Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's a planning. Yeah. All right. We'll have you call. So, don't break it. Just as a G1 will be discussion item between all of you guys but every item after that the only one who can vote on it will be planning commission because plan commission it so they'll call the meeting to order and they'll turn the meeting of course they include you guys in the conversation. Okay. All right.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Dear heavenly father, be with us this evening as we do the business for the city and the community. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen. Amen.

Dan, can you advance the slide? It's not working from here. This item G, this is approval of agenda. I make a motion we approve the agenda. Second. All in favor? I motion carries. Very good. This item decides anyone at this point you're welcome to comment on anything you deem necessary. You're allowed to rem state your first and last name. We do have an open hearing for the circle C variance. So if you're here for that agenda item, we do have an open hearing for that item. So Mr. Chair, at this point you can open citizen comments.

We will open citizens comments. Very good. Come on up. First, last name and your address right next to it.

Uh hello, my name is Trevor Bicil. I am with Kelson RV, uh new business here in town. I don't know if this is the right time for me to bring this up, but we're going to find out. Uh I'm trying to get a pre-approval for a sign to get put up for my company. Um, our grand opening is coming up here in June and our sign is currently going through a approval process, but it won't be approved until later in June. So, I'm seeing if I can get pre-approval from you guys to get a 36-in base um on my sign to make it a more of a monument sign ahead of time so we can get that up and going before my grand opening coming up here soon. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. works a little better. Okay. My name is Amanda Treadwell. Um I live at 410 Richard Road. Um I was contacted today about a concern from some of our community members and this is their first time speaking, so they're a little nervous. So, um, basically the concern that was brought up and then they can kind of speak to, um, the concern specifically to them was the school district had now put up a fence, um, where the Challenger school is, um, that separates the GD senior homes, God senior apartments and easy place area, um, which now kind of makes it accessibility a little bit harder than what it was before. Before there wasn't a fence and you could just walk through the trees. Um, so kids leaving school that live in that neighborhood over there, our seniors having access to the community garden, having access to the path, um, had a more accessible access. There is now a fence there. Um, and I've been told that that is, um, blocked. Um, so I'll let them share kind of their concern that they brought me brought to me today. So, my name is Jessica Bennett and I live at 718 Timmy Court. Last week, my daughter um was trying to ride her bike to school. She goes to Oak Street from

our neighborhood. She was able to cut through Challenger parking lot and go down was it third or fourth street to Oak Street. She was able to get to school fine. On the way home, the gate was locked. She had to call me and tell, you know, say, "Mom, I can't get home." So, I ended up having to leave work a little early to go pick her up. She's only nine. The only a other access is either cutting through people's private property or going out on Kellogg, which is not safe for a 9-year-old. So my question is to you, do you have another path? Do you guys have a plan to put accessibility, sidewalks, etc. to that neighbor to our neighborhood to keep us give us access?

Yeah. Yeah. Hey, we just we've been cut off from our neighborhood into the city. We can't walk to the downtown park anywhere. Everything is basically access through private properties. Like you said, the two streets that we have over there in that neighborhood by the water tower, there's 12 plus kids that go to schools, Challenger, Oak Street, and so that it it's really important for us to be able to have access to that. Since the uh went up, none of those kids have been able to walk to school. So sometimes the gates are unlocked, sometimes they're locked. There's been majority of time it's been locked. So that's our concern. Thank you. Appreciate

it.

Just to sum it up, the uh seniors that live in that community, discover senior homes, senior apartments, I am aware that this is affecting them as well. Um like I said, getting to the garden or getting to walking path. Um, and um, I know that we talked about safe streets and working on that in some of the sidewalk programs and plans and I would love to see those included in that. Um, or maybe just conversations with the school district to see how we can make that work together um, with that new thing to make it. So, thank you. Anyone else?

Okay, Mike, we'll close this comment. Is that correct? Closing citizens comments. Um, I don't apply to co city council. I spoke to the school about the fence, so we can talk about that later if you'd like. So item E, consent agenda. This is the approval of the minutes. This is to approve the minutes from April 13th. And just as a quick reminder, we had an area of influence modification, preliminary reply of 167 west edition, the final reply of 16 167 west edition, road name change for Galleria, zoning amendment C2, variance for lot size requirements, variance property group, modification R1, modification R2, official zoning map change, and removal of the ROA from the zoning regulations. So at this point looking for approval.

I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. All in favor? I motion passes.

Very good. Click old business. There is none new business. This is our joint two family resolution structure. We're going to go ahead and invite Ryan Peek, our city attorney, to come up and he'll introduce it and walk through some of the more legal um justification behind it and then we'll dive into the design and then of course open it up for discussion. So this way thanks Mike. I think I have met most if not all of you. I'm Ryan. Um I am with the Morris Lane Law Firm and I'm also the city attorney. Um so we are kicking off a conversation about a joint resolution and proposed uh restrictive covenant uh that would be required as part of the reasonzoning process associated with R2, R3 and R4 uh districts. Um this is something that if uh adopted it would be utilized on a going forward basis with new developments coming online. It would not apply to any existing developments any areas that have already been uh reszoned. Um cities have wide latitude when it comes to regulating land use. Um that is in part due to the uh wide latitude that's given with regard to restricting uh protecting police powers uh protecting the health, welfare, safety of the residents in the community and therefore cities uh have discretion to impose certain restrictions on how property is used under what

circumstances so on and so forth. So, as the city has grown here in in recent years, oops, there we go. In recent years, the issue has come up with regard to the construction of two family structures, duplexes, twin homes, etc. uh that conversation tends to revolve around uh what percentage of uh lots are going to be dedicated to two family structures, what percentage are going to be dedicated to single family homes. There's been significant discussion about the nature and quality of the construction, the aesthetics of the duplexes and twin homes, uh facade coverings, etc. So what we have done is we've drafted a resolution that would apply to all zoning districts that allow for two family structures. Hence the reason why it would apply to R2, R3, and R4. Um that would effectively implement what staff believes are the concerns of the governing body. This would only apply to newer developments going forward. Uh existing developments, developments that have already been reszoned uh would not be covered by this. they would be grandfathered in. Um highlights you will see in the agenda packet at G1A is a copy of the resolution and declaration that would be uh uh applied and insisted upon from developers when they come forward and apply for resoning. Um, it would seek to mitigate sound transfers between units by requiring additional sound buffering construction materials. Also increase aesthetic appeal of structures. Uh, diversifying the the look and appearance

so that you don't have an entire community of monotonous cookie cutter uh, looking houses just door after door after door. Um, city staff has spoken with a number of developers and homebuilders. Um, the reception has been um, relatively positive. Um, I think the they they believe that this is a reasonable approach to some of the concerns that have been uh, raised by the governing body and the residents in the past. But you know let's let's you know be be transparent that you know increasing the quality of the construction incling you know some of the requirements that go into these properties may have an offsetting increase in the cost of construction which could result in an increase in uh rental rates associated with these properties. There we go. So, uh, city council planning commission, you have before you a proposed resolution to consider and discuss that would effectively control certain variables uh associated with two family structures, percentages allowed for proposed development as well as um construction requirements, aesthetic requirements uh for neighborhood amenities as well. And then I will let Micah u talk in a little bit more depth about the specifics uh of the the restrictive covenant that is being proposed. Um this is something that as part of the reasonzoning process that the developer would be required to agree

to as part of that process. It would not guarantee approval. It would simply be one condition that would have to be agreed to as part of that approval process. The planning commission, the governing body, you've gone through the process before where a reasonzoning application has been brought before you. Micah does a fantastic job of going through the, you know, plethora of different factors that you have to consider in evaluating the totality of the circumstances to determine whether that reszoning is appropriate and in the best interest of the community. You still have to go through that process. developer agreeing to uh uh implement a restrictive covenant as part of this process is not the silver bullet. It doesn't guarantee passage. You still have to go through that analysis and consider, hey, does this still make sense? Does this is this still an appropriate use of the property? What impact, if any, is this going to have on neighboring areas? Is it consistent with how uh adjacent properties are being used in this area? Is it consistent with the general welfare, health, safety of the residents? And so, um, this is only one piece of that analysis and it doesn't excuse you from going through all of the different factors that the law requires in consider considering whether to approve or deny a reasonzoning application. So, I want to be clear that just because the developer agrees to implement a restrictive covenant, that's not the end of the analysis. You could still go through the analysis and

ultimately decide, you know what, I still don't think this makes a whole lot of sense, and so we're not going to approve it. Or it could be a situation where a developer says, "Uh, I don't know that I I I want to agree to to this." You're still going to have to go through the factors, but you do have the right to require as a condition for approval that they enter into this restrictive covenant. Okay? But it doesn't excuse you from going through the process because what we can't do is we can't do what is called contract zoning. Meaning that somebody agrees to the restrictive covenant and that's the beall end all. That's it. we're just going to forgive all of the other factors that we're required to take into consideration. No, I can't do that. Can't contract away that legislative discretion that you all have to go through as part of uh your job as governing body. So, I will turn it over to Micah to walk through some of the particulars of what is included. Um, and then maybe when we get done, be happy to answer any questions that you all might have. So, all right. So, um, Ryan Peek just went into step one, which is basically the resolution that kind of outlines how we can adopt the restrictive covenant. As he mentioned, it doesn't weigh your quas judicial rights. So we're going to step now into part two which kind of outlines what that restriction covenant would entail. So, one part of it would be a non- monotony standard, and I tried to mock up what that would look like, but

basically the italicized on the right identifies non- monotony as being six different types of duplexes. And no two that are the same type could be side by side. And at least we would want to have them at least five types away. So, for example, I color coded it, but I also want to be clear that I put a road where I'm thinking the non- monotony could occur because I can't it'd be very difficult for me to say that you can have non- monotony going in every certain direction because then if I'm going five away in all possible directions, at some point there's going to be an overlap. So, I'm saying the non- monotony, which I believe is the intent, would be on the road side. When you're driving into it, you want to have non- monotony. But if there's two that are have a share a backyard that are the same type, I believe that would be considered acceptable. And Craig, feel free to jump in at any time. I do want to thank the city manager, Craig. He really worked hard on this and pulling different aspects of design standards in different cities that and putting it together to try to think what was best appropriate for what city council commission thought would be reasonable. But as you can see, we're going to have before we go from one purple to the next purple, you're going to have five different standards in between. and then and then it it would repeat itself and five minute stands in between and then it repeat itself. And so that's why we thought we could break up that sort of the same cookie cutter type where you just look down the street and you just see the same garage, the same roof pitch, the same facade and it's just it is just that kind of redundancy. Feel free to if you guys have questions, feel free to interrupt anytime. Clutter is not the best right now. Danny, can you advance?

Y,

thank you. We've talked about percentages before, so this one we dive back into it, but the developer covenants that the two family structure shall comprise no more than 40%. And that would be 40% of the structures. And so we're not talking about units, but 40%. So in this case, you have 10 lots here. You see the orange are duplexes and the yellow are going to be single family. So you'd have 40% structures. So this here would be eight units. This is six units. This is still 40% structures. One duplex is one structure, not two structures. So, we're saying that's one structures. So, 40%. That's what we're we believe we've heard a lot of and we think that kind of rings true generally speaking across the board where

that that's where Trails End developed.

Trails End. Yeah. So, we definitely talked about Trails End when that came up that whole 40% standard. We included in the restricted covenants with trails in that they won't exceed 80 duplexes or 40% whichever is less. And so they went up to 212 and they replanted. They added additional lots and additional lots. And the concern was of course if you add additional lots does that mean you can add additional duplexes? And so we said no no more than 80. So we capped it there on that particular restrictive for that one. But yes, you're right. That is that where the conversation of 40 to 60. Is it 60 units? Is it 40 units? Is it how many structures? Whenever we split the lot, we're saying a structure and that includes a twin home. So, or a duplex, one structure. So, we also want to include in the covenants and the provisions certain amenities and those amenities will be three types, but they can include but are not limited to walking trails, parks, but definitely needs to include at least one active amenity. An active amenity means something that you can kind of participate with outside. Something that's more aesthetic in terms not aesthetic but sort of more active in terms of walking around or engaging in like pickle ball, basketball courts, volleyball, something of that nature. So we are saying that if you are going to introduce this type of development, we want it to have a neighborhood feel. We want there to be neighborhood amenities. The question did come up about neighborhood parks and public parks and I just want to make that clear that that question did come up and we want to keep it open for city council and planning commission to discuss that because if we say that it's a neighborhood park technically that's a private park that's not open to the public. So if we're saying you must commit to a neighborhood park that's an exclusive park. If we change language and say you must commit to a public park, well then the city, it's open to everybody, but then the city has to maintain it. So that is a question that's kind of open for everybody here. If neighborhood versus

public park. So Michael, you might mention how it's currently written. Yes, I believe it's currently written as a neighborhood park. Is that open to the public is how it's currently.

Yeah. So neighborhood park that's open to the public. And there is there is some questions. I think there was a concern raised by one developer in particular about, hey, this is a neighborhood park that are being paid for with HOA dues, but you're saying it has to be open to the public. How's that fair to my, you know, future home buyers? You know, so that question came up before. If it's a neighborhood park and we're saying no, it must be exclusive or sorry, it can't be exclusive. Has to be open to the public. How's that for people who are paying HOA dues if anybody can come in? So, that question has come up before. Can this pond be considered an amenity? You say they stop the pond.

If it had a walking trail, I believe then we could say it's an active amenity at that point, but they would have to have that walking trail. I think Pine Valley Station, for example, has a walking trail on one of the reserve ponds. We would consider that an active amenity. I think he's saying if they wanted to fish and they could fish at this pond,

that would I think we would want to leave it up to the discretion of the city at that point. If we want to consider that an active amenity, they would probably have to put in a dock or something to the fact that action should say this is, you know, just simply stocking of fish like we're done. Maybe there would actually have to be some element of it that would require it. Um, active amenity means any man-made recreational facility or improvement located within a park, open space, track, or common area that's intended for active physical use by residents. The term includes without limitation a swimming pool, playground, splash pad, sport court, gym, dog park, or similar facility created by the city. The term does not include passive primary decorative features such as benches, picnic tables, shade structures, landscapes, bathrooms, monuments, or open lawn areas not specifically improved or intended for active recreational use. So, it doesn't necessarily say anything about

No, I mean, I think it would depend on the circumstances and the intended use of it. And, you know, if it's a pond that existed before the development, that's probably not a man-made uh recreational facility. If it's something that was put in, if it's something that is intended to be used for fishing or for some other recreational purpose, it it might, you know, qualify under the definition of an active amenity. So,

and I guess that's where I'm getting at. I think St. Andrews, we've got two ponds and in a grassy area, and the ponds are are uh they're not there to fish. I mean, they weren't they're the purpose of them isn't for fishing. The purpose of them is is for storm drainage, but they've got fish in them. And so if I was developing a neighborhood just like that, I could say, well, I've got two ponds and I've got a grassy area. Does that mean it to me that doesn't seem to meet the intent of what you're going for here? But but could could somebody say that? And if they did, when you say the city is the one that decides, who is that? Is that the

It probably be me and Ryan Peck going like I don't know about this. I generally agree with you based on the description that you've given. I'm not sure that would be the definition of an active amenity. I mean, if the pond was created for purposes of storm drainage and it wasn't created for purposes of recreation and the re recreation is just a an offshoot of it, then I think the stronger side of that argument is no, that doesn't count. So, we just put it in there that it has to be a recreational bond. I think the challenge there though is the homeowners association pays for the fish. I mean they don't just show up. So they had intended to make it fishable.

So is there requirements that they would have to meet? Then

the difficulty I mean the balancing act here is you intentionally want this to be a broad definition to grant wide latitude to developers to decide, hey, what kind of active amenities do we want to incorporate into our development? And and there may be ideas that come forward that none of us sitting here today could ever envision. and and you want that broad definition to be flexible over time. And the more we rein that in, the more specific we get, the less discretion the the the city and the developers are going to have in terms of figuring out what kind of active amenity. So, I mean, we could rein it in and restrict certain things. Um, you know, say that, you know, a pond under those circumstances wouldn't wouldn't qualify. But I think a lot of it depends on the circumstances at the time and what was the intent and how is it being used uh for purposes of recreation. Was it man-made? Did it exist before?

You know, it's a lot of what ifs. I think it's worth being just a little careful about one because my hesitation I think might be yours as well is that if we leave that as a gray area every developer sits at the bottom dollar and thinks well it's going to cost me next to nothing to throw a couple docks in and some fish in there and yeah the HOA is maintaining it but then we're going to have a whole bunch of developments with fishing ponds and no parks or any other I mean the neighborhoods in our area there's more people fishing than at any park that exists. So I mean it's a valid Yeah. So Craig, you had some. Sorry,

Mr. Chair. I I think I would qualify it should it have a trail around it then to be it becomes an active amenity and maybe we can up a little more periage and we can have more discussion. I'm not opposed to the open-endedness as as Ryan stated, you know, and we're going to talk more about it. My question, if it's going to be called an amenity, who's going to pay for the the walking trail around the pond? The HOA would the HOA would it would be converted to them once a a certain number of lots are sold long for the developer.

The developer than the HOA, but I I kind of wonder about this myself because you got these detention ponds out here that people are using as a recreation area. The HOA is paying to maintain them, uh, paying to stock them and stuff. So I I could see how that could easily be interpreted or qualified as an amenity. If that's not the intention of the council on the planning commission, then we could specifically notate in there that detention ponds utilized for fishing don't qualify or we could qualify them by requiring something additional to the detention pond such as a walking trail. It wouldn't we wouldn't want it to be something that we'd have to track perpetually like if the pond is stocked then it's an amenity. We're not going to be watching these years down the road. Um, so it's a question of do we need to add a trail something like a trail to it to qualify a pond or do we want to just decide that ponds don't count towards that count but three and from my perspective as long as that's public access you know on any night's weekend there's anywhere from six to a dozen you know 12 to 15 year olds standing upon fishing along with their you know their their parents and other people at least between the two neighborhoods I see a lot of times I think it would be a shame to disqualify it and discourage the use of it. So that's that's my opinion. Becomes public, you have to fish it unless it's fish.

It wouldn't not in the neighborhood. It's still private. Well, and I would I would agree with the fact that if they're paying for it, I don't I'm not sure that it would be fair to be open to the public, but if the city in any way is funding towards set of entities, then it should be open to the public. But if it's not, I can see why the HOA is maintaining it. they should be the ones that want to utilize it.

Well, we do not plan to fund it and that's one of the questions we want to get answered tonight. Tonight is review and comment adoption if the city council wishes would be on the 18th. We want to know if you guys would like these amenities to be HOA like many of our neighborhoods are or open to the public which is how it's currently written. So, real quick, are we I lost track. Are we arguing whether or not the pond in stock or whatnot is be considered an amenity at all or an active amenity? Cuz the requirement is three amenities, one being active. I believe we're discussing be active. So, to me, I I kind of agree with Craig's point. We could count it alone as an amenity, but to make it active, you put the trail around. And in the definition for active is trails. So you put a trail around it. Seems like the

it's got coverage already as ridden. So if it's just a pond, I mean almost every neighborhood is and so if if a pond is an active amenity then then you might as well not even have an active amenity because Yeah. Because they're all going to have it and it's that's I guess what I'm trying to say is that we don't have a pond. Yeah. They would have to be they're I mean how many ponds around here don't don't have fish in them. Do any of them not? I understand. I mean agree. Yeah. So, do we need to decide that now or we have to meet? No, there's no decision now. I mean, we can keep moving on and or come back around to the edits we want to make or do we want to make the edits as we go along?

Either way, we're this is all being recorded, so we'll take it into account when we move forward. Or if you guys want to hash it out a little more, you can. Or I mean, there's a lot to go through, especially for you guys on your end. So either we can talk about changing it now if you guys are all in agreement with it or we can do what we believe we heard and make some edits or well let's try this. I think if everyone agrees as long as there's a trail present around the call it active and if not it's just an amenity. Was that consensus? Yes that would work.

Second question we want to know is public or HOA developer that to me that may be more important. personal opinion is you really I mean how are you going to make it private? They can post signs. You know, I think in some of the in in the season's neighborhood there in the pond along 183rd says private, but I would official you park at the church and walk across the street. No one's look no one wants to see your driver's license. So, I just I don't think we advertise it as public. I think we just allow it to be personal. Then the city has to pay to maintain.

Not if it's not if it's not advertised as public. If it's part of the neighborhood and I drive up and fish is someone questions me, I I go home. If not, kitchen used to but it's still someone that's either private or whether we have I think we're marking it as private and to your point I mean I don't it's not on us to navigate monitoring that the neighborhoods take care of but what about other active amenities what about a swimming pool

you can easily put up a fence around a swimming pool lock it secure it only to the residents of the neighborhood I mean I think one of the policy decisions that you as a group have to decide side is do you want these active amenities that are basically made available or dedicated to the general public even if they're being funded and maintained by the HOA? I mean that's a policy decision that you all are going to have to make. Are you comfortable with that?

I think sorry. Go ahead. If we mark it as private, which I think is what we should do, I think that's a very gray area because to your point, like if it's a park, we're not fencing off a park until they have to have a code. But if it's a pool, they're fencing it off and they're putting a code on it. And so I think what we're saying is it needs to be private, but it is not going to be on the city to to police that and have officers going by to make sure that everybody that's there is monitoring that. It just is what it is. And if the HOA wants to put somebody in place for that, that's also one. It'd certainly be more traditional to allow these to be the HOAs,

not I think that's what we need to and the trade-off there is that you know some of these HOAs are going to restrict use to summer all of these facilities to only their residents and the people who are putting the bill forward. Can we defer this to the HOA? Can we let them decide how they I think if they put a fence up and put a gate on them with a code that's their decision. That's their money to spend. If they want to leave fishing open to the public and not fence it in we'll take that out then. So cuz as written the last line says no fence gate or other obstruction limiting public shall be erected on dedicated parcel without city consent.

We we can take that out if we're going to go in the more traditional route. Well, and the reason I I bring that up is because if we're requiring one active amenity and the pool is an active amenity, I don't think you ever can build a pool and not have around it, right? You have to. So then it no longer counts as a one amenity. So they would have need another amenity, right? You could have a pool with a fence, but you don't have to lock it. But I would you would still need to lock it or have some control so kids don't just come in even if it's unlocked during the day. But I would say

unless you have a life card on duty, you can't leave it unlocked. to a funds point. If we required everything to be open to the public and let's say an HOA built a pool and we were like, you have to leave that open to the public. How many families are going to go to the city of Gddard pool and pay to get in when they can just go over to the new HOA and swim in their pool for free? Arbor Creek has a private pool. Um the only people who can who can swim in that pool are the people who live in that neighborhood. They have access to that. Um and that is, you know, but they also

but they also have a walking trail. They also have, you know, they have another amenity outside of that that people can walk around in the neighborhood, but they cannot attend the pool without some sort of unless they live in there or they have a connection in there. So, um, it makes sense to me that the HOA would take on the responsibility of these amenities and we leave it at that. Unless there's a disagreement, we can move forward. No, but I think we just need to remember that the intent of what we're trying to do is to create neighborhoods that allow for interaction, for people to get out and and and have a sense of community and

and a good quality environment,

right? And and somebody that lives off 167th Street isn't going to take their kids over to, you know, to Arma Creek to unless there's a birthday party or something. But the intention of what we're trying to do is to make God a nice place to live and that people can enjoy whether it's fishing, whether it's pickle ball, whether it's a swimming pool or whatever that there's there's there's places for living life right in their local neighborhood. And we've got a couple subdivisions, you know, a couple little things that were built without that. And so that is the intent I think of what we're trying to do is that each area that gets developed has an area where there's a place for people to live life together.

I see two questions. Number one is do you still want to require um the active amenities within the neighborhoods? And number two is if so, are those amenities uh accessible to the general public or are you okay with allowing them to be used uh be for the exclusiveness of the members of the HOA? I see there those as two separate issues. You can still you can still require them to have the active amenities but be okay with them being for the exclusive use of the H. Can I get the

Yeah, please speak up if this isn't correct, but I believe the answer to your first question is yes. I want to require and the answer to the second question is we're going to leave it up to the HOA. It's a private it's a private amenity and they can lock it if they want to. Yep. Perfect. That clarify. Okay. Yeah. So, the only the only thing I I asked the group on that is in an R1 situation, we're not requiring this community sense, are we? I mean, an R1 builder could come in and put in 300 houses with no park, with no path, with no no need to park. It's not required in the It's not required.

You guys can require that during the planning process, but it's not a requirement in our codes. This and this only pertains to R2. What we're discussing, right? So, I I just bring that up. You know, we're setting the standard here for this these two family style homes, but nothing for R1. Well, I think my point of view is is that we need to make that a part of this process because as we continue to grow, you know, when you're when you go from 5,000 to 15,000, we want to have if you're going to have 300 houses and homes in the development, we we're expecting that to be part of our community and those amenities, I think, need to be a part of it. That's my position.

Okay. I just want forward that's here. We are setting ourselves up with and may and and maybe that generates some of the the change we're after but we don't require that in R1 situation. So require comp before we leave this I'm curious where does the 1/2 acre size come into play? Like where do we come up with that? One half acre. Thanks for putting me on the spot.

I'm just wondering why why this there's a size. So, I was looking at um some areas where places said you had to dedicate a lot towards an amenity. And so, I was looking at what the size of the lot is. It's a it's an art, not a science, is my best answer to that. I I don't know if if you guys think it's too big or too small. We can change it. Some some developers, they may have a reserve where they're putting a pond and they just happen to have a spare acre next to that reserve that they'd be able to use. So then I have to sacrifice a lot. That's a lot of the push back we'll get is, well, you're killing two of my lots. That's those are $60,000 each kind of thing. So I was trying to find what seemed like enough green space to people could go enjoy it versus not making the requirement so great that the the project becomes where they can't they won't do it because it's not going to give them the return they want.

That kind of leads to a question I had though. So this goes into reszoning for an R2 or in our four deal. But what happens if you're a small development? I mean, because we've had things come before us with duplexes that were one one lot, right? Yep. Can we put a cap on that? You mentioned the conditional use. Maybe that would be where Well, I know this is it's a that's a good question, honestly. I mean, obviously the best.

So, I mean, you guys all know about Pine Street, right? We have one duplex on one really small lot on Pine Street. So, how are they, you know, that's clearly all this kind of breaks down if you're going to reszone in that particular case. We do allow a conditional use permit for a duplex in an R1. So, if you're in on Pine Street, for example, you could pull a conditional use permit to build a duplex in an R1 and you don't need to go through this. Not yet. Not yet. There probably wouldn't be a lot more big arm type or lion's den as they call it now based on this. But is there any reason why we could not add some verbiage that said minimum 10 lots, minimum 25 lots where it made sense to have this these? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, we could definitely consider that. Actually, you know, the only difficulty if you do that is a developer is going to game it and instead of uh instead of doing one big development, I'm going to do a series of developments of only 10 lots or 20 lots, whatever, wherever that threshold is. And so I think Micah's suggestion is if we set a default policy and then use the conditional uh permit process to address uh exceptions. Yeah.

I mean I guess I would ask the question. I mean if they're going to do that they're going to have to submit plans for each one of those sections of 10 or sections of 20. They have to pay money for that. I mean, I would think we could set something that would prevent them from trying to do that and still let the single lot the the person that owns two single lots together or or something along those lines proceed without having to pay for a conditional use permit and all the things that go along with it. I'm something that's like if you have five to 10, you only have one amenity or like tier it. I don't know if that's too too much, but just kind of tearing. And

I don't know, Mr. Parks, what Do you see any is like three lots very common? Is it usually a single lot or a lot of lots? That's my question. I'm putting lot of lots of lots. I mean is three is three bas or less doesn't require cuz that's for what? For an amenity to require an amenity. I mean how many lots are you see like if you do a plan or you see a plan not not Yeah. Yeah. We're two standard deviations away from reality talking about these things. I think yeah,

we're really deep pretty deep in the weeds. We start trying to dice this up. I think there's a lot. I think we keep it pretty gener. Yeah. But let decide and then bring it to the planning commission and appreciate the court.

Yeah. If you guys have other ideas that you don't think of today, send us send them to us and when the council takes it up on the 18th and if it's something big, they may not be ready to approve it that night. They can always uh table it to another one. But things like the size of the spa pack, if a halfacre doesn't see a different size, let us know and we'll we'll bring that to you guys. So a typical sidewalk is I think about 3 ft 3 4 feet and so we want to go 5t. Um so this is typical you'll see it on on a you know thorough bear through the through the subdivision. It's typically not in a culdeac. So we're keeping that we're just increasing the width basically the sidewalk. So any questions about that aspect of it? Sorry. Anything in advance?

Yep. Back.

Oh, two trees per lot shall be required. Part of certificate of occupancy. So that's that's pretty typical on a lot of restrictive covenants. We saw you see this in a lot of developments, but the restrictive covenant will say, "Hey, you need to have two trees." So we're going to say you need to have two trees before you get your certificate of occupancy. Um, and so we basically are saying, hey, a tree caliber at 1.5 inches, we'll measure it six inches off the ground and measure the the diameter of the tree and say that this is in compliance. And so this is to kind of introduce new saplings and kind of bring in more greenery into these subdivisions. You know, they always say the best time to plant a trees 20 years ago. Next best time is now. And so we're hoping to try to bring that into play. We don't actually have a tree planting policy. So, this is the closest thing we connect to it right now.

There's any questions about this one? Yeah. So, the this and and most of the rest of these restrictions that I saw all kind of are all based on on certificate of occupancy or the time of permitting or time of zoning, right? you know, is there any can this can can you know, but most of these neighborhoods once they're built are going to transition into an HOA combinant that that that governs the neighborhood for us to slide, right? Can we require these to extend into that covenant like the two trees or the you know the playground 10 years from now that playground fall apart

require that force the developer in the restrictive covenant because they typically when they form it they form an HOA developments and then they draft a restrictive covenant they go with that. Well, this would be a restricted covenant that is applied to the entire development. I mean, so so so to the extent that these same requirements are in the HOA covenant, I mean, it'd be duplicative of what's going to be in the existing restrictive covenant that's going to run with the land even after the developer sells the lots, turns it over to the Hel.

Well, like these two tree, these trees here are is a good example. But the free dies within two years of the issuance of certificate of occupancy and it's got to be replaced. What if it dies 2 and 1/2 years based on based on this language now there's no requirement that they ever plan it right again but in in most HOA competence you've got to have at least two degrees whether it's 2 years after the house is built or 20 years after the house is built right um so under those circumstances the HOA would take the lead in enforcing their own requirements and if they don't have that then then they wouldn't have to have the reason anymore Yeah. Yeah.

My only struggle here is this duplex. What if I don't like their trees? When you're you're putting you're you're allowing the developer to pick a tree that may or may not be appealing. They're going to put all the same tree in. Sure. Pick your own tree in my own. I guess you could place it one for one or two for two trees. And Mike, I I know I always ask the question when I see the word lots. So if it's a twin home where the lots are split, one lot, one lot. Well, twin would be two lots, right?

No, because it still be I mean, we're going to say that's one lot. You're allowed two trees. That doesn't mean now you have to have four trees. So two trees per structure. Yeah, true. Because your word is lot and I'm just making sure we're consistent. Yeah. No, we're going to say two trees per lot. And then we're going to say two trees, but when it's split down the middle, we're still just going to say it's two trees. And then Okay. So followup question is this applies to the 60% of the homes there, too, not just the That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. So this company has as mentioned applies to the whole, right? So it doesn't matter if you're in single family or a duplex. You still have to put two trees, right?

Right. Yeah. If I'm a single family home, I don't want you putting the trees in unless I get to pick them and you're going to keep me from moving in until that happens. That's possible. I mean, we're going to tell them that they have to put in two trees. If you guys think that's too prohibitive, we can strike that aspect of it. Just simply say that HOA must decide two trees or something. I think it needs to be left in there.

Do we have any communities that develop that will that have any rules that are like you have 60 days from the date of purchase of the home to plant trees and then it kind of defers to like is there a way to maybe put it in that way? So it still falls on the fact that you have to have them but you have 60 days from the date of closing on your home or one planting season sometimes. Yeah. Like you have one planting that's a good idea like one planting season to plant two trees. If they buy in December, you can plant them in the spring and be How do you enforce that or monitor that? in the that if it's two trees before you get to review the audit and see that some that's a that somebody has to check a box and say okay they've got their two trees okay

it's not being accepted then you can't I mean sending somebody back out there what I t what I tend to see with HOAs is a requirement you just you have a certain number of trees or you have certain types of trees that you're required to maintain at all times I mean and it's not for a limited period of time I mean my neighborhood has some ridiculous requirements of certain number of trees and one has to be an evergreen and you know two have to be I don't know

but is this where it kind of falls into like what we talked about council where we can kind of defer that to developments coming before us and look at the type of development going in and structure how many of each tree at that point or is this something that we have to give an overview of now and say you can only have six of these trees on one road and four of these or can we can Can we kind of break that down per development and kind of defer back to Micah on well the way the way that it is currently drafted the tree requirement is a time limitation on the first two years right

I mean to the extent a tree is removed after those two years or dies after those two years there's nothing in the existing in in this proposed declaration uh restrictive covenant that would require maintaining any number of trees per log or per structure. You could certainly put that in there if you want.

I don't think that's what anybody is arguing is I mean that's a whole separate thing of its own that we don't need to go down the rabbit hole. But if you're saying the tree is kind of the challenge for you, can we defer to the fact that you have to have two trees, but maybe we do break it up so we're not getting 100 oak trees on one side of the road. Can we at least say that per development? We'll take a look at it. Kind of like we talked about what we would require per development, like you're not going to put a house in St. Andrews and vice versa. Like, can we is there a way to mitigate that at the time of the development when the developer brings it in front of you? Or can we just say you have to have a mix of x amount of trees and not say what you have to have just saying?

I think we just want to keep it general like you have to have two trees. I think to share point's point of view and if you're building a brand new house, the home builder is going to say, "Hey, I have to have two trees. What two trees do you want?" Right. And they're going to ask you. If it's a speck home, they're probably just going to plant two trees. Which is true. Yeah. So, that's probably what's going to happen. If it's a brand new house versus a speck home, they're going to say, "Hey, Joe, homeowner, Jane homeowner. The city is forcing me, sorry, to put in two trees. What two trees do you want?" And they're going to say, you know, dwarf paper trees. And they're going to go stick them in. If it's a speck home, they're gonna be like, "Okay, here's some evergreens." Boom. And they're gonna be down and they're gonna walk away. That's what they're gonna do to get their CFO.

Don't include any shrubs in there. No, just want everyone.

What do you guys think about the trees? I think we need to stay in. I mean, I think like you said, if you said the builder's probably going to ask what kind of tree kind of ask that

it's cheaper than three require one. Okay, here. Good point. Like, can we just make sure that they're not going to buy the cheapest trees possible? I would rather buy whatever trees they want. Let's just say two trees. Let's keep it simple. The longer we talk, the harder it I don't want to be the trick. Do we want to limit

the the period of the requirement? You want to just I mean the lots have to maintain two trees. Do you want it limited to two-year period after reszoning after certificate of occupancy? But what's your pleasure? Development starts. They start with two trees. We'll let it develop and go from there. Let's send for some of this stuff. two trees within the first plant. Danny, you advance slides.

All right, guys. We're going to jump into architectural standards. So, I can see that partway.

Um, so architectural standards for two family structures. We once again we pulled different standards on what we thought were reasonable to try to improve that sort of aesthetic appeal. Um one thing being masonry 30% kind of like you see on the front over here. Masonry shall go up about 30%. Try to avoid sort of try to increase just that general aesthetic appeal. Um vivid paint colors are limited incidental accents. porches, varied roof lines, varied facade depths shall be incorporated to create variety and individuality and dwelling units within the building. So, we're trying to break up once again that monotony. We're trying to break up that whole sight line down the street and you just see the garages. You just see that one solid wall of housing units. And so, this is what the language we're trying to incorporate. And I brought some examples up there. Of course, this doesn't mean this is exactly what it's going to look like. I'm just pulling examples that I found online. They say, "Hey, this is similar." Front windows must make at least 10% of the front walls. Garage doors may not cover more than 50% of the front of the home. This ensures garages do not visually dominate the front of the home. So, you guys have seen these before. We have some of these in court currently where the front door is actually on the side of the duplex and the garage is on is the prominent feature on the front. We're trying to avoid that and try to have something that's a little more pleasing where it looks like it's more in tune with the urban fabric of a traditional subdivision. This doesn't require it on every single family. I mean, we're creating restrictions here that are going to be tough.

Yeah, this is I mean this is all going to be duplexes. I know, but I mean we're creating restrictions. We're not creating the same restrictions on R1. So, I mean to me this is these these are getting in the weeds. Well, the side changes, you know, percentage of windows. I mean, this this I was also curious on the 50% garage door. I don't know if any house in seasons even has that because they have small little portion window and then a big garage.

So, I just wonder if 50%'s the right number cuz all your single family homes that neighborhoods are going to have to be like wider. I mean, you're already requiring six different types or proposing six different types. And now we're going to tell them how many windows they have to have and what type of the garage can be and sure how many trees they have to plant. And we drafted this to try to a wide draft. So we we're trying to include as many architectural and design standards as possible. But if you guys see stuff that you don't like and you're like, we feel like this is overreach on the part of the city, then feel free to say that. We can try to basically creating an HOA across the entire city. I just want to go on record.

You don't have to raise your hand. Come on. Everybody talks. Um I just want to go on record by saying I agree with what he's saying. I do think that if you're putting this restriction on uh your R2 R3, we should consider some of the same kind of things for R1. Uh I do think we're getting a little bit too much. Uh I get what you're trying to do and I like what you're trying to do. I agree with most of it, but I do think we're getting a little carried away.

Is there a middle ground then? trying to make the lot smaller, the house is bigger and the sideyard smaller and then make the the actual property bigger and you put a front door on the side. Where's the where's the happy me? Yeah, that's what city staff's trying to figure out between the 12 of you guys. We're trying to eat it out of you and make some kind of amalgamation that can be put into practice. And that's that's what we're trying to get today.

I think it's a problem of perception. I mean, there there's a demand for duplexes and and multif family housing, but then people hear the word duplex and they they get nervous about homeowner values and community value and and and what it's going to do to the community. So I think maybe if I understand safer the intent of this is trying to give everybody a comfort level that yes there are duplexes coming but it's not just going to be row houses or or something some kind of cheap structure put up. It's got it's got standard so it's they're duplexes or nice duplexes and our way to enforce it. Right. I think that was my position initially because we already have a lot of poorly structured um I mean we can walk we can drive around our city and and see clearly that there are some very poorly structured um duplexes in our community and we still have slated to be built from the previous um at 167th and 23rd Street. Those have no design standards to my knowledge. And the ones that are slated for Maple and 199 also, there are no design standards or have not been any design standards up until this point in terms of aesthetically pleasing. Um, as a person who grew up in military housing, I know what it looks like and it looks like what we're seeing all around us. And military housing is not designed for people to come and live and stay. It's designed for people to come and live for a little bit of time and then move on. And I think what we're trying to or what I'm trying to one voice uh try to encourage going forward is an aesthetic that invites people whether you live in a duplex or a twin home or a single family home that it's a place that you want to come and live and and have quality of life and have park you know or walking amenities. Those kinds of things instead of every single

house looking exactly the same. Being able to hear your neighbor next door. These are not acceptable living conditions in my opinion. So I think if there's a way for us to find some middle ground in some of these aesthetics, then we don't have to sit here and do these kinds of things.

I think we had a council meeting this last year. Um it was actually before I was seated, but I was a little nervous for it. Um a lot of the community came. they were voting on um another set of duplexes. And I was very shocked to hear that it wasn't that I think most of our community is against duplexes. They're against the quality of duplexes we've been giving them. And so I think that's kind of where some of this comes from. I don't disagree in the fact that maybe we're structuring it a little too harshly. So I'm not opposed to a middle ground. I just don't want to see what we're seeing go up continue to go up because I think it just it looks poorly on us. it's hard to live in. Um, and I just it's not the standard that I want to set for the people that we want to bring to God or keep water.

It's a starting point. And these ideas are not just ones that came up with out of my head. These are from other communities. I'm very good research. I don't I don't I didn't we can just make them up like the garage composition of the windows and stuff. We pulled that from other communities in the state of Kansas that are requiring these same standards of of our two structures. Not so much in the Witchaw area. However, Micah's colleagues and and my colleagues have been meeting on a monthly basis in different cities. Several in the developing community and the consultant engineers they work with can attest to us having this same conversation and discussing these same design standards. Derby. I mean, you guys breed the Eagle probably. You probably saw that they just had a sharet with their planning department. Some of the stuff we took from them. So, if if any of it feels like overkill that we're here to compromise, this was a starting point. We took everything we're seeing from the other communities, the 12 of you, what we're hearing from our community members. We tried to put it together into something. We talked to the builders and developers that have done uh two family buildings in our in our market, and the feedback has actually been surprisingly positive with this. I was pleasantly surprised. So, my anticipation is that if we get some version of this passed in the next couple of council meetings, we've already got developers that are waiting to buy land and intend to apply for R2. And they've all seen this. We've sent them drafts of it just like we have you all. And like I said, so far sounds like they're going to work to move towards projects and they're sharing these with their builders, too. So, um, whatever you guys think, if something in this needs to be taken out because it's too much, here we are to to discuss it.

Well, yeah. And they just want a guidepost, too, because for the last 3 years plus, you know, people are investing significant time and money into the entitlement process with the engineering firms. Uh and then if if we're just kind of the goalpost seems to be perpetually moving, that's an issue and does not look good on us. It makes it a difficult place to invest in. So we want to get something that can be uniformly applied for the R2 zoning district. So the the development community, the investment community, everyone that wants to be in Goddard knows what the rules are.

I don't think there's anything wrong with setting a standard. So, I mean, we don't have to micromanage every single detail, but we do um I do think we have a responsibility to build something that people want to come and live in and stay in for a while and they shouldn't have to hear their neighbor next door.

And I shared I share um about about being concerned or being overly restrictive, but if the if the developers the restricting are are okay with it, then I I would I would think And that's probably not overly I mean if we were being overly restricted that's the feedback Craig would have gotten and and um and he probably different but um the fact that they're okay with it makes me think it's it's probably close to where it needs to be. Sorry. Protective entry courts, common vestibules, covered breezeways, and closed stair halls. Shall be incorporated reduce the number of visible doors unless the structure is designed in a rowhouse or townhouse manner oriented toward the street. And so I had actually view that was so covered breezeways. We kind of figured out what that was. But this just kind of adds a little more architectural standards that people can utilize for you know like I said once again it's an aesthetic element. Um next side elevations garages cars all accessory structure style without the same level design aesthetic quality and architectural detail as a primary structure garages and carport structure shopping design be integral with the building. Uh our site has to avoid long mountainous roads of garage doors building walls etc. So this is this is a picture that I pulled from online, but it kind of I feel like ties into that where it's going to match the principal structure. So a detached garage is considered accessory. I will say we we've highlighted accessory on here. There's sheds. I I don't think I would say a shed has to have masonry around it. You know, technically a shed can be an accessory structure, but I think predominantly we're talking about uh detached garages.

So, and then the sound separation requirement. So, that was a big thing that came up before. We have pulled some construction standards that we thought were reasonable that a builder would not object to and I spoke to a couple builders about these standards and they didn't feel like it was unreasonable. Um, but basically we would ask and we would adopt this into our construction code that we would go a little bit above and beyond what the IRC would require and say that we're going to add some supplemental design standards that says that you have to do this to mitigate sound at a much greater level than than the IRC requires. So that would be something that we would include. Question that I guess I have a question on is uh is there any type of sound dampening insulation to be used? Is that in other form of equivalent?

Yeah, if they can show or prove that it's sound dampening, then you can say potentially then we could prove it based on that. If there's other standards of construction material out there that actually shows to be sound dampening is proven to be sound damaging, I think that we could take that into consideration. It has to be a common practice though. If you're going to say, I'm going to stuff the walls full of duct tape. Probably not, right? You'd have to say, "No, this is a common construction material that's widely utilized. It's, you know, common practice." We would run it through our building inspector, look at the IRC, see what else there is, talk with different people, and then say, "Yeah, that's an acceptable material. We're not going to let you use any type of sound and stuff beanie babies and call it a day. I mean, it's got to be it's got to be really

like is it firewall that they can put in between? Firewall. It's a there's like but there's a specific one hour fire rate is talking about. So I once again I have to kind of really disqualify myself for making any type of construction especially with present company. I am not nor have I ever done construction. So I don't know but we are after looking done. I mean with that you know usually walls have like an SEC rating. Would we look at like a signing? It's got to be have a certain building inspector.

Yeah. We're actively hiring a building inspector now. They're going some of them um already have their ICC certifications. We could go into that in more depth about how that would tie into the IRC and all the other ICC codes, but once again I can tell you that I'm not qualified. I'm curious too on the continuous separation wall. Does that include any attic basement or

I don't think it does. Now I'm just going to talk about that just because when I pulled it from the ICC I read that it doesn't look like that 1hour fire rate wall goes all the way up into the attic, nor does it go down into the basement either. But I can't once again I'm not qualified to make an IRC statement like that. But having read that recently, I don't remember it actually going all the way up there. I don't ask that cuz I've had duplex neighbors where the smoke from one comes into the other. So like smoke like cigarettes, not like a fire. That just opens up the issue of what do you have to do to the attics then like separate

I'm I'm surprised the firewall is

so if the resolution is adopted as a subdivision regulation this is a question that came up before a will need to be published first incur a small cost resolution was drafted and approved by Ryan Pent the city attorney advance one more time Danny So it is recommended city council and planning commission deliberate and direct staff accordingly. We're asking no action be taken at this time. Are there any questions for Ryan Peek or myself at this time? I have one more question. Yeah. Um section two talked about the 40% and then section 12 talked about how the phasing would occur and I can I can figure it out.

So phasing so let's say a development has got you know let's say it's 100 acres or whatever they'll do it in phases. They'll do phase one, phase two based on what they think they could tolerate. So the way the phasing is written is that phase one, let's say out of 100 acres, you're only doing a portion like 20 acres. That 20 acres has to still be 6040. And when you go to the next phase, it has to be 6040 and the next phase 6040. That prohibits a developer from putting all the duplexes up front and then maybe waiting some time before they actually do more of the single family. And so we're saying, hey, if you're going to do one phase and future phase down the road, we would instead of front loading all the duplexes, you have to have a mix of single family and duplexes on each phase.

Prevents them from building all duplexes and walking away too if they had yet, which that's the current situation, right, with the ones that are flooded because they're building all the duplexes first and then building the single family homes.

We haven't we didn't have that issue with trail then. Uh the other ones are to be determined. I I hate to beat that dead horse just thinking from a from a builder perspective. Um and I'm like totally I think we're on the same page with these duplexes and and what that looks like, but just from a builder perspective or even a buyer perspective generally speaking like um there's development going in in Lawrence and so like the thought is they put their twin homes kind of at the front, right? But then you get slab homes and that entire slap home communities behind it and then behind it is like your custom multi-million dollar homes. And so have we looked at other communities and what that looks like if we require them to mix those?

No. Every place does different. Some places want the single family on the outside and duplex. Well, I don't care which one you put on the outside. And I agree because I don't I don't want that to happen. I don't want them to put their duplexes up and then sit for five years even and say we'll get to it when we get to it. Like we want to make sure they do it. I just thought from a design standard is that standard. Well, we don't dictate that. If I'm wrong, is they could always put the single family in homes first, right? There's no We just They just can't put duplexes too many first. That's right.

So, I had another question on that then too though. when I I haven't been in a lot of the when they first look at the phases and how they're set up, but is there any limitation to where they couldn't have say the the 20 acres they couldn't split it with two separate entrances and have duplexes on one entrance and single families on another? They could do that. We would agree with that. Okay. Similar to like 12. We wouldn't say that. You just have to work those both ends the same phase.

Yeah. That's the thing is if that phase was one entrance and it was only 20 lots then you're limiting what you can do obviously but if you have two entrances on one phase it just depends on the phase. Some people they'll do one phase it'll be 100 lots and another person the phase will only be 20 lots. So it really just kind of depends. So if they have 500 lots you don't care if they put their reflexes in the back at first and the homes in the front as long as they're following the safety plan. That's right. Think about where the utility infrastructure is going into. So they're not going to they got to connect in different places that it probably be unlikely unless there's some weird I just want to make sure that we're allowing them to phase and also being mindful that they can't just throw up their duplexes and walk away

that each phase would have to be designed that way too because you're going to have multiple service lines for a duplex versus a single service line for a single family. So they' have to engineer all that in advance. And another aspect too, we design the six monotonous standards that we would have to almost pre-esign where those duplexes are going to go in advance so that we make sure that they're not hitting that monotony standard. So that's it's it's a lot. It definitely I I understand the concern. It definitely requires more from staff to manage the development um to make sure that all these policies are being implemented effectively. So Not to turn this into a marathon discussion. I was wondering if we could maybe give, you know, five to 10 minutes any of the developers or people in here that would like to maybe you have some comments or thoughts or ideas. uh maybe give you a couple minutes each to give us some feedback at this point because I see varying body languages and frowns and smiling faces and things. In all seriousness, I mean u if you if you want to you're welcome to come up first and last name and just unless you want to remain anonymous, but I know we're calling you out at this point. Is there anybody who wants to come up and speak on the matter? You don't even have to go up there. Just talk to him for a minute. I know you guys aren't all that shy. Some are probably waiting patiently for their agenda item that I mean

say we never give you an opportunity. I I you know I I think something to keep in mind is you know over the last several years as additional developments have come forward and come online you know there's been a lot of a lot of discussion um about duplexes twin homes and there have been concerns raised and so this is staff's attempt to address some of those concerns that have been raised while at the same time keeping the city open for development. And so, you know, that that's what we're trying to do here. And it is a bit of a middle ground approach, you know, and trying to keep the city open for development by also recognizing that there are legitimate concerns and how can we address those concerns within reason

because we don't live in a vacuum. I don't think you guys get the kind of feedback in the community that we do, you know, whether it's on Facebook or walking into the post office or just within the community. So there there are concerns people have lived here their whole lives and some of them don't necessarily like the fact that it's grown. You can't stop it. But but I think hearing some of the things from people that live in some of the newly built duplexes and buildings, you hear stories of of that relates to quality issues and problems that people have and they sometimes even come in and talk to Mike and the staff. So, I mean, we're just trying to uh do what we can to make sure we have a good quality of life and Goddard develops in a rational and the soundest way as we can make it. And I think we all have the same intent and uh but it's it's a juggling act. It's a balancing act and so we're we're all the 12 of us are right now we're doing some juggling. So,

the straw broke the camel's back when the three fastest growing communities in Cedric County all denied an R2 zoning request in the same month. And that was October of last year. And I remember because I was at a city manager conference with other managers watching videos of their uh planning commissioner council meetings and that happened. Um and it's been since then that we've all been meeting on a monthly basis trying to figure out what this looks like. And I think it's going to be those three communities that are kind of setting the tone and as to what's going to be allowed. and all of our standards that we're looking at are pretty similar. So, and maybe it maybe uh it does slow down uh with at least some of the development. Some of the development maybe a few of us wouldn't like to see here. I don't give more of an opportunity to the rural areas to get some of that stuff. I don't know. That could be something that a an unintended consequence. I just don't see it because the conversations we've had the last few weeks, developers who are literally waiting on this to pass so they can close on land and apply for their for their zoning amendment. Now, I am slightly skeptical that they read this word for word like everyone else has, but from what we've been told, it's it's palatable.

Well, and I'm guessing straight unlikely, but you know, we're working on this comprehensive plan. So, um, let's say we get through this comprehensive plan and they're like, "Hey, this is not what we're seeing in other communities, like maybe we need to take a shift again." Then we come back to the table and take a shift. But I can't imagine, and kind of echoing Crystal One voice here, but I can't imagine us approving more duplexes without some form of standard in place that is more than what we have now. And I think that developers see that and they want to be developing and they want to be building um, homes in our community. And so I think if we could put something out for them and if we have to come back to the table in a year then we have to come back to the table in a year.

I feel like the standards that you you know put in place could make these something that God could be proud of, you know, and not be something that's negatively thought about. Put out something nice and welcome. I think you've done a great job. Thank you. this the whole team has worked really hard on them. So appreciate

any final comments before we go to G2. All righty. So this is the site plan for Paradise Corner. So DL SPD architecture and architecture has submitted a site plan application for a strip center located on the southeast corner of Main Street US 54. Buildings around 19,000 ft will have direct access to Main Street. Strip centers are considered commercial and all commercial structures need to have site plan approved by planning commission followed by architecture engineering view by ABC. Okay, next one. The parking is 127 stalls about 19,000 square ft. It's a commercial strip. The height is 26 ft 4 in. Lock coverage is 20%. Maximum lock coverage said basically you can run paddles all the way with the exception of setbacks. So advance it one more. Here's a pretty picture. Pretty picture. This is actual layout. So 54 would be on the north side here. Then Main Street. You can see it's all right over here. We will require them to have land or not landscape, excuse me. We are going to require them to have a fence on this side separating from living on this side. That's just that's our sub requirement screening from residential when you have a commercial center.

They did a good job of moving the parking. The state want them to keep the parking out of this section here that the state owns. So they did a good job of rerouting the parking around that for continuity and traffic flow. Next slide. These are the elevations. Next slide. Finally labor considerations. There are none. Next slide. Is recommended plantation approved the cycl commercial center. Continue upon final review of the storm water plan B to do a storm water detention plan on the southeast corner. I have to follow up with B to see that it's detained adequately. I believe it is detained adequately. Is there any comments you want to make on the detention southeast corner?

It's 3 ft deep. It's in the southeast corner. It's all on the surface to be dry. There's a very small 4in pipe that actually drains out to the street and that's where we're taking the majority of the water. the uh there's a sidewalk along the well are we talking about drainage right now? You're welcome. actually is here and so is Boston. You guys want to come up and just come on up? Come on. Come on up.

First and last name. Who your represent? Dave Wild with SPD Extension. Uh Jeff Bas. Is there are there any plans so the sidewalk on the on are there any plans to replace the sidewalk on the on the west side along Main Street? Um right now we discussion we taking it out because that sidewalk right now is in disrepair. Yeah, it is on city property. It's on city, right? Yeah, we're having a discussion about that if we're going to have it replaced and how we're going to manage that.

So yeah, pull back to that site plan. Keep going. Yeah, that work. So, yes, there's that creek. There's a sidewalk that goes about to here right now and it kind of slivers down to nothing and it's really deteriorated deteriorated a lot. So, we were going to take it out and then um we were going to talk with the city about whether we need to put it back in or something with the city if they wanted to have some kind of pedestrian connection up that way to get over to the center. So that was just uh not determined at this point.

Is the storm water water headed south on Main Street or is it headed southeast across the All right. So nobody loaded the grading plan for some reason. So I can't show you. All right. High point about here. That detention is about here. Um the drainage concept from the plat basically this all is supposed to be going to the east this direction. Um, this is all coming down. What we're going to try to catch from this and direct it that way. So, we get very little. This is a little 4in pipe that leaks out from that street. And what where does that go through?

Yes. Where that pipe goes to uh that'll be daylighted into the gutter and then there'll be there on the street. There ain't going to be no tank in the ground or anything like that? No, it's just a 3 foot deep uh surface detention basin. It'll be dry except obviously.

How far back off of Kellogg is that more parking? Aren't they going to quite a ways? We don't have the overall site plan that far up there. We're 12 feet. We're quite late.

It's 70 from the right way. Oh, okay. So, you got another 25 and 30 foot there. Thank you.

Yep. We do currently are showing a drive-thru on the east end of the building. Potential potential of a bank potentially small bank on this end. That's what a drive on that end. And we do have actually an example of a small drive through like a small dry cleaner and small where we don't have a waterboard pickup window. But it's uh it's pretty pretty decent size project. It'll it'll definitely make an impression on that corner. I think I don't know if you can tell in the rendering of the materials that we've called out. We've got some brick, we've got Stuckco, we've got some metal panel for the most part. It's beautiful.

I think there's potential if you if you had 20 foot tenants. They're typically on the east or on the north side here. These are all 70 ft deep. Pretty typical. And we've got doors for every 20 by 70 tenant potentially. You know, tenants don't necessarily oppose 20 by 70, but if you did have 20 by70s plus the south wing and not the corner, um I think there is a potential like 10 or 11 tenants in the in the piece of the building. The host right now still there's hopefully a restaurant in the corner. So that's kind of where they're at. It's it's roughly about 5,000 ft. So, it's pretty nice.

As far as the parking lot counts go, la last year we made a change where where we decreased the required amount of parking. Is that Have you guys taken advantage of that or is that is

Well, I mean, we pretty much parked everything we could and maximize the building. So if all this was retail without the restaurant, this would park at about 6 and 12 to 7 cars per thousand ft, which is up there pretty good, especially for retail. I mean, city codes, well, it's actually three now. Um, at least before um the restaurant will change things if it goes in because they're going to have higher demand, but you know, a lot of times these restaurants like this are going to have a high demand 5:00. So after five most of these other small tenants, not all but a lot of the small tenants will be open. So it works pretty well.

Thank you guys. It's your show. We're just going to watch it. I'll make a motion to approve the site plan. Second. All in favor? Any opposed? Very good.

Thank you guys. questions. This item G3, this is a Rachel Brook estates edition replat preliminary. So MKC has submitted an application for a reclat on the portion of the Rachel Brook estates. Purpose of the ref would be to redirect around the tree to maintain the aesthetic nature of the development. The replat would not only would not add or remove any lots from the development. The city doesn't have a one-step platting process and so we are requiring preliminary and a final plat. Uh final ref to be approved by city council commission review. Yes, this is Lewis. You can see here this is a tree that they're trying to negotiate around. As mentioned, they're not adding or removing lots. This whole development was platted in the county. We annexed it recently. Slide finally non-legal considerations are currently acting. So it's recommendation it would be that finary plan estates. I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plat. Second. All

in favor?

I opposed. Good. Very good. G4 is going to be the final reflat. So it's more of the same. Okay. Advance. Add some more. Add some more. This is the cleaned up version. So you can see the difference. Some more last slide. The next one. Yep, there it is. Recommendation is to approve the final replat of Rachel Brooks. This would have to be approved by city council to be finalized. Make a motion to approve the final reference. I'll second it.

All in favor? I post. Very good. Next item. Thank you.

This is a site plan, Circle C edition. Next slide. That's too fast. Go back. Bulges and Associates architecture submitted site plan application for addition of offices and restrooms to the Circle C office building which is in the industrial district. Building is located in industrial park on the east side. You have a culdeac over the setback line and the developer wants to keep the same material as the original building and as such that's typo variance submitted that will be reviewed on a future agenda item which is coming up today. So go to the next slide. So the offices are about 2,000 ft. The restroom is 454 square ft. Maximum lot coverage is 45% with the additions. The lot coverage is 16.5. So that's the maximum is 45 with the two new additions. It's at 16.5. So it's got a lot of space still is potentially over the 35 35 setback require a variance facade matches the existing building and requires planning commission approval. The variance submit for both facade and setback change are going to be on the next agenda item. So thank you advance. See the floor plan layout. The restroom is on the north side of the existing building and then the offices are on the south side of the existing building. Next slide. This is the elevations. You can see that they're matching the material there. This on the north side. This would be if you're looking at the building the street. Next slide. This is existing building. So if you can imagine where the center boxes be over here, the restrooms be back. Next building. Next slide, excuse me. So, here is the building. This outline over here shows a building footprint of where it's currently. The yellow dash line is the setback and these are the other building sit within that setback. So, they have a little bit of space here. You can see go to the next slide. You can see where they cuts over a little bit. So, uh Bren Associates is

here. So, if you want, you can come up speak. The recommendation is to approve it. Go ahead. Next one. To approve it contingent upon the variance of setbacks of facade. So as me associates is here to come up and speak on behalf of circ also here. So they have an opportunity to speak. I'm folder folder associates. I really don't have anything to add to that. Um just to make the design work, we needed to go a little bit farther off over that. And it appeared looking at some of the uh aerial maps that some of the other buildings are already doing that much. So that's why if anybody had any questions I can answer.

You know how much of this back? Yes, it's uh 2 foot 8 in or something like close to that. I scaled it off. We had a survey done to so we could figure out exactly where that was. Originally, we were working off the GIS maps and they're not always real accurate to scale. So, we we had a survey and it's right at 2'8, 2T 9. If it wasn't for the setback, would you have wanted to make that office even bigger or is this the ideal size of I don't know if I could answer that. That's pretty much the ideal size.

Yeah, I mean based on the criteria they gave me, I came up with that size and like they kind of helped with that too. But um it just the configuration works good for them. We probably it would have been harder to make it work to to bring it back because of the number of offices they wanted to get from front from the existing building out to the front. And parking is not really an issue um because most of their parking is across the street on the lots that they own. the yard that they have across the street. That's where the employees are. So, we really have just about as much parking as what they use now. They just pull in right in front of the building and we just we added some more on there on the site and we looked 2 and 1/2t. I'll make a motion to approve the site plan for the Circle C edition contingent upon the variance for the setbacks against second.

All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Very good. This is IH4 zone appeals. Next one set back variance. This is the official variance. This is variance VR go back 26-4. Thank you. Go ahead. So once again we kind of went through all this. This is the official variance. Go ahead and move forward a little bit more. So we can't just approve variances arbitrarily. It's got to be with specific criteria. So there we're asking that you approve it for number two and number eight. Number two is the varable wall regulations including maximum height lock coverage or minimal yard requirements. And number eight vary any design related provision of these regulations either part and full. Such design regulations can include article 11 which is related to the facade. Advance more. So I have to go through this so bear with me everybody included. Um so per the city attorney and this is the previous city attorney not Ryan Becky who was just here but Robert Clark who's now retired that you guys have to take this into account but this is not a checklist. So once you go through it you see it you don't have to say did they meet all these requirements in order to approve variance but I have to inflict this upon everybody. So here we are. So the board may grant various responsibility writing writing facts of fact based upon the particular evidence presented to it at the hearing that all commissions required by KSA 12 sube have been met. So number one that the various requests arise from such condition which is unique to the property in question which is not ordinarily found the same zoning district is not clear by actions or actions of property own. So I don't think it's unique to the property. Clearly a lot of the properties have gone over the setback. Um it is interesting that that particular property though was already sitting back so far from that setback. Typically a property is going to be right up to this to that setback line. So that's kind of interesting. They have not built these yet. So this is not us correcting something that they've already done. This act there has been no action taken at this point. That grand adversely affect the rights of the adjacent property of the residents. As you saw previously, it's not going to affect any of the additional rights of the adjacent property owners. Um it's going to increase the value of that particular

property and and it'll have a benefit to all those um in Tampa abstract application of provision of these regulations which varian requested will constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. I don't think this is an unnecessary hardship. They could move the offices back to 8 ft 8 in if we wanted them to. I don't think saying 2 ft and 8 in is a deal breaker on this particular part, but that's just something to take into account that the variance desire would not adversely affect the public health safety morals or convenience and so I don't believe that it's going to be adversely impacting the morals orders convenience of the city. We move forward one public notion given current small cost it's approved as a form per guidance does not need to be amended variance. Next slide. So I need a motion to open public hearing, receive comments from the public, close the public hearing and approve the varian request B26-4. So Mr. Chair, at this point we may close the public hearing.

Open the public hearing. Thank you very much. Is anybody here wants to talk about the public hearing? Can you go back to slide? Is there anybody here wants to talk about public hearing? All right, we'll close the public hearing. Very good. Asking for approval. I'll make a motion to approve the variance v26-4. I'll second it. All in favor? I I

Very good. This I have H2. This is the onestep final plat introduction. So you guys have seen this before, but occasionally we will have plats that are very small or it's a three plat but only a small section. We require everyone to do a glimmering and a final plat. So we're asking if the planning commission of course after which city council will have to take a final decision would introduce new language to allow us to forego the preliminary plat and just introduce a final plat for specific project. So that's what I just described here. Basically, we're saying advancing more Danny, you know. No, go back.

We would ask that the development have basically be less than 10 acres and the development also have to be less than 10 lots. So, if these two criteria are met, then we can say yes, you don't need a preliminary plaque. All you need is a final plaque, which case we would just submit a final plat climate commission and then the city council for final approval. So, if these two criteria are met, then we would say you would not need a plary plaque. This is language we have to add to the sub regulations. So the the final plat has less information or or at least different information than the preliminary plat.

Yeah, the final plat's got some very similar information to preliminary plat, but we remove a lot of that information the county considers erroneous because they want to record it anyway. One example of that would be contours. You see the contours on the preliminary plat and the contours go away. So typically we remove some of that information for one thing that you definitely see on a final plat which is not on a plary plat is that signature blocks that you see the city attorney the mayor planning commission chair um the county surveyor that information is on a final plat what's called signature blocks that's not included on a preliminary plat. So all those information that's typically file final plat would still be required we would just forgo the information that's required preliminary plat. So we would wave a plumbing pack plaque entirely and just go straight to the final plat.

Could we still have all the information? I mean what could we could it be a final plat but still have 12 drawings?

No, not not ideally that would just be a plenary plat final plat combined or just be have a very very messy plat. So there's a lot of information that's on a plary plat that gets stricken out and then you have the final plat which is clean up version. You really I go back and forth. Ryan Track and I talk about this a lot because we talk about what we want to see on plats versus what you don't want to see on plats and we go back and forth but um in my personal opinion I don't want to see too much information on a plat unless it's specifically relevant to development and contours can go away obviously and now other things can go away but I would want it stripped out so it's just what the county wants to see also because the county has very specific requirements that they want to see on the final plaque as long as those requirements are being met and it can be recorded. Mike, you might share the why as to why communities allow for a onestep final plat.

Yeah, the the big thing for onestep final plat versus having a preliminary every time is that preliminary plat require additional survey work for one thing is that you have to go out and you have to find all contours. You have to find identify trees. You have to identify rocks. You have toident not all rocks but big rock structures. You have to identify a lot of additional information that you won't typically have on a final plat. So that requires additional cost and engineering work that a developer has to incur for something as simple as the racial estate's final reflat. On that particular one, you only had four lots, but you have to go back out into the field, survey everything that they have around that area to put it on the preliminary plat only to not have it be recorded on the final plat when it goes before the county because the county is not going to want to see any of that information either. And so they're going to want it stripped out as well. And so the preliminary plat forces developer to put a lot of additional work and time into it for something that will not ultimately be recorded with the registered deeds.

So why do they ever need a prelary plat a lot of information not needed?

So plaques have come a long way and so has technology. So, for example, flats used to have so much information on it because you didn't have things like Google or GIS, Google Earth, or any of that information. And so, you put everything that you possibly could into that sandwich. I mean, you stuff it as much as you possibly could because it's going to get recorded with the register of deeds. And you want all that information on there. You want meets and bounds. You want the trees, the rocks, the contours, anything that you could possibly find. Nowadays, the final plat has been stripped down to kind of just the bare minimum because if you're referencing information, it's much easier and much more effective from a technological and ethicy perspective to use GIS than it is to have a bunch of stuff recorded on a plaque that's stuffed into the register of deeds that you didn't have to dive into their database to find that information.

So, does that make sense? Yeah. It's much more effective. Plots have come a long way since the early 1900s to where we are today. And so some of this is sort of residual requirements that have passed down through the ages that generally speaking it's much easier for us to simply use GIS and all that data available to us. Thank you.

Any other questions? No. I'll move to approve. No. And then you sorry I can't. So first we need you to open the public hearing receive the comments close public hearing and approve modifications of sub regulation one step final plat we have to take council for final approval but Mr. Chair at this point you can open up. Okay open the public hearing. Very good. Anybody want to talk about one step final fact. All right we will close the public hearing. There we go.

All right. All right. Approve the modification of the to the I I make a motion to approve the modification of the subdivision regulations to introduce a one-step final flat process. Second. Who wants that? Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Very good. This is the last item for this. This is H3. This is the potential variance for Kelson RB sign. Go ahead and go next.

So, Verier has sold the building from the north road to Kelson RV. According to some regulations, anytime a change in ownership occurs and a full sign is used to mark the business and must be converted to a monument sign. Uh, this process generally entails either removing the sign and starting over or wrapping the sign and making it conform with the monument sign criteria. Part of this criteria is the base must be at least 50% of the width of the face of the sign. Uh due to the landscape with the dirt mount it is sitting on it makes it difficult to add a cement pad to allow the pole wrap to increase the size requirement necessary to meet the monument sign criteria. The sign is 144 in wide meaning the pole wrap must be 72 in wide to meet the criteria of a monument sign. The owner's asking the sign could be 36 in. So this goes back to the 7:00 comment we heard earlier. Client commission is reviewing the possibility of allowing custo. So we're not going through an official variance today, but I am showing you that under variance on article 107 C, we're referring to five on this particular one, which is saying that you can consider that under article 10. But since we have to wait 20 days to consider a variance, you guys will officially see this in June. They're asking if they can start that process now. And here's why. Go ahead, Danny. This is why. So, you know, me being the mean planning person, I said, "Nope, you can't do this." And they said, "What about this?" I said, "That sounds like a planning commission question." So, here you guys are. But, like I said, with the variance, we have to publish it and wait 20 days per state law. So, we can't officially open a public hearing and do all that today. It's got to be in June. They want to know if they can start this Now, and if you guys would feel that favorably towards that,

you mean allowing the 36 in instead of the 72. Yeah. Right. Well, when I drove by there tonight, I mean, the bricks look nice, the grass is nice, the trees or the gravel and everything. I really don't have a problem with it because if they were going to put in the right side, they'd have to tear all that out. That was their concern. I just have one little question. Uh, the sign looks like it could be turned. I don't know if that'd be favorable or unfavorable for you. Um, if it was facing this way versus this way, I think you could get this width that we're looking for.

Yeah. So, just unfavor unfavorable because the traffic going um east and west and then the sign being we're going to have a sign uh building sign as well that'll be facing that direction. And so we're kind of looking to catch attention from Kellogg. What What material is that going to be? The the new base. Uh it's going to be just the same kind of material that the actual sign is going to be as well. The sign company I'm working with called it a skirt. Um so basically skirting it. They they said they have to do the spot and maze as well to um make it more of the monument style instead of the full style. And I I see the address is optional. Are you planning to do that or?

Um, I was planning on doing the address up and down like that instead of it just being plain white. I didn't I thought the plain white was a little bunch.

And they're wanting to know if they can start on it now before we vote on it. Exactly. So, is it dance? So legal considerations obviously we would have to wait till June. Um as mentioned variances that they're not a check box they're for guidance but of course if variance is denied they would have to take it to district court. or they can't take it to city council and protest. Answer more than any recommend the PI mission deliberate and direct staff accordingly and let us know if you feel favorably about the variance and if so they can proceed and then you guys can formally adopt the variance in June.

And what is the base material going to be made out of? Uh the same kind of plastic material that the sign kettle will be made out of the they called it a skirt. I'm not sure of that exact materials. To be honest, I haven't asked. So, they're wanting to put a plastic skirt on the bottom like that. What about brick? Um, we have not looked into the cost of what it take for brick.