Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Come on. Um, good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the September 22nd, 2025 city of Gardener Planning Commission meeting. Uh, can you all please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Start with commissioner roll call beginning on my right.

Commissioner Vandermid present. Commissioner Sza present. Commissioner Colins present. Commissioner Berg present.

Commissioner Olui present. Right. We have a quorum. Moving on to the consent agenda. All matters listed within the consent agenda have been distributed to each member of the planning commission for study. These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion with no separate discussion. If separate discussion is desired, an item may be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda at the request of the planning commission or the applicant. Um, and this this month we have uh two items uh standing approval of the meeting minutes and the lonear second flat or second plat final flat. Um, is there any member of the planning commission like to remove an item from the consent agenda? Um, if there's no discussion, I will entertain a motion on it.

So, move. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Aluchcci with a second by Commissioner Combmes. All those in favor? I

I opposed. Motion carries. 70. Moving to the regular agenda. Uh first we have Meadow Creek Meadows of Aspen Creek reszoning from RP4 to RP4. Preliminary development plan, preliminary plat final development plan, final plat. Um we have a staff presentation. Yes and no. Uh this item has uh the applicants engineer has requested that this item be tabled until next month's agenda.

And just just to make sure we're all good, the public hearing though says it on there. We're wait we're going to do that wait for with the table items. Correct. At this point what the applicants asked for is the tableabling of the items. So we would not open the public hearing at this point. to be opened at the next plane commission meeting. So, if you do make the motion to table this item until the October 27th meeting at 7 p.m., you can include in the motion at which time we will open the public hearing.

Um, thank you. I guess with that, um, if there's no other if there is there any discussion from questions on Um, I will entertain a motion to table the item to the October 2 27th 27th of planning commission meeting. I'll make that motion. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Bonner Smith, a second by Commissioner Berg. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstensions.

Motion carries seven to zero. Okay. Uh second item, this is the remand of 199th Street Commerce Center reszoning from RUR to CP3 and preliminary development plan. This is generally located at the northeast corner of 199th Street and Waverly Road. Sure.

Good evening, PL Commission members. I'm going to provide a brief staff overview of this item. Uh talk a little bit from the staff report itself, but initially just give a brief overview. I know that two of the commissioners were not present for the June meeting, but hopefully with the information we provided and everything, you'll feel comfortable with this. Um, the application is for a parcel property on 199th Street, um, adjacent to I35. It's approximately 55 acres or 57 acres, I'm sorry, outlined in red on this particular graphic. It is zoned RUR county. The reason it has its county zoning, um, for those of you who are not familiar with that, is that when parcels are annexed into the city of Gardener, uh, they retain their county zoning until there is a formal application that would reszone this piece of property to a city zoning district with a development proposal. So, currently, it still retains its RUR county zoning. You can see the surrounding zoning there which includes some residential zoning as well as with the city of in uh Edertton some light industrial zoning. Just uh to show you here what the future land use map and the comprehensive plan has said about this parcel property in 2014. the original comprehensive plan or the most uh the the comprehensive plan at that time. Uh you can see the clouded area at that time was showing it more in an aggra agricultural uh zone or use category through the adoption of the I35 and gardener road sub area plan which is adopted in 2016 that was amended to include community commercial parks and recreation open space and lowdensity residential as part of the future land use projected for the area. The preliminary development plan for this area includes about 200,000 square feet of building area. Uh several outdoor

retail uh sales and storage lots and also several billboards. I'm going to keep this slide up here for a little bit so that we have the site plan in front of us in case there's any discussion after I get done with my presentation. So, I'm going to hold it here for a second. This is really more of a resource slide. What I want to do with the planning commission currently is kind of walk you through the staff report. Um provide you a little bit of information about the background on on this particular case as well as some of the analysis pieces to this. This is a different situation than when an application comes to you for the first time. This is an item that has been remanded back to you by the governing body of the city of Gardener and therefore what we are able to discuss and look at tonight is fairly limited in scope. This is not an opportunity to just reopen the whole case. Uh essentially the public hearing has been heard that was done in the first step of this process back in June. So that's already occurred. At this point the issue is really discussion about what the governing body is looking for from you as well as your response to that. So I'll go ahead and provide that overview and then we can do some questions here. Um, as mentioned earlier, this item first appeared on the plane commission agenda on June 23rd of 2025. We provided a link in the staff report, especially again for the two commissioners who weren't uh part of that meeting at the time or part of the commission at that time as resource information so that you could at least review what went on during that process. There were three applications involved with that. One was the resoning which is the RUR to CP3 resoning and the associated preliminary development plan that goes with that resoning request, a preliminary plat application and a conditional use permit application. Tonight we're focused on the resoning and the associated preliminary

development plan. So that's what's been remanded back to you is that particular application. Okay. On September 2nd, the governing body heard a presentation from staff, also allowed the applicant and the public to comment on the item and had considerable discussion about the item. So, the item went from you making your recommendation to the city council or governing body. Actually, in this case, the governing body hears planning items. That means that the mayor is also part of the voting process, whereas city council votes do not include the mayor. As you can see, we put a link to that city council meeting uh in the packet so that again you could review that discussion for yourself, see the information that was before you. The resulting direction of the governing body on September 2nd was that the resoning and associated preliminary development plan application be remanded back to the planning commission with instructions to look at the difference between the CO districts, well the COA districts and the CP3 zoning districts for the use of retail general, outdoor sales general, manufacturing light, and to find a way to reduce the number of trucks that could potentially come from those deviations while allowing the billboards. So essentially what we're looking at tonight or the direction is to take a look at the use lists that are in the COA zoning districts, the CO and COA zoning districts, the C3 zoning districts, see if a modified list of land uses can be created that assists in reducing the potential for truck traffic in the area as well as maybe other considerations that could do the same thing. So that's kind of the instruction at this point in time. On September 10th, um I and the deputy director met

with the applicant's team. Um they brought forward some discussion items about what they felt were reasonable things to do to reduce truck traffic. As part of that meeting, I requested that they send that into us in writing. That item is part of your packet. So it should have been one of the attachments you had in your packet. I'm just going to give you a little bit of procedural guidance then next. So that's kind of that's kind of the procedural background. That's how we got here tonight. Okay, to this point. But the procedural guidance that's provided, we took a section from the gardener municipal code and just outlined that so you could see what your responsibilities were and what your potential actions are for tonight. Okay. As we look at that, the potential planning commission actions that you can take since it's been remanded back to you is you can resubmit your original recommendation and give reasons there. You know why you did that. You can submit a new and amended recommendation or you can take no action at all. If you take no action tonight, it is considered a resubmitt of your original recommendation. Okay? But by code, by not just code, state statute, this is pretty well paralleled in state statute. Those are your three considerations for action tonight. Okay. From the standpoint of the project summary, which was next in here, I've already kind of given you a project overview. I'm not going to spend a lot of time with that. Um, I will say as part of this project summary, you had some attached items in your packet that included the staff reports and some items from the original plane commission hearing, the uh council action form that is part of the council packet that goes to them. They also received the staff packet. We just didn't go ahead and copy

things twice. Um, so we gave you that information as well as let me just make sure I got them all. Yeah, the minutes from both the June meeting and the September meeting is in there too. And then the memo from the applicant. So when we look at the project description, the only thing I want to highlight in the staff report for a minute is the memo that was provided by the applicant on se or dated September 12th, 2025 has five items that it outlined as potential ways of looking at uh reductions to the truck traffic. Um the first couple of items have to do with the uses themselves. Um and looking at the four four uses that they wanted to retain from the C3 zoning and add to the CO and COA zoning district uses. Then there was a suggestion on limit limiting the size of the retail use um to 20,000 square feet or less in size allowing uh uses only up to the manufacturing light intensity limiting the hours of truck delivery and shipping to 6:00 a.m. through 1000 p.m. Oh, to not be done. No, between 6:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. Yes. and then to provide directional signage at the primary access point stating trucks no left turn so that trucks will go west when exiting the development as resource information uh in the staff report we provided a couple things for you just direct excerpts again from the code itself instead of you hunting around and looking for some of these things the intent was to give you an idea of what the various zoning districts are intended for by definition within the code and then what some of these uses were the C3 uses in particular and how they're defined in the code as well. So the idea is just to

give you that context to understand how these things may or may not uh appear in intensity as far as land use. Okay. So that's there for your resource information. In regard to the staff analysis, there's really two things um I'm going to try to walk through this on because there's really two parts to the overall staff analysis. Um one part of this is that we have a basic conflict with an existing ordinance or an existing law with the city of Gardner between this proposal and what from a traffic standpoint would be allowed in this area. Okay. So, a good part of the analysis is really focused on the idea of understanding what that law says and doesn't say. And one of the important things to understand is that the way that ordinance is written, the way it is in the municipal code, it's not even about just truck traffic. It's worded in a way that it addresses all non-passenger vehicles. Okay? So, it's bigger than just the trucks itself. It has to do with all commercial vehicles that would be non passenger oriented. Okay. So, a shopper is not going to be considered an aspect of the traffic that is covered in that ordinance. But a box truck, a delivery van elements that are have to do where it's non-passenger oriented and has to do with the transference of goods, services, other things. That's where we get into the rub with the ordinance itself. Okay. So, we have this law that that basically says for 199th Street in this area, there should be no non-passenger vehicular traffic. Okay. The proposed development, whether modified land uses or not, as long as

they include commercial land uses, will prompt non-passenger vehicle traffic in the area. Okay. So, that's where the conflict of the rub comes into place. part of the the issue that comes up. There's really two parts to this issue. One is that when you look at that with the conflict that that's proposed there, if the city of Gardner chooses to enforce this ordinance, which it does periodically, our police officers go out into these areas, they will periodically stop trucks to verify that they should be or should not be in the area. They'll go through that process. With this code, it is likely that trucks and other commercial non-passenger vehicles going to this proposed development could be stopped. Okay? Could be stopped, could go through that process of enforcement, which will generate complaints from those vehicle operators, which will then generate complaints from the users in the development, which will then generate complaints that will go to the governing body and the city council as well as staff. and there'll be demands to do some changes to this code. Okay. So, the first step in this is to recognize that's what we're trying to avoid by saying the law itself should be looked at and adjusted and at least there should be consensus to go in that direction prior to the approval of this approach no matter which way it goes. Okay. The second part of this is the planning commission is an administrative body just as staff is an administrative element. We are not a legislative legislative group. We have some authority both granted to us administratively as staff as well as planning commission to look at deviations. So under a lot of proposals we can look at certain deviations but

those deviations are located in one title of the of the gardener municipal code and that title is the land development code itself. That's what we administer. This ordinance regarding the traffic is outside of that title. So we don't really have authority to wave, change, adjust, look at an adaptation because we're on the administrative side of this, not the legislative side of it. So at that point, it kind of ties our hands to. So those are the two key points when we discuss this item. Where does our authority begin and end as administrative staff and as administrative body planning commission versus the legislative function of the governing body. So that's where we get into that first element of should we be recommending something that conflicts with an existing law on the books. That's where we get into trouble on this as far as uh staff sees it. So that's the first element of this when it comes down to uh that piece. We didn't as staff we didn't want to leave the planning commission with just that element. We didn't want to just say hey for those reasons we shouldn't even look at this. We should just go away. What we want to make sure of is that you're also responsive to the city council because if the city sorry the governing body so if the governing body chooses that they want to go down this route of this proposed development and approve it and wants to do the legislative action that takes place. We felt it was important at this point in the remand process that you also provide comments back on maybe things that would help to reduce that truck traffic. So in the staff recommendation in that that's why we didn't stop at the first paragraph and just say resubmit your

denial right for this reason. We also added then with these comments to look at how are there ways to reduce that truck or commercial traffic. So that's why there's a two-part process to the staff analysis and the staff recommendation. Initially in that staff recommendation side of things um just very quickly we went through or basically I outlined the five items again that the applicant brought up. And you'll notice under each one there's just a statement of consider this or consider that. At this point I just wanted to give you that context to sit there and say if you have questions about this is are these land uses that seem to effectively reduce the truck traffic. Are these sizes things that would do that? That's for your consideration. At the same time staff battles the fact that we have to give you a recommendation. Right. So, so I tried to at least in the initial part of the staff recommendation place before you the ability to look at this and say, okay, how does this fit in? Is this really going to be effective? Can it work to reduce the truck traffic as the governing body has suggested or wants you to look at? In the second part where the staff is recommending to the planning commission that they resubmit the original recommendation of denial to the governing body with basically two sets of comments. The first one having to do with the legal reason uh that we feel it's important to recommend your or resubmit your original recommendation. But in the second part of this then we did take a look at the land use list of those three districts. We have some suggestions there regarding some of the CO and COA zoning district uses that we do not feel is appropriate in this

development. Um those are primarily public oriented if you look at them. Large assembly, cultural and public service, schools for neighborhood and community level, residential care, convenience stores, um daycare centers. There's several of those things that if you look at the format of the property and you think about what's going on there, we just didn't feel really met with what the intent of that district would be. In regard to the three or the four uses, um we've suggested there that following the three uh following the C3 uses the four that are there. The one difference between the applicant side of this and what we've indicated is that we would suggest the outdoor sales general and manufacturing light be considered conditional uses whereas they are uses permitted by right in the C3 district because we're blending these uses with a CO or COA district set of uses that are generally less intensive. We feel that it's important to have that second look if something at that level is proposed. So that's where the conditional use comes in. In regard to items B through J after that first set there, um those were simply staff taking a look and saying if we're concerned about warehousing and distribution or we're concerned about truck service in some of these areas. These are staff suggestions at this point that if you feel comfortable with moving forward and providing that advice, you may want to go with some of these things. You may want to sit there and say, "Dave, let's take out item D. We don't think that's important. Let's adjust the percentage." However you want to see it, we can have that discussion. But we felt it was important to put something in front of you to react to versus just sitting here

and going, "What do you think?" Okay. So, that's where we're at with letters B through J. Now, I want to be very careful to understand even though staff has done that, okay? Even though we've done that, we're doing it from the standpoint of being responsive to what the governing body has said. Staff's recommendation is still for denial of this proposed development. That's where we stand at this point in time. So, just so you're aware, um I think with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to stop because I've spent enough time talking and uh I'm here for questions or discussion. I appreciate that background information. Thank you. Um so I think this time we can go into commission discussion and questions. So again on my right question I don't have I didn't realize there was a difference between the governing body and city council. I thought

two well and I'm going to let Katherine address it a little bit more if I don't get it completely right. So there's the governing body is the council plus mayor. So when state statutes and local code refer to governing body that means that it's an item that's considered by the entire body council plus mayor. Okay. When it's referring just to city council action and that's why in here there's the terms used in different ways because the action actually to change the ordinance would be a city council action. Okay. the governing body with the mayor presiding in considering this proposed development is all voting on that whereas the ordinance the mayor is more like it's kind of like in Austin's situation as the chair he's presiding over the council vote in the ordinance situation and I I think I've got that okay

they are in and of the same they're the same people it's the same group of people. Yeah, I'm still digesting everything. So, now Yeah, I have maybe a two-part question. Um, can details or uses within ordinance within an ordinance be? That that's like question part one. Then how common if that is a practice how common is that?

So we have done it before it is it is a practice that's out there. The vehicle that allows that to happen is the de development plan process. Okay. So from a procedural standpoint when a preliminary development plan is brought into us okay under that process we look number one and say okay how does it meet the code right but the process allows us if something can't be met for justification it allows for what are called plan deviations right where we we sit there and we look at a particular section of code typically like it might be a landscape requirement and let's say the the proposal is you know for 3/4 as many shrubs as what the code would require. Many times in that process what we're looking at is the overall design of the development itself to see if there are tradeoffs where it's okay to reduce that amount but in exchange there may be some kind of architectural enhancement that's occurring or some other element that may be above and beyond what the code requires from an architectural standpoint. So the preliminary development plan process gives us a lot of freedom if you will to look at deviations again only of that section in title 18 the land development code not for the entire gardener municipal code. Okay. So when you're looking at that process we also can look at the land use list of the district that's proposed. In fact, we've done this with several several times before where we've modified the use list because sometimes what's trying to be encouraged is retail sales tax in an area because it's right on an interchange. And so instead of maybe having churches and other things that don't generate that retail sax tax, what we're trying to do is maximize that. So there are times when we might say, "Okay, but for these uses, here's your modified use list." So the the idea of

blending uses from various districts or you know looking at uses that are allowed again like table 52 I think we referenced that in your information. So when we referenced that table 52 it's got a pretty significant list of uses in there. So essentially that's where we paired down on the CO and COA in particular. We took a look at all those uses and decided there were just some that just didn't seem to fit in this. Again, for various reasons, a neighborhood school here with what's proposed is probably not a real good situation.

And and that that makes sense. I um when when the picking and choosing of ordinances impacts things like traffic laws, I would imagine that's very different than trying to determine the landscape. Correct. Correct. And so as we are looking uniquely at the resoning topic, obviously the purpose that it's here, the primary reason that it was pushed back in June was traffic. That's about or could change. So

I I would I would blend the traffic with the intensity of land use. Okay. again by this look with the COA districts which are a lesser intensity set of uses than what's allowed in C3. So yes, there's a traffic element of this that's key. But again, the way this is presented back to you is to look at that use list because each of those uses generates a different type of traffic or a different traffic mix. Okay. So part of that element then is how do you blend this? I I flipped this slide over to the future land use map and especially the the um map that's on your right where that community commercial district is shown right that's there that's more in line with a COA intensity okay when this was originally brought forward to us with a C3 reszoning request a lot of those things and if you go back to our staff report from June you'll see we pointed out were not in conformance with what the comprehensive plan was saying. So that's how we kind of look at what do we think is an appropriate district

and what's happened in the process to date is you've gotten a situation where the applicant has kind of recognized, hey, the CLCA is more in line with the comp plan. So we can have those uses, but we'd still like these uses from C3 as part of this. So that's kind of there's a blending going on between those districts which typically you would not blend C3 with CO COA. Those are our lowest intensity commercial uses where C3 is our highest intensity commercial use. And it sounds like whether it's a complaint of traffic like you maybe referring to where administrative efforts are going to exist

almost regardless of the path that's taken other than no action tonight and that's more correct. The problem the problem with the traffic element of this exists no matter what your recommendation is tonight. That that piece of it will exist because again it's outside the LDC. You really don't have a way for us or you to really alleviate that. We can't use a deviation for instance to do that in a plan deviation process.

I agree. And so no other questions. I may finish by saying the the residents in that area you know lots of people in this community pretty diligently to get those signs uh the direction the things that this ultimately or potentially could impact the ordinance on and I would I would hate to see those go to waste those efforts. So no

one of the um number seven of this code it talks about signs traffic nonpassenger vehicle traffic is allowed on 99 street. Um so how does the how do the delivery vehicles fall under? So with the way the code is is currently written and the way things are kind of administered at this point and this will go back a little bit to our original staff report from June. So when I I'm going to use the term origin and destination point. Correct. So when an origin a commercial origin or destination point or any truck generating or nonpassenger vehicle generating point is created within an area that does not have this traffic. that traffic is exempt, if you will. Okay? Now, that doesn't prevent them from being stopped. It just means that as part of that stop, if it's discovered that they're truly going to an origin or destination within that area and they're just coming through to serve that and that's the only way to get there, then they're allowed to go on from there. The issue becomes they're still getting stopped. Okay? So with this proposal, what you're really doing is you're creating that origin destination point that does not exist today for that level of traffic. And that's where the conflict comes in here. And the issue becomes should you be creating that into a knowing conflict situation or should you take care of this situation which is the code element of this and then go that direction with the use if that's your intent. Does

that does that help to answer if I understand what you said? What the ordinance is trying to do is trying to prevent pass through traffic, the traffic that's coming correct into that area to deliver to business that's still going to be allowed under the ordinance. If if we look at the ordinance today the way it is and if this were to happen where you change the ordinance. If you change the ordinance the pass through traffic could potentially be allowed to come through here. If we don't change the ordinance

if you don't change the ordinance you still have the same condition that the pass through traffic should be stopped as well. Yes. But but any truck any nonpassenger vehicle going down 199th Street as long as it's destination or origin is within that area that's an allowable traffic. Correct. But that does not prevent them from being stopped. Yeah, I got that. You're correct. The police don't know where they're going, where they're coming from. They they don't until they because they're not all marked. They don't all have Right. Yep. Okay. So the the changing of the ordinance I'm not understanding then why we would even enter.

So there's there's two routes with changing the ordinance that are important to understand. Again one of them has to do with if you're establishing an origin destination knowingly in conflict with the ordinance. What exists there today exists there today. Correct? If we do this change, we're creating a greater conflict with that law. So, just make sure I understand the change to the zoning or the change to the ordinance. The change to the zoning is what would create the conflict.

Yes. Because the change to the zoning is what creates the origin destination point that creates the traffic. That's that's where that lies. Now, there are options in the code adjustments, too. But this is something again on the legislative side. A code adjustment could be we're just going to open this up. We're going to take it off of the, you know, the truck or put it on the truck route map. It's all good. It's going to be part of this area. Another way to look at is do you want to have limitations on the sizes of the trucks? Those are all legislative concerns that are in the govern or in the city council's hands, not in your hands. because that's another way to reduce truck traffic or potential concerns in the area. In fact, I I believe even the county utilizes I think and I don't want to be too quoted on this, but I want to give you they make a differentiation in some truck routes as to the size of the truck based on gross weight of that truck. That then also could help in this kind of scenario, but there would have to be again some code revisions. That's an option that's open to the the city council.

So then if if if we approve this platform to go forward to the governing body with the business and I'm being vague because I don't want to use the wrong words, the businesses and the billboards that the trucks that would have to service the billboards, they would be non-commercial traffic. They're nonpassenger. Correct. Correct. But they would be the destination inside zone. So that would be an allowable use allowable traffic

if and I'm going to as I say this, Katherine, just kind of follow me and let me know. If the traffic code stays exactly the same and one of these uses, billboards will just use that because you pulled up, that non-passenger vehicle that goes to serve it to do whatever could still be stopped in route to there. Okay. But we're we're talking about the police stopping the vehicle to see what their destination is. Correct. But today that destination does not exist. There is no right but but so they would stop this truck to say what are you doing and the driver would say I'm going over here to work on this

billboard okay and police might go through a verification process beyond just taking the word of that driver I'm Yep I'm just which could be a significant delay in getting work done and doing any number of things which then comes back I can see that in the first I can see that in the first while but it'll It'll wash out as they become more that's not happening anyway. That's we're we're I think we're and quite frankly even the uh the letter which was great when it came to us wasn't so much about whether someone's getting no offense whether someone's getting pulled over or not is to reduce the amount of trucks. Correct. Said that.

So so that is because the applicant is looking at it from the proposal of their development and addressing the reduction of the trucks. That's that is what they're doing. Yes. And that don't get the legal problem is a city legal problem. It is not a it's not a problem of the applicant. Right. But there is a right way to address it. And there's another way to address it. Yeah. I guess I guess what the point that I'm trying to make is the traffic the biggest part of the traffic that is an issue is the big trucks the delivery vehicles the UPS's the FedExes the not with the ordinance

not with the ordinance with potentially with the land owners in the area potentially with yes the bigger trucks are the bigger issue that people focus on the ordinance doesn't matter what the size of the truck is the ordinance is for all non-commercial or non-p passenger commercial vehicles no matter what the size is which means technically a UPS truck could get stopped the way the ordinance is written that it's just the nature of what it says. I'm not sure that that was the intent, right, of how it was done, but that's in effect what we have.

What I'm trying to to get to in my mind is the trucks that are going down this road, whatever the truck is, whatever size it is, could be stopped, period. No matter what. Correct. And then it's up to either the police code enforcement officer or the police. It'll be a police officer. It would not be a code enforcement officer. I I believe that there's even police officers that are specifically trained for the stops and things on trucks. So, it would be up to them to say, "What's your business? What are you doing?" And they would say, "I'm going here to do this." And then they would say either they have a cheat sheet or they know or

whatever it it's that's allowable. Okay. They may have to do a call. I don't I don't know the process, but yes, you're you're right. They would go through whatever that truck that goes through and says that they stop whatever the size and they say what's your purpose. I'm going through to the to the UN interotal interotal interotal center. Okay, hang on. You're not you're not allowed to do that. Here's your ticket. Correct. That's how it should work. Yes. Okay. So, the that's what I was trying to get to is the traffic is still going to go still going to be there because Too many people already know that road is

you come down uh 169 to avoid the way station 199 to cross no matter how many times they put an officer out there to stop traffic correct take these trucks you can't stop correct without making the road I don't know what you do but that was that's really the issue any any truck NFM whatever could be stopped stopped and said, "What are you where you going? What are you doing?" And it's a judgment of the officer at the time. That's not allowable. It's not allowable. Here's your ticket. If it is a good day, whether that takes right two and a half seconds, whether it takes 45 minutes, whatever,

that's the way that's the way that it should work now, right? It should. That's that's the way that the ordinance is written. Correct. Okay. The issue there is no destination. Correct. Right now, there is no destination. Correct. truck going down there is illegal, right? Unless it's like UPS or you know going to a house and you don't see that that often. So what we're looking at is I do I have a 100 trucks a day going down that street. That's the issue. How many new

right was to appreciate that providing that resource reducing that and the intensity and the uses going back to why we are I have a followup question so so is there a desire from the city council or the governing body to change his ordinance. We don't know that. Okay.

Okay. If you go back to the discussion of September 2nd, look on it. A lot of the discussion is focused specifically on this development proposal. That's a discussion that should be had with the with the city council at the meeting that this reappears with them. And again, they have the authority and the ability to choose, right, how they want to approach this. Okay. We're kind of limited in our administrative capacity as to how we can look at this. I think that's a fair comment. Is it?

Yes. Also at the end of the staff report, it kind of breaks it down into those two points that we discussed earlier of like you are permitted to say because of this existing issue that being ordinance. Um you it makes it harder for us to come to a final conclusion. though are in us making whatever motion you guys decide to make, we'd like to highlight that this was an issue during our consideration. So like they know when it comes back up to them, they can see, oh, this is probably something we need to talk about at this meeting today or whatever they end up doing

because it was just kicked back to us because they want us to take another look. Right. Well, they so as part of the process again the the governing body has the option always. They can go with your recommendation. They can go against your recommendation. They can remand it back to you with direction or or what they want you to look at closer in the process which is the option they took in this particular case was to bring it back there. I think and and it's hard for me because I wasn't there on September 2nd. So, I'm kind of going by the video and and stuff like that and what I've been told by others who were there. I think you have a situation there was significant conversation that really revolved around the the truck issue, if you will, around the traffic issue that was there, but in the context of the uses and the things that are proposed in the development. So, I do think that's an appropriate thing to come back to you. But I also think as staff again understanding we have an administrative role not a legislative role. It's hard for me to sit there and justify that our recommendation should be different when it's a recommendation that could create that conflict by additional traffic no matter what the use list is. So the attempt of the staff recommendation is to balance that and say hey but for this you know here are some things you might consider. So, at least there's something going back to the governing body that says, "Here's what we think are are ways to address reducing that truck traffic." If you choose to either change that ordinance or go forward with the proposal,

do we have a cheat sheet to compare the CO and the I don't have it here. Um, it was it's table 2.2-5 two-5 or 5-2 in the LDC and it's quite lengthy. I mean, it's a significant list, but again, as we looked at it, there were just a few of those uses, and that's what the list here is. There were a few of those uses that staff suggested probably should not be incorporated into the CO or the mixed use, the modified kind of use list, if you will. And those are on page seven of the staff report. They're under item two. It's 2A.

What was that?

I just don't remember seeing a lot of cos coming to us. We we have not had a lot of seal most of so a lot of the commercial stuff that you all have seen in the last three four years or so really have been focused more around the interchanges main street south gardener road places like that that's where most of the commercial districts have been and most of those districts are C2 or C3 um yeah with C1 is usually our downtown district co and COA is more of a commercial office kind mix service mix commercial retail commercial service office mixture.

Thank you. Questions.

Okay. You know, I want to take a look at this a different way. Number one, what you said going against employment that's already been in place. And the reason that was put in place, there's a few reasons. One, because we promised the residents that out there when we annex the land that this is what we're going to do. Number two, we're talking safety issue here. It is a safety issue. The more increase in truck traffic, the more increase in vehicle traffic, more accidents you make. Is 199 street a heavy haul rate? I don't believe it is. It doesn't have the pavement to support trucks like that. Whether it's box truck, whether it's a semi, you're talking 60 70,000 pounds going there. And how many times? Okay. Garden Road, two-lane road, no shoulders, middle school. Okay. It's being reconstructed now. Who knows what it's going to look like? And you know, most of the track, we can put 100 signs out on the highway, but traffic is going they're going to do what they want. When Interotal opened up, they built Homestead Lane for the Interotal. They put signs on the highway say use in Interotal. Yeah. Garmin putting your GPS get off at this road. Okay. You can handle three UPS trucks. Not too many people buy a lot of furniture. So, you know, Nebraska furniture farm truck on occasion that can handle that. I know there's a there's a school bus stop out there. Okay. So, we need to look at not just how many trucks, but what are these trucks going to cause as far as damage to that roadway that city is going to be responsible.

It's not the county anymore. I believe we anticrote it along with everything else. It's pretty expensive to fix. You know how many kids have to cross the street and get to the buses? And that's just me. I look at everything in the safety aspect. Are there ways to to prevent trucks from coming there? You know, you can tell them go down to Homestead, come in off 199. All they got to do is get off Homestead, make a right there on 199 Street. They can approach it for you, you know, and they could be right in that corner. They would have to go, excuse me, they wouldn't have to go past the houses, you know, except for the lease house, which is directly across the street from where this proposed property is. Okay. How do you prevent that? Gardner doesn't have the law enforcement personnel. They they have two or three commercial vehicle guys, but they don't have the personnel where somebody can sit out there, you know. So, how do you stop? You can't. So if we say yes to this, we are causing that problem because we're now a destination place. I'll give you an example and I'm I won't talk much longer. Does everybody know where dot label is or whatever it's called nowadays? Right off of 183rd Street Cherokee.

Know you know where Casey's is. Yeah. Okay. So if you go towards the interotal on Cherokee Street, there's a a dot lane know it's called it something like that that trucks have to go in to deliver to them. So that's a destination. That road's not heavy. Okay. So we had to sit there for weeks and prevent trying to prevent trucks that going in their motor. It still happens. That's why the city got with Edgerton and they built that supposed to go through the traffic calming piece.

So, but you know, if we say yes to this, I can see saying yes to the billboards. But if we say yes to this, then we've caused a problem. We've gone back on our word and there's lots of kids out there that must through because they they they haul through and everything else. So that's the way I look on top of it doesn't meet the comprehensive and and I want to be very careful about this to so that everybody understands you are a recommending group at this point.

Okay. So um I think when you're using we you're referring more to the city of gardener in general. Okay. I just wanted to clarify because I don't want the commissioners sitting here and going, "Well, what we're about to do tonight is a yes, no vote." Because you have that in other other cases. In this case, again, we're looking at that recommendation that you've made, sending that recommendation back to the governing body who then has the authority to say yes or no. You know, at some point, you have to keep your commitments that you make.

Exists for reason. It's not Oh, and we got with the county. That's how all the signs are up all over the county, you know. can't do much about.

Yeah, I was going to say I think I understand where Commissioner Ber was coming from like with the letter of the law saying the destination is in in the spot like it makes sense, but I don't think that's the spirit of the law and what it was intended to to affect. I mean, it's it's a it's a pass through, you know, those all those businesses or those those homes And like I said, roads probably not designed for it. [Music] I come as perspective like I think I'd rather see like city council come consensus saying yeah like we we want this to happen so therefore should take priority over this ordinance that we passed previously and then that would make me feel a lot more comfortable approving something like this. But until that happens I don't I don't think that

yeah I think as we maybe prepare for number one or number three in terms of those options. Uh that the key issue during this or our consideration planning commission by consideration is the potential increase or intensity of traffic. I think even to your point that it really matters what size the truck is. I forgetting the term truck. Uh I I would I would only say to the applicant and that we in Gardner at speaking for myself, we absolutely want development. We want growth. Uh location is a tough one and there are again or ordinances and precedents that make it a challenging spot from any level of approval or recommendation perspective. So I'm I'm prepared to make a motion number three and truly take no action. I believe what we submitted originally is certainly sufficient if we as a body want to identify what our reasons are. Again, I think it's clear that it's the intensity and of course the the mixed uses that create the complexity

the ordinances that are in place. Correct. I ask are there any instances where

so that's a hard one to answer because with this type of ordinance it's been amended multiple times I think in the past or at some point because truck routes were were brought into it and things like that um it's hard for me to to really respond to that very Well, I would say there were existing situations that might have already been there that created conflicts. The situations, for instance, I know for a while um there was that discussion about how do you tell the difference between somebody who might be um hauling dirt or something for an agricultural use that's in this area, right? they're they're doing an agricultural related activity versus the one who may be hauling dirt from a development somewhere else and they're cutting through the area. So I know there were those kinds of situations even with the implementation of this that you know had to be discerned or figured out but again when this was applied those existing uses had standing and again going back to commissioner Berg's kind of point you know it it created issues when trucks were stopped and they were serving somewhere it delayed those those elements. So there has been experience with this before.

You can give you a couple examples. Okay, again the dot lab that manufacturing facility was there before Sherman Lakes stage was there. Okay, which is agriculture down road was two lane road. Okay, so yes, all a sudden the interal gets built. Okay, 183rd Street goes all the way through. So what are people going to do? Get off guard road, go down 183rd streets, right? But the way the ordinance was written back then, even back then, you can't do that. You have to be going to a destination in gardener to go there to use that road. That's why dot label is whatever it's called nowadays is you know grandfather in there and that's why that's allowed but you can't go through that. That's why all the signs been put up everything else. Another one was again where the Her motoral opened up Marvin to off 191st Street. If you knew how you would come off Garden Road, you know, go 10 yards and immediately you can make a left on 191st Street and that used to be residential there, but railroad bought it. Okay. And turn it into the inner motor. So what are all the truck drivers doing? They were getting off and they were going down there and Margaret's toe was already there. So you have to stop the trucks, but Marvin since he's already established out there, you have to let him go to there. So that again, you know, we didn't create the destination. Interotal did, you know, and then you've seen what they've done. They they got rid of that part of 191st and they, you know, made a larger intersection at 188th and Locus in that way, which trucks still aren't supposed to use, but it's not. I think that one is not that one's designated a truck route.

I think it is. I I don't know for sure. Doesn't want to go to homestead. You know, if they did my question,

I I don't think we have. Again, I in the five years I've been here, I don't think we have I I can't speak to prior to that. I'd have to go back and look.

Uh good time for me to mention this. We talked about number three on suggested potential actions. That is distinct from number one in the sense that the result is the same in that you guys that same decision is going right back up to governing body. However, number one, the resubmitt with comments allows you to add in other comments in there like you know because of this conflict we found it blah blah blah. And then number three is straight up just we are not saying anything. And so like by default it just like goes back.

So that's the distinction. How do we figure outations? So you could do um whatever you guys it's your motion so you can craft it however you would like but there's some guidance in the sense of if you want to address the conflict with the ordinance because that's not your guys's realm to change maybe make that comment in there first or whatever address that and then say because of that we stick to our original decision. or if you don't want to stick to your original decision, you can do number two and modify it or whatever.

So, I'm gonna add this, Katherine, if you will also just address this for a second. The other part is if you were to take action one and take those items that basically are in that staff recommendation, if there are things that you feel like you should adjust or maybe you don't or whatever, that can be adjusted tonight through your recommendation process. The other part of this is is when it goes back to governing body, they could take your advisement and they could adjust that. So this is not an end all beall. This isn't oh the plan commission said this we've got to stick with this. Okay. The other important aspect to well I'm going to stop there because it's not technically it's a procedural aspect. It's not a Right.

I I disagree. I I I I feel the time that I've been on this board, this board leans more against breaking any kind of commercial interest into the city unless it's a food truck or a or ice shaped ice thing. So to me, we have to make a decision. I don't know that we have the city has to make the decision. what you want to be because right now everything that's coming before us is houses. They're shrinking the size of the footprint of the house. Aviation requests are going down to 50t which sounds trivial compared to a 70 foot wide but it's not. It's a huge thing because that is what determines the other commercial interests that want to come into the garden. because it's it comes down to money. It comes down to the money that the people have to spend. Like I said, I just feel that this this board has been anti-commercial since I've been on it. Um, I don't agree I didn't agree with the original submission last month because this I agree the traffic can be an issue. That's for the city to figure out. This is a portion of land that makes perfect sense to me to the way that it's being proposed to be used. The same warehouses 75th. There was a land that was weirdly shaped right along the interstate. What are you going to use that land for? You're not going to build a house there.

Nobody's going to want to buy it. So, what do you use the land for? And as that commercial brings in the money to the city that helps the rest of us not have to pay sky taxes every year. It makes a difference. And these are the things that that I struggle with with this commission because as I said, we seem to be completely anti-commercial. We're going to the small box. We're going to the small box that while it works today to get 300 houses, it doesn't work five years from now. So that's the

Yeah. The only comment I I will make to this effect is and um I I'll say this in general it has been very rare that you as a body or us as a uh staff has recommended denial in situations in the last five years here. Okay. Now, I want to be careful because I think I know what you're you're getting at in a sense. We have not had that many commercial proposals that have come before us either during this time. There's a difference between the food trucks and the things. The differentiation you're making is correct. A lot of what we've seen commercially has been smaller scale, smaller level types of uses. Fast food restaurants for instance on pad sites and things like that. Part of that is the market dynamic we're in, which is also what you're talking about when we talk about the houses, right? It's that that element of where are we fitting in the market place? And of course, the market's driving that, you know, at the end of the day. Um, so I want to be careful. I I I'm don't want to be overly defensive, but I want to be careful with the word denial because I don't know that some of this has been truly anything that's originated from the standpoint of the actions we've taken. A lot of it is where we are in the marketplace right now. We don't see a lot of commercial development at a large scale occurring at this point in time. Now, that doesn't mean it isn't coming. It just means it hasn't gotten here yet, hopefully.

But these kinds of decisions are the decisions that lead to those organizations that would possibly come down to Gardener not coming down to Gardner because of the decisions like this that are made. I would tend to agree with you on that point other than I would say when they are thoughtful decisions I would say that is not as prevalent as when it's just we're denying things right that's the only thing that I would say different about that I I would say there are people who look at it and go are they really looking at these things like tonight this deliberation is a thoughtful process one way or the other doesn't matter. It's are you giving it due consideration? I think Gardner is doing that. They're giving things due consideration. It's not a knee-jerk reaction that's just going and saying

agreed. So, it is it is a deliberate approach. I agree completely. I just like I said, and that's what's hard about this one. Yes. There's elements of this that are truly administrative legal issues and and it's not just about land use at that point.

Yeah. Well, the reason that I'm against number one is because I think that we can find a middle ground to make nobody is is happy 100%. Right? That's that's the definition of a compromise. But I think we can find a middle ground to make it work something. And that's that's why I'm against

well and and that's why staff felt that not just stopping with the legal argument but going to that point two in the staff recommendation where all those things are are listed at least in there there's probably some kind of way to get there, right? But again, it still requires the governing body and the city council to take action.

And without going, you know, and reopening this case as we started, uh the the warehouses on 175th have an exit within a couple hundred yards. That's not necessarily the case here. The exit is what, two miles, maybe mile and a half and there's turns, there's schools and my only point mentioning that to to this body is the ordinances exist in that area for a reason. I'm really sorry. Uh but that's important

and that location is just different. Now I uh fundamentally agree with this approach compared to the warehouse and ultimately that particular piece of property which I voted against uh it's approved the private investment is is is very warranted. I I respect that. Unfortunately, like I said earlier, for me it's in a very tough location and Item number three that the LDC reszone criteria for me is why I would suggest number one with the additional information and considerations that were used in that decision. This this is a perfect setup perfect plan for history. I would 100% agree because own commercial, you know, that's just

one. Yeah, it it would be a different Yeah, it's a different context.

But what I'm saying is if design was different, you know, you're doing businesses instead of, you know, like 119 street there, you're doing like Jacob's there, you know, Moonlight Plaza, stuff like that. Yes. But here I I know what that area looks like. Um I know you want the vision or you know, but people seeing it off the highway. Then there's only one way in there. And right now that's going to be tough to get to with all the reconstruction. That's going to take two years to redo the bridge. That's the only way in there because nobody's going to go off Homestead because they won't see it until they pass Homestead. What are they going to do? Walk up to Garden Road and make that right two lane road 199 street. That's my love. You know, we've had commercial development that we've proved that they just disappear. Not because anything we did, we came, you know, and I appreciate them. I understand where they're coming from. You know, it's hell of an investment in, you know, one garden. That's great. But just where it's at the ordinances that are already in place which we have no say about you know if governing body city council wants to change that we're g the people's voice that really created that truly is important we're serving our community people really

those

I think we should go with number one so give our reasons to justify it because number three just means that we didn't didn't discuss it just I just think number one would be the ideal for us you know send it back to them and but make some comments recommendations you motion like it. Maybe I have a question about the motion as we make uh any motion. Could you help us kick that off?

Yes.

Yeah. So the anticipating some of this but not right because we don't want to be leading with these things but if you're leaning towards item one on that of three choices right so the motion will be to resubmit the planning commission's original recommendation of denial for the proposed reszoning associated development plan. You could stop there if you wanted to. Okay. Then what we added as a second part was with the comments that staff has got in this staff report which are those items with the use lists and also other ways that might be there and you really haven't talked about those. I'm going to bring that up for just a second. You really you've spent time kind of kicking this around which is good. you needed to do that deliber del deliberation, but we really haven't sat there and and said, "Okay, are we comfortable with those comments beyond that that paragraph one?" So, if you're looking at page seven and eight of the staff report, it's really that element of number two underneath number two, I guess, is what I would say there. If that's if you're comfortable with again kicking that forward as your comments or if there are modifications that you would make to those comments as part of that, that's fine, too. It's really kind of up to you. Again, as staff was looking at these, I I walk through them a little bit and tell you the guiding factor for us was are there methods through either building size uses within the buildings or on the site that can also help with reducing that commercial kind of traffic. Okay. But I would tell you those percentages that are mentioned in some of those things, if you said 30% versus 25%, I don't know that that's a right or wrong number. You know what I'm saying? It it was more to

sit there and say, okay, this needs to be a secondary use. It needs to be accessory or secondary to some other use if you're going to allow some of that warehousing to occur, which most retail businesses have behind the counter warehousing that's going on or stock warehousing that's that's going to be identified within a building anyway on most of these uses. So the idea is do these kind of caps help to generate that? Um, and at this point, you know, if you feel like you want to discuss those further or there's something where you just say this has no connection or I don't see the connection to reducing traffic, that's again up to your discussion and and your deliberation. Um, and wherever you land, that's, you know, that's what'll be forwarded. To me, reducing traffic would be more of a turn round bumps. You know, just by saying we're going to do business this hours, that hour, it's not going to stop the guys that were to get off the interstate, come off that road, use 199 street. It's not It's not going to prevent going down to 207 Street. So yeah, we can say smaller warehouses, we can say fewer dock doors, but if you have fewer doctors and you have trucks sitting there longer to deliver might reduce the number of docks, but you're not going to reduce the number of shipments that are coming in. So I mean either way it's it's difficult but again it's something the governing body city council needs to look at if they want to change that. It's not for us.

Commissioner, you made a comment about the uh the billboard. And as somebody that's only been in Gardener for three and a half years, I can tell you without a doubt going up and down the interstate, you don't have a clue what's a Garden. Zero clue. With the water burger there and he's going across the street from there, you can see the QT. So you can get off gas see that. But that one of the reasons that I was for this initially is because of the billard. Does the state regulate that at all?

So yes, yes and no. Yes, the state has designated the interstates and several of the highways throughout the state. They under the beautifification act have jurisdiction over some of those elements as part of that. They have separation requirements, things like that. but where a local jurisdiction is involved. So like the Johnson County has billboard regulations that are more stringent than the state's regulations. Ours are kind of a blend. We're we're more stringent than the state in some things and we're about equivalent. We can't be less stringent than the state in others. So as we look at it, our code has some of those elements to it. Um, so yes, the state does to a certain extent in the sense that whether they meet our code, well, when they meet our code, they still have to register those billboards with the state. There are things that still have to be done there. The hard part with this is we really aren't here to discuss billboards tonight, right? This we've been told to focus on land uses, focus on the truck reduction element. So we have to be very careful about that element at this point.

Okay. But again in the advisory comments it does allow for that. At least the way it's drafted it indicates that the principal use signs which is the billboards would be something that you felt could be allowed in that use list. Okay. That's number J.

That's that's no. If you go to on page seven of the staff report to a Roman numeral 2 number four where it says principal use signs aka billboards. Yep. that. So basically that number two basically says that only the following C3 uses is what you would be advising could be a part of that modified use list which corresponds with what the applicant provided in their memo except staff is suggesting that the outdoor sales general and the manufacturing light be looked at as conditional uses and not necessarily uses permitted by right. And again, that has more to do with the potential traffic that could be generated from those types of uses. Just maybe add one more comment here. Uh, you know, Commissioner Luchi mentioned the safety of, you know, having all those trucks there. I think it's important to add that, you know, even though road is not adequate for big trucks and I'll add the safety piece you know the real concern there is bus stop there we could add the safety piece that's important that's what one of the reason we're denying is because we don't think it's safe for trucks to be on I don't know how to say that formally, but I'll just some somehow add safety there.

That might be a bit appropriate. It's talking about changing the code for the traffic. So what I I'm going to say so Commissioner Berg and Commissioner Sosa as well as Commissioner Oluchcci with the improved safety and also with I think what you were talking about. I'm trying to sit here and and word craft. So when I do this out loud, just understand I'm trying to trying to get a base for it. Um there is probably two ways to handle it. Part of it would be in number one. I think I think you could talk to the safety aspect when you're looking at those changes to that ordinance. The other part of this is that with a lot of developments, the developer um does make improvements to existing conditions on the roadways and that primarily immediately adjacent to the development. Sometimes those are safety improvements. Sometimes those are physical deterrence like you're talking about or like you were talking about, Commissioner Aluchcci. So you could after J you could put a letter K and I've just I I crafted some here while they were talking just implement other physical changes to roadway access point entry to deter traffic and improve safety. I mean I don't know what those are. We probably have to work with the applicant to see what those could be specifically. I I don't know because traffic engineering is I'm going to leave that to other people quite frankly. traffic design and engineering on those kinds of things. So, that could be a way to address it as well is just

throw that on there. It could be looked at and incorporated into the plans. That would be kind of a step further than just the no left turn signage

depending on location of the sign. You hope not. Procedural question with any motion that we recommend. Do we have to explicitly identify if we're taking no action and or adding substance to the reason?

Correct. So, so what I would what I would say and Katherine again your guidance on this the general statement that's before you however you crafted initially the motion to res if you do the motion to resubmit the plan commission's original recommendation of denial for the proposed reasonzoning and associated preliminary development plan right that's the core piece for if you're going with number one of your three actions right to the governing ing body with the comments provided in the staff report, which would be one and two, letters A through J and that short paragraph after that piece right there with an additional item K basically reading as implement other physical changes to roadway access point entry to deter traffic or improve safety. that I think they could just say adding a letter K to that list.

Yeah. Yeah. If you can summarize it in that letter format and then if any additions you would just add on K. It would be an it would be a letter K. If you stay with the A through J as part of your motion, it would shift if you if you're pulling things out, right? And as we're verbally making said motion, we obviously I see the the comments provided in sort. Could we state something as simple as a through K? Yeah. Yeah. Even though K. Do you do that K as discussed? As long as you say what K is beforehand, you're like, hey, what do we want to make K?

That's important. Yeah. Yeah. What do we want K? What is K? And then when you're do someone's making a motion, you can then reference it because you've already discussed it.

Yeah, maybe I can I can give you some wording to it. If that's a route you go, does the apple get to talk tonight or

Katherine, you want to help? So because this was passed back down from the governing body, it's not a renewal of the whole process again where public hearing and applicant speaking happens. It's basically just a way for the governing body to kick it back down for the planning commission to address one specific issue or whatever specific issue that they had. So, it's not necessarily a question of anything but what the planning commission has already kind of discussed. So, it's just a a request for clarification. Can the chair request the applicant speak?

Um, if everyone thinks that that would be beneficial to your discussion, then do it. But you are not obligated to under code. I mean, I feel like, yeah, with the remanding, I mean, we're take supposed to take a look at all the information that's been provided to us. So, I unless you're just going to reiterate things that we already are aware of, you know, I don't want to muddy the water with anything else, I guess, in this process. I'd rather leave it so that if you want to come speak at, you know, the next governing body, I think that would be more appropriate. if it's something related. So, we're discussing as we've been doing these specific issues of traffic and these certain elements of that. So, if you want clarification on those specific things, then fine, but we can't really delve into other side topics if that makes sense.

I don't think we have any discussion questions that came up that You can also vote on it if you really want to, but you don't have to. If you just want everyone to have to answer. There is nothing.

Can we clarify Yeah, if you have an addition on that, I'd like I'm only going to say it as a suggestion. Do you guys please provide us

because it's it's one of those where you're crafting on the fly. So So the letter K, what I've got just kind of written down here handwritten is implement other physical changes to roadway access point entry to deter Well, it probably should just be access point to deter traffic and improve safety. I'd say deter commercial traffic or truck traffic specifically. I would say truck traffic because that's what you've been asked to look at. And improve safety. And again, don't feel like super pressured that this is going to be actual word for word language that's being

Yes. at this stage

because this has to go up. I'm prepared to make a motion. I'll make a motion. The So, the planning commission um recommended motion would be to submit the original recommendation of the dial for the proposed resoning and associated preliminary development plan to the governing body with the components provided in the staff report. Those components are numbered one and two. However, item number two ended at J and during discussion, we have added point K which reads as as a reasoning to implement other physical changes to the access point to deter truck traffic

and improve safety is what I that's what I and improve safety. So item K, just to be clear, implement other physical changes to the access point to deter to deter truck traffic and improve safety. I'll second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Combmes with a second by Commissioner Sza. All those in favor? Opposed extensions motion carries seven to zero. This this item will go to the governing body again on October 6th which is the next governing body meeting that's coming up. So um what we'll do is we'll prepare our reports and everything conveying this to the governing body as part of their packet for that meeting.

Okay. Moving on to um item number three. Um, this is to adopt a resolution amending the planning commission bylaws adopting the planning commission rules of procedure staff presentation. Last month, we brought to you for discussion some proposed amendments to our bylaws and the development of some rules of procedure. And I hope you all had the chance to think about that a little bit. There was one change that was made since you all saw it last month and that related to article five of the bylaws specifically separating the tableing of an item from the continuation of a public hearing based on the distinctions between time frames for tableabling and u if you will continuing to a date specific when you've got a public hearing which is what was done earlier this evening with the meadows of of Aspen um Creek. Uh so that's that's the only change since this was distributed last month. And at this time, we're requesting that you all approve the resolution 251, which was included with and in both the exhibit A and B of the bylaws and the rules of procedure. You'll notice also that these rules of procedure because you all serve also as the board of zoning appeals that these apply to both the planning commission and the board of zoning appeals and that moving forward we would not have to convene the board of zoning appeals to make this make that amendment. That is something that we will do next month. I didn't meet the public notice publication deadline. So we will have a short meeting in October of the board of

zoning appeals separately in order to hopefully adopt a similar res resolution. So with that be happy to answer any other questions you may have. I don't have any questions. This just puts us everything together as far as bylaws whoever else we're competing with.

Yes. Because every every once in a while it's good to review our bylaws and and in this case we were making some improvements related to the use of technology for example. So just make sure I understood you were talking about tableling items. You said like today we had to table item one to a specific date. You said we're changing the bylaw. So when we table something that just go just doesn't have to be date specific that

um in reviewing Robert's rules of order tableabling is set on the table to come back at some point in the future. But when you have a public hearing, it needs to be to a date specific. And so that's what was done. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Motion to

I'll make a motion. Motion. Uh the planning commission recommends the adoption of resolution 25-01 amending the planning commission board of zoning appeals bylaws and rules of procedure. So did you say recommend adoption or should be I did not I should not have said let me restart. The planning commission will adopt a resol adopt resolution 25-01 amending the planning commission board of zoning appeals bylaws and rules and procedures.

Second. All right. Motion by Commissioner Combmes, second by Commissioner Berg. All in favor? I opposed. Extensions 70. Okay. Discussion items next, I believe.

Yep. the two items that you had last month related to Horizon Point first plat and the EverG uh sub stationation plat were taken to the council as dedication of easements and right away and obviously that went through on their consent of recommendation agenda. Um but the meat if I can would be to get into at the last meeting we talked a little bit about planning commission and board of zoning appeals and so I wanted to provide some information about the difference between those two bodies. So I want to start just by saying stating that both the planning commission and board of zoning appeals their authority comes from the Kansas state statute and it's in that statute that allows the planning commission to also be designated as the board of zoning appeals. Not every state does that. That was something new for me when I previously worked in Tennessee. We had two separate and distinct boards. So just to be aware of that. Um, starting with the planning commission since that's the board that you all serve on is pretty much a monthly basis and therefore are most familiar with. Um, I've listed here, I won't read them all, but they're bullet points for demonstrating the variety of tasks that the planning commission is responsible for. For some applications, you're recommending body and for others, you have the final develop uh final approval. Again, that authority comes from state statute. The next one is the board of zoning appeals and they really only have two primary purposes. The first one would be to hear appeals. Um, and these would be appeals from a staff decision where it's alleged that there was an error uh in the requirement or decision or determination. Also, the board of zoning

appeals grants variances. Variances are different than our deviations. And I've got another slide that sort of goes through that. Um I also would point out that the board of zoning appeals is a quasi judicial body which is similar to the court proceedings where evidence if you will is presented and that's how the decisions are made. So to talk about um the difference between the two actions that the board of zoning appeals can take an appeal or a variance. Appeals are not common applications, but could be filed when an applicant disagrees with a decision that's typically made by our community development director. Based on plan zoning, allowing for more flexible application of the standards, variances are less common than they used to be. Appeals are related to items within title Oh, oh, excuse me. There's appeals that are related to title 15, which is not the land development code. Title 15 relates to building, electric, fire, and property maintenance, mechanical, plumbing, anything related to that goes through our board of building code appeals and not the board of zoning appeals. So, I just want to make that distinction as well, like we talked about earlier in tonight's agenda of the difference where things are located in the code and and what the appeal or what we you all have power over. The next item is to talk about v variances versus deviations because there's some of those times the ter terms are used interchangeably. However, they're not the same thing. The Board of Zoning Appeals considers variances and should grant variances only if all five of the specific criteria are met. Whereas, that's different than the planning commission when you're evaluating a reasonzoning application.

For example, there's criteria that not all of those criteria have to be met. Some of them are weighed differently, and some of them might not even be applicable. Planned zoning allows the planning commission to grant deviations or flexibility. Um, I referenced the resoning criteria because plan development applications include resoning from the base zoning district to a plan district and therefore must be accompanied by a development plan. Like the resoning criteria, the development plan criteria, which is also in our development code, are subject to interpretation and differing opinions. They stress the plan being an improvement over what could be accomplished through strict application of the code. I think it's important I just mentioned that there were five criteria and I wanted to go through these um and and like I said all five of the criteria must be met in order for a variance to be granted by the board of zoning appeals. The first one relates to uniqueness of the subject property. Things such as an odd shaped lot or topography could be something that would be applicable. But however, just because something's on a corner lot doesn't mean that's unique. We've obviously got a lot of corner lots throughout the city. The second criteria, not adversely affecting adjacent property owners or residents. This might come into play if you if something was proposing proposed that would block the neighbor's view, for example, or might be of greater height that would limit the neighbors enjoyment of their swimming pool. Those are some types of examples that might adversely affect the rights of the adjacent property owner or resident. Item three, the strict application and unnecessary hardship or practical

difficulties. I would say that the key words here are unnecessary and practical. Simply because the code may create a hardship doesn't mean a variance should be granted. The fourth one, the affecting the public health, safety, morals, etc. Generally, a variance will not adversely affect the public, but for example, a fence on a corner lot that wants to encroach into the sight triangle could be a safety issue and therefore may not be appropriate to grant that variance. And lastly, granting the variance would not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the code. That sort of gets back to um the uniqueness of the property. It's more of a theoretical question because the intent is to set standards that would be followed by everyone unless something unique or unusual presents itself. interg criteria are not just in our local code they are also state statute so directly cut and pasted from state if you will it seems kind of stringent I'm going to equate this a little bit for people who have police background this is kind of similar to your a waiver to the law. They're essentially saying law does not apply here because of the unique circumstance never it makes it impossible to actually fit into that law. There's an option to this and this is one of the things that staff will do many times with applicants who are pursuing it. they'll jump in and they'll say, "I want variance." And before we get to the other four, a lot of times we'll say, "Let's look at number one real close first because before you spend that application money,

the time to get an application in, let's see if this is truly a unique scenario or if I have this situation in other places around the community." Nine times out of 10, you usually have applications of this particular piece of law where you have situations more than one property is having an issue. So the alleviation that we usually direct people towards that point is the pursuit of a code change. Okay? So just because they don't meet this doesn't necessarily mean we don't want to address the issue. It's just the appropriate way to do it at that point in time. to evaluate an ordinance change and say gosh this applies to 100 properties around here. We think this is a community benefit to change the code for these types of situations. It would come through the planning commission by a change to the zoning code that would be considered. So just so you're aware there is that alleviation element to this and many times staff is trying to trying to go through that process beforehand with the very standard these five very difficult position as well as the staff because the staff has to stand up there as maybe mentioned with this quasi judicial role we're presenting our case to the BCA with facts and elements that we have to sit there and while we may have treated the applicant very nicely we're in that scenario two cases. If we're going to defend our case, they're going to defend their case and we're really not there to help them with that. So, it's kind of sometimes we we go through that discussion with people and that's a key point between variance of deviation deviations

development process is usually a very collaborative process. Yeah. Trying to reach a compromise. I just I just wanted to point that out. Thanks. On the previous slide that we were talking about the board of zoning appeals being quasi judicial and that's why I wanted to circle back and that statement and elaborate on some of the differences among the planning commission board of zoning appeals and the governing body. So the as stated earlier this evening the governing body is legislative. They're responsible for creating the laws, codes, and policies. And their scope is is broad. They want to apply to the entire city. Their decision making they can include a wide range of factors including public opinion and and political pressure. Moving towards the middle, the quasi judicial, the board of zoning appeals. They're responsible for determining the appropriateness of existing laws to that particular situation. and it only applies to that parcel of land that's subject to the application as as we've talked about. And and just as Dave mentioned, it's presenting evidence in at public hearing and showing compliance with that specific criteria. The majority of the time or a good portion of the time, I won't say majority, the planning commission serves as administrative role that you are responsible for implementing the existing laws. um you're trying to see how that affects a particular parcel of land or a particular group of people and your decisions must be based on existing context and code and this is my last slide. Um I thought it would be helpful to also provide information about when something that the planning commission is making a

decision on is appealed. For example, preliminary and final plat are appealed to the governing body because you all make that decision. The same with final plans and site plans. So, anything that an applicant wants to appeal that you all made a decision on, the governing bodies, the person or the group that they appeal to. versus with the board of zoning appeals, if the applicant doesn't like a decision that the board of zoning appeals made there, they would appeal to the district court, which is very different as well. And lastly, I mentioned previously that there are some administrative things that staff can do um which allows the board of zoning appeals to be that appeal board in some cases. But in this case with administrative plat site plans and adjustments which are all listed in the code and have various criteria, the planning commission is the appeal board. That's not something you see very often, but we do as a staff approve administrative plat, for example, combining two lots into one or adjusting a lot line. If there's a problem with that, we then bring it up to you for your decision. So I I I tried to make it short knowing the time that we might have tried to give a little bit of information and we'll try to do this on a occasional basis based on topics that come up that might be helpful as we move forward. Are there any specific questions or things that people would like us to look into further or explain?

Okay, very sure. Um, the last thing I wanted to say is our next meeting is October 27th. We do have items on that agenda. So, we will have a planning commission meeting and we we will be sending out an agenda for a 6:30 board of zoning appeals meeting. So, if that's a problem, let staff know. Um, but that's what we will be doing just this one time in order to adopt those bylaws and um moving forward. So, we're going to have a 6:30 and then we have a plan to meet you,

right? The board of zoning appeals will convene at 6:30. You'll have a short meeting. You'll re recess or adjourn and then at 7 we would um open up the planning commission meeting. And I do believe Maggie that that in this particular case the way you've written the bylaws and I could be wrong here because you had multiple drafts. So I want to make sure the way you've written the bylaws there will be minutes for that BCA minute meeting but as a planning commission you'll be able to in November actually approve those minutes I believe. Is that was it the minutes or what was it that we were looking

it was the bylaws and rules of procedure that the planning commission would Okay. And actually to that end you will have minutes from several years ago when I don't think any of you were on the commission to approve. Sorry. It's a it's a problematic issue because we don't want to just continually reconvene boards just to approve minutes and then record we approve minutes that Yeah. it. We'll get it We'll get it figured out, but I'm glad you reminded me. I couldn't remember if it had to do with the minutes or what it was, but I I do remember we made some adjustments there.

And you'll you'll see a similar adjustment next month when we bring our 2026 calendar to you. You will be considering that calendar with those dates applying to the planning commission and the board of zoning appeals. So, if you do have other topics you'd like for staff to do summaries like this on, just email Maggie or I or both of us and let us know and we can try to try to work with you to define it and get it into a niche where it's only a few minutes. You know, we're so used to coming at 7, so it's going to be really

We'll We'll try to We'll try to remind emphasize at 6:30 because in my mind, you know. Yeah, we'll we'll try to remind you as long as we got a quum there at 6:30, we'll be all right. Well, that that's the chairman's concern. Yes, I we will try to remind each member we can. If there is nothing else, um can we get a motion to move? Second. All those in favor? I I opposed everyone for your time.