behind this chairman's discretion applicant? You don't. Yeah. If you don't mind, please

come up. Give your name and address for the record. Give me some. You want my address here on this or where I'm living? Give me something for the record. That's all I care about. Uh Russell and Sherry Lindmark, 9205 Cass Road. So, the idea here, we bought this with the idea that Sher and I would be the only house on there, right up until our three daughters said, "Well, what if we want to build there?" So, the reason that there's four lots is we have three daughters. They're all in their 20s. Uh I they haven't signed a definitive agreement that they're going to build, but uh we wanted to make have the possibility that they could build. I like your your where your head's at. Yeah. But I can assure you that we're not we're not going to market these other three lots that we're going to enjoy this property, the two of us. She's wanted land since we got married and she is got 50% of the vote which I don't know how many of you are married but uh yeah so we got land so that's that's our dream that's our plan the you know as far as the connection to gardener road it literally is a you can you can look at the elevations it's a 90 foot drop off 80 foot drop off across 30 ft there. There really is no way to connect it. Uh there's no way there's no other area that we can have a second entrance to this lot. And the reason we want the gate is simply for the security. You know, we're out we're out in 350 acres and want to have that security of a gate. Thank you. So, if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll let you guys Yeah. Will

you are you proposing to gate it at coreless or at the end of the culdeac? No. When working with the city, we're bringing a 800 ft culde-sac in extending explorers trail which is across cordless and then putting the gate there at the culde-sac bulb. Sorry, at the culde-sac bulb of the constructed culde-sac. You mentioned 800 feet that this I think I'm pretty sure it's 600 about 750. Okay. Yeah. We we just took the culde-sac to the back of those lots along Corus essentially. So, is the plan for this water line that's being installed to be adequate for fire flow for protecting these houses? Yes, we talked. Yeah, I think they put in two hydrants. Is that correct? 8 in line. Well, you know, personally, I I totally get the appeal of having your kids live close to you. Mine neither one decided to live anywhere near me. So, I I think you you've done a great job. Um, that said, we are approving this not knowing who might own these in the future. And I am a little concerned with us approving a plat that has dotted lines for an access easement without a dedicated public street. I get the fact we might have doing a public street and it would be up to council as to whether or not they want to approve that, but I'm I'm just not terribly comfortable on giving a final approval for a plat with dotted

lines on an access easement as opposed to the street that gives clear access. And you know, maybe my comments are should be softened there and say that, you know, let the do it subject to approval of the council and they can do what they want to do with it. that just thinks that seems to me like that's carp for the horse because if the council says no then the plat isn't any isn't going to do them any good we would just come back through the process again so I mean that kind of governs us in the process and I'm sorry sure uh Tim Hreg NPJ architects 3515 oh 9415 n and pray village Kansas um we've kind been you know the journey on this started in last November and we've obviously been meeting with not only the city staff we've met with the fire department we met with a lot of different people and one of the things that was our governor is the five lot rule of a minor subdivision because if anyone decides to come along at some other point and say hey Russ lot I'm going to divide it we're out of that and we're coming back in front you going? We need to be now be a major subdivision and then all the rules that come with a major subdivision which actually we can't because we don't have the second we don't we realistically don't have that second point of access because we're closed off along Corless. We got a river on one side. We got an 80 foot bluff on the other side and we got an highway on the other side. We even thought about once about there's this little squirly way where you can go all the way down to the southeast corner and go underneath a rabbit hole underneath K10 and c connect to like 103rd Street. We said you guys probably weren't going to buy onto that one. That's a little bit of a stretch. And so realistically, the fact that this will the fact that this could be anything other than what is proposed right now

would take a lot of huge endeavors way outside of our purview and ability to do so. And so I think again to respect with what they want to do as a family, they're going to it's not going to be a gravel road to the houses. They want to make sure that they can get fire department access. They want to be able to sure that they can get a fire truck on there. But one of the big things that a public street does is rideway and sidewalks and drainage ditches and all that stuff. And it completely destroys that approach that they're they want to have to these private homes. And that's why you kind of see the meandering of this easement is that they want to preserve as many of the natural large big huge trees. And there's a lot of topography on the site. They would have, you know, if you ever saw like the grading plan on this, there's a big huge ravine that cuts up through the northwest northwest corner of this site. On the very on the very entire eastern end, you drop off into the river bottom. So, there's kind of there's a little plateau that kind of cuts through just to the right or just to the left of the mandaring. This is kind of little little top area that kind of clears off that we're going to just plop four houses that are like a 100th the density of even the large lots that are to the west of us. We're like 01 units percentage units per acre. So there's no density here. We're really limited by if we put a six lot in, it's game off because there is no way to do that because we cannot be a regular major subdivision with the lack of access to anywhere else. You know, we'd have to like there's just no way to get there. So, um I'll be available to the questions if you do have them. Thank you. Thank you. And be clear, I'm not trying to make this any harder for you. I just I'm just not used to giving approval to a final plat with just the access easement as opposed to even identifying it as a private drive. It's

just kind of weird to me. But maybe I'm out of line. Well, it's unique. I don't think we've done it before. Um, you know, the idea about allowing the private drive being under the council purview is is is why you haven't. I mean, we we just haven't had one of these before. So, um, you know, I I don't, you know, it's if the council approves it, it doesn't mean the council approves the plat. You approve the plat. Well, that's what I don't like having the plat with the access season that hasn't been approved for a private drive. It's just like, sure, it just seems like it's the cart before the horse. But so, I think my opinion on it, if it's a private drive and there's a problem with the drive, they have to fix it. I get that. It's not our problem. It's not the city's problem. I'm just thinking of every other plat I've ever seen in any other city that has a private drive calls that a private drive, not an access. No, I've never seen that. I know there are access easements that are permitted, but where you got one that's serviced in four lots, I've never seen that not called as a private drive. And maybe you know better than I do. I I can't think of one that I've ever seen like that. I think we'd be happy to call it a private drive. It was just staff's recommendation to use the access easement. So, well, I don't mean to throw them under the bus either. I'm just If I could Well, I think they had some reason for it. Yeah, I I the the access easement really was just a terminology that we were using because we we're talking about it's going to be a private road and we certainly can change our recommendations to a private road or access easement or both. I I don't want to get into the issue of semantics here, but ultimately our I guess sympathetic process for this was staff. We didn't see this area developing into anything else. There won't be any sewers or anything coming through here at any time that in the

foreseeable future, especially on the east side of Dodto. and it seemed like a reasonable request and didn't want to get too hung up on the road itself being that it's such a low density type development that didn't see there were going to be any issues with public safety issues or the water lines or things like that since they were actually uh immunable to putting in an 8 inch line. The fire hydrants all the things that felt at least from a safety perspective needed to be completed. I'm just one guy complaining that you guys all have floats, but you pitch it. I I would say that uh I have seen a number of instances in my career where the the future residents on a private access road are going to work hard to convince the city to make it public. But this usually the pattern. Yeah. which that may never happen here because there is no connector. Well, but you know the girls were gonna someday maybe want to move or and so whoever else moves in there later might see a different Well, that certainly would take a council action later to accept that road. And we do have a few private roads that have come up in Dodto and it's they've gone absolutely nowhere with Well, first of all, getting past city staff, but city council is not. I mean, it's kind of related like a detention basin. So, I mean, all the the lot owners have to maintain that detention basement. Why can't we just do the same thing with the access road? I mean, it's the same. They have to maintain it. I think it's great. I just have nothing on this plat that says that. Okay. Well, we just add the I

also don't have anything on this plat that describes what this road's got to be or anything else. And so, it's going to be up to the council to decide all those things. And I'm just used to seeing a final plat where you actually have it drawn up and it has a reference to an access agreement or easement agreement or something that establishes what that is. Well, I think moving forward, Mr. Chairman, you could put that part of your motion or to accept and we'll carry that forward to the council that planning commission had this concern about road access and a more definitive description of the road maintenance, installation, etc. But we do have I mean Joe's looked at the plans that they've talked about as far as cross-sections, things like that. And while he's not given his final approval on it, we kind of have a tenative agreement with the applicant on what would be constructed. So I mean something like lot own the owners of lots one through five must maintain the access road over the platted easement. Sure. Is that inclusive of the hydrants? I don't know that there's a lot of maintenance there, but I would assume so. The water line would be placed in a public water main. Okay. So, that would be we're proposing that be a public line. So, the access agreement is going to have to include access. Yeah, I think it'd be a good item to have on the plat as well. Commissioner Huggin, I got a proposed motion.

Go for it. I would move to accept the final plat for and it's godm, right? M. Yes, it ends in an M. Bar, I did spell it in the No worries. Item as a minor subdivision subject to city council accepting the easements depicted on the plat and an agreement related to the access easement on terms acceptable to council. Second. That cover all your bases. Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Moved and seconded. Further discussion. Roll call. Milburn? Yes. Maddox? Yes. Lane? Yes. Templan? Yes. Huggin? Yes. Schultz? Yes. Motion cares. That concludes our agenda. Thank you everybody. Thank you. If I could take one moment for a public gripe next time we do something like this, there should be a process. I don't know what it is, but maybe it's something we think about because we're going to see private drives again. And I think we need to have some mechanism to deal with that other than just it's okay if council says it's okay because that that's a problem and it's a problem in a lot of communities. I' I've run into that several times in various different cities. So just public gripe thank you guys for sitting through the entire meeting all part of Thank you very much everybody. So also can I can I have a request as well? Can I don't want to put more work on staff, but on every agenda item, can we have a recommendation that we can just read? I've thought about doing that several times, except through the course of a lot of our discussions, you know, when I would write, you know, something comes up like

we've talked about tonight where you have to redo it anyway. So, we can always make an amendment, but with the technicalities in there, it would make it easier. in there. It would be great. Okay. Because then we can work for that as a starting point. I think that's a good Yeah. I mean, especially on the more hot topic items, it'd be nice to be able to say, "Okay, this is what we have to say. We might need Well, I guess here's a for instance. I mean, the reasoning application was denied. My motion would have been to approve. So, okay. So, so but that's okay. You all have to craft that. We can, but I think having some language to start the technicalities. For other cities they have two or three. I'm not happy. So you still have your recommendation. Start with one. Well, no. So you still have your recommendation. But then there's others that you just say, okay, if plan commission if you want to make this motion X. You want to make this motion as Y. But you still have staff recommends approval. But if we want to deny, I mean, I personally when I'm the one not making the motion, I think it's entertaining to watch all of us. However, it the one making the recommendation, it's like, oh my god, everybody's watching me. Like, if I step on my own tongue, it's a bad news. We do have legal counsel that's watching over this right now. Yeah. So, if I can just jump in and comment. Sorry. If So if you're going to agree with staff's recommendation, it's easy, you know, just motion to approve because the staff memo had addresses all the criteria. You know, of course, if you disagree, probably call that out, but it's it's where you're going opposite of of SAS recommendation that we really need to have, you know, the reason. So, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Brad, you don't generally bring things in front of us that you're not in favor of

because you kick it back to the applicant beforehand to rework it, right? Correct. Hope so. I mean, that's what like this guardian mistakes you mentioned, we started in November talking about this because it was a strange kind of out of the box thing that none of us have really dealt with at a significant level. to to Commissioner Milurn's point, if if we need to agree with staff, that's pretty easy. I think we can all get ourselves through that. But when we have a when we don't want to agree with staff is where we I generally get tripped up for the most part or if we kind of agree, there's a couple of items. Well, it would be nice to to have some template to work from. And I think we other cities do that. Leave it. Just to deny based on and then for the following reasons and yeah that would be helpful even if it's an addendum to the back of the packet or something okay certainly can add that well I wasn't done with that public griping I have another one can we put on the agenda the names of the applicants that would really help okay sure just just in terms of browsing through it because I looked through there first I was like well hell I might represent some of these people I don't know I had to go through and dig figure out who the applicants were. So, well, at least having the name of the applicant, I think. Yeah. Well, sometimes they have their consulting engineer or somebody they're working with is the applicant. Even though it may not be clear, something would be better than nothing. Okay. All very reasonable requests. I'm sure we can accommodate. Thrilled to have have help. Thank you very much, Brad. Everybody was action-packed. So, okay. Yeah. Any other public complaints or

shall we adjourn? There's a recommendation. Yeah. Second. Move and seconded. And adjourned. This conference is